GuzziMoto

When the valves in my wifes V11 were replaced due to wear the guides were toast as well. Hope this work helps your issue. Similar work helped with mine.

If you soak aluminum parts in oven cleaner then yes they will dissolve. Eventually. But if you spray it on carbon encrusted aluminum parts or nikisil coated aluminum cylinders and wipe it off then you will be fine. Or don't use it. But TZ racers would use it to clean up engine parts when they could not get muriatic acid. Normal cleaners are not likely to have much effect. But as I said unless you are having engine issues due to excessive carbon build up then I would not worry about it. And I would be more concerned about build up on the back side of the valves, especially the exhaust valves, over a coating on the piston dome or some crusties around the rim of the cylinder above where the rings run. To each his own.

gavo's complaints made me think... I truly can't believe how far this has gone. It is not that complicated a concept. But I feel compelled to try again to explain this. This may be a waste of time as anyone who was interested in understanding this may have moved on due to the bickering and name calling. But in case it will help anyone still left understand, here goes. Disclaimer: This is intended as an aid to understanding how a motorcycle rear suspension works and is not suitable for figuring how much thrust is needed to go to Mars or anything like that. It does not factor in friction but it will get you more then close enough. I know dlaing already went through this but I would like to take a stab at putting the stake in this vampires heart once and for all. The following deals only with compressing straight rate springs. There are three parts to the basic equation of spring rate, the spring rate itself, how far the spring compresses under load (weight), and what that load is (how much weight). The ratio of shock travel to wheel travel does not directly enter into it, but it can be used to figure out how far the spring compresses if you know how far the wheel traveled. More on that later. For now, start with a 400lb spring. This spring will compress 1" under 400lbs of weight. It will compress an additional 1/2" if you add 200lbs more weight to the original 400lbs. The point is it doesn't matter whether it is the first 1" of compression or the last, it will take 400lbs to compress the spring 1". Simple. Anyone who does not agree with or understand this may as well either re-read this part until you do understand or leave now. Now, if you don't know how much weight was put on the spring but you do know the rate of the spring and how far it compressed you can figure out how much weight was put on the spring. You only need two of the three values to figure out what the other value is. For this part I will convert my 400lb spring to metric to make the math easier. My spring that took 400lbs to compress it 1" takes about 7.15Kg to compress it 1mm. So it is a 7.15Kg/mm spring. If it compresses 10mm then I know that 71.5 Kg of weight was put on it. If it compresses another 10mm then I know 71.5Kg more weight was put on it. The same goes for figuring out the rate of the spring or how far it will compress, if you know two of the three values you can figure out the third. Now, I am sure some of you are already screaming "WHAT ABOUT THE 1:2 RATIO OF SHOCK TRAVEL TO SWING ARM TRAVEL". Well, while that effects how far the wheel will move when the load is put into the spring it does not change the load put into the spring. 400lbs of weight put on the rear wheel will compress a 400lb spring on the shock 1". The difference the ratio will make is how far the rear wheel will move when the shock compresses that 1". Now, I feel compelled to point out that the 1:2 ratio is not a number I came up with and I have no idea how accurate it is. But for sake of argument I am going to use it in what follows as it should be close enough (or not). Where this discussion got off track was when it was suggested that someone achieved a desired change in free sag and race sag (and referred to this as "sag delta") with only an 11% increase in spring rate, thus justifying his claim in what the stock spring rate is. I take no responsibility for the starting figures provided, only the math used to reach my conclusions (ie, if the starting figures are wrong then the results will be wrong). Now, while we don't have figures for how far the shock compressed under load we do have sag changes and a ratio of 1:2 for shock travel to wheel travel. We can use that to figure out approx. how far the shock compressed. So, now all we need is a spring rate to start with and we can figure out how much weight was put on the rear suspension to achieve that shock compression and we have one. He had a 9.7Kg/mm spring installed to replace the stock spring. Then when he climbed on the bike the shock compressed 9mm (half the claimed 18mm of wheel travel, race sag - free sag divided by the 1:2 ratio, remember the shock will compress 9mm when the wheel moves 18mm). This tells me that him climbing onto the bike put 87.3Kg of weight onto the rear spring (that is 192lbs, which is more then he says he weighs so I am guessing his measurements are off a little, but I already warned you about that. hopefully they are consistently off). Now that we have 87.3Kg of weight established as what he is adding to the rear suspension, lets see what the rate of the other shock is. He says that the rear of the bike sagged an additional 26mm from free sag when he climbed on board. That means the shock compressed 13mm (again half of wheel travel). And we know it took 87.3Kg of weight to compress the rear suspension that 13mm because that is what he said, that he weighed the same then as now. So if you divide 87.3 (the weight) by 13 (the amount of wheel travel) you get 6.715Kg per mm of compression. That means that if his numbers are accurate then in order to achieve a roughly 31% reduction in how far the rear suspension compresses when he climbs on board he has applied a 30.42% increase in spring rate. This is much more of a rate increase then he claims to have applied but I am sure there is some error in the sag numbers provided as well as maybe a change in rider weight from one set of measurements to the other (or not) as well as possibly a different length of the new shock changing the ratio of shock to wheel travel. Plus friction will reduce the amount of suspension travel a small amount under a given weight but this is only a small difference. But again, I am just working with the numbers provided. The numbers that you end up with in lbs for us Americans are an original spring rate of only 376lbs compared to a final spring rate (new spring) of 543lbs. Again, that is a 30.42% increase in spring rate to achieve a 31% claimed (30.77 actual) change in how far the rear suspension compresses under the weight of the rider. Now I would venture a guess that if his numbers are reasonably accurate that the actual original spring rate might be in the 400 to 450 pound range. But in order for the spring rate to be much higher then that his numbers would have to have a pretty serious flaw in them. My guess is that the numbers are pretty close and that the original spring rate was in the neighborhood of 425 to 450 pounds. But without measuring the spring rate (which can be done by using the methods outlined in this post, all you need to know is how much weight you add to the rear suspension and how far the shock compresses, knowing how far the rear suspension compresses is not as useful because the 1:2 ratio may be one of the numbers that is off in the original set of numbers). If you put a scale under the rear tire (hopefully with the front tire level with the rear that is on top of the scale) and measure how much weight you add when you get on the bike and also measure how far the shock compresses when you add that weight you can then divide the weight (in kilos) by the travel (in mm) to get the rate. Sorry this is so long but as I said, this has gone on long enough and it is time to put a steak in it. If any one has any serious comments about this or errors in my math to point out then by all means go ahead. But if all you have is more name calling, bickering, or typo's to point out then please go somewhere else. P.S. dlaing, you were right.

You could try oven cleaner, it is made for removing baked on grease which is much like oil. But unless you have a problem that the baked on oil is causing (ie, pinging or knock) then I would not worry about it. The coating of oil will raise the compression ratio slightly (which can be a good thing as long as the motor does not knock or ping) but other then that unless you have valve deposits from it or something else that will actually hurt performance or an issue with knock or pinging I would not worry about it. I would be reluctant to sand or doing anything that will create particulate debris that may end up creating issues in an otherwise running motor. And if it is not running right then take it the rest of the way apart and clean off the piston and cylinder with emery cloth, scotchbrite pads and/or sandblasting as required. And if by horizontal free play with the piston you mean that it can rock slightly on the wrist pin then yes, .5mm is fine. Your cylinder still shows good crosshatching in the photo, that is a good thing.

The spring is not working against a 2:1 ratio, it is working with a 1:2 ratio. For every 1" that the spring compresses or extends the wheel will move 2". The terms 1:2 ratio and 2:1 ratio are not interchangeable. Maybe the fact that you are interchanging them is why you don't understand. And yes, I "get it". But for some dumb reason I thought maybe I should help you try to "get it" too. My bad. I am sorry.

Okay, you win... I tried to delete the post because I realized that you would respond in the childish and asinine way that that you did. And I did not think that filling this thread with more of your artfully worded crap would be productive. But I did quote you saying that you got a 31% change in your "sag delta", which is a made up word you have invented that has no real meaning. But you yourself established that it was representative of the race sag minus the free sag, both of which are RIDE HEIGHT measurements. That would indicate to me that it is a ride height term (and it is).Therefore it seems a claim that you achieved a 31% increase to this figure with only a 2% increase in spring rate on a motorcycle with a 1:2 shock to swingarm ratio is not possible, and certainly it is not possible because of the aforementioned ratio as you implied. My question was if you still believe this statement you made to be true. If you choose to redefine your "sag delta" so that it is no longer derived from the two ride height measurements you originally claim it was, then that is up to you. But you are still claiming to have achieved a 2mm decrease in race sag and a 6mm increase in free sag. These changes are not possible with only a 11% increase in spring rate as the 1:2 ratio cuts that 11% increase in half to only a 6% increase at the wheel. The fact that you choose to dis-associate the term you made up, "sag delta" from what it is derived from does not change what it is. The question was in essence, do you still think that the 1:2 ratio of shock to rear wheel motion increases the effect of a change in spring rate as you originally implied (and as I quoted) or do you now understand that it decreases the change. I'm guessing by your nasty response that you still think the ratio increased the change in spring rate. Clearly you do not even understand what you are saying so it is stupid of me to expect you to understand what I am saying. Do you understand that an 11lb increase in spring rate would only mean that it takes an extra 5.5lbs to compress the rear suspension the same 1" as it did before. That is a very small change, and a decrease in the effect of the change by the ratio not an increase. And the reason I apologized to the rest of the board and not you is because I don't give a sh!t about you but I was sorry that the rest of the board was going to have to put up with more of this.

Sorry, I typo'd that. I meant to say it is a 1:2 ratio of shock travel to wheel travel, not a 2:1 ratio as you said. And yes, really... And if it is that simple, why do you not understand it??? WTF???

Here is post #28 that I reference so you do not have to go looking for it.

It is a leverage ratio, so it works the same. The way levers work in this case is they move something with half the force that should be required but they only move it half as far. So that 200lb applied at the seat will compress a shock with a 400lb spring 1/2", even though the seat drops down 1".

Sorry, I was asking you a serious question but I realized afterwards that it was a waste of time and tried to delete it before it was too late. Obviously I did not succeed. Sorry. But the short answer to your question(?) is back in post #28 where you claimed to have gotten a 31% reduction in your "sag delta", "The sag delta dropped by a great whallopping 31%" while saying that you only increased your spring rate 11lbs (about 2% of the original spring rate, 532lb). You followed that with with a bunch of fancy words that had little to do with the topic (mostly designed to insult the people who did not agree with you) and then a "Helpful reminder" which presumably was intended to explain the large change in your "sag delta" from a small change in spring rate. It went as follows... (from post #28) "HELPFUL REMINDER: When changing rate on the shock spring, there's a ~1:2 multiplier at work WRT sag delta change vs. spring rate change, due to the 1:2 swingarm leverage (shock travel to wheel spindle travel)." This statement, "there's a ~1:2 multiplier at work WRT sag delta change vs. spring rate change, due to the 1:2 swingarm leverage"is what I was asking about. You pointed out that your"sag delta" was 100% affected by/representative of spring rate. It is actually affected by other things as well but spring rate is the biggest influence on the difference between your free sag and your race sag (you call that number your "sag delta"). I am sorry I brought it up. I apologize to the rest of the board.

To each their own but my wife and I have no issues with just a little fly screen up to 90 - 100 mph constant and occasional spells above that. Of course we would never go that fast on the street

Let me try some more. First, it is a 1:2 ratio of shock travel to wheel travel. That is different then a 2:1 ratio. In fact it is the opposite of a 2:1 ratio. Think of a 1:2 ratio as 1" of shock travel equals 2" of wheel travel. So if 400lbs of force (weight) will compress the spring 1" then the wheel will move 2". So it takes 400lbs to compress the shock 1" but only 200lbs will move the rear wheel 1" (and 400lb would move the rear 2") So a 400lb rear spring with a 1:2 ratio would feel like a 200lb spring since 200lb of weight would move the rear suspension 1". If you had a straight 1:1 ratio then with a 400lb spring it would take 400lb of weight to move the rear wheel 1" and 200lb would only move the wheel 1/2". That would feel like you had a 400lb spring at the back. But with a 1:2 leverage ratio that same 400lb spring would only feel like a 200lb spring since 200lb would move the rear wheel that same 1" that the 400lb spring with a straight 1:1 ratio would require 400lb of weight to move. Hope this helps.

No, it is a 1:2 shock to wheel ratio, not a 1:2 ratio. It works like a lever. A given force will move the rear suspension twice as far as the shock moves but it is only doing half the work. In this case the work is compressing the rear shock. And a given change in shock length ( that is all preload is really going, is setting the length of the shock under the weight of the bike)will have double the change at the rear wheel as it moves 2" for every 1" of movement at the shock.

Yes, a 400lb spring takes 400 lbs to compress it 1". But if you apply the force at the rear wheel 200lbs would only compress the spring 1/2", but as the rear wheel moves twice as far as the shock it would appear that the rate of the rear spring is only half what it really is. That is why a change in rate at the spring will only have half the effect at the wheel as it did at the shock. That is part of the reason rear springs are sold with much higher rates then fork springs and the increments of change between the different rates is much larger. It takes a larger rate change at the rear to accomplish a given change in how the suspension works then it does at the front, where springs are typically sold in steps of 12.7 lbs/inch. Of course since you have two springs holding up the front of the bike a 12.7lb change equates to 25.4lbs at the wheel (not taking the rake of the forks into it). Edit: Whoops, sorry. I had a decimal one place off. Fork springs are actually sold in steps of 2.799lbs/inch. I am not sure what you mean by "effective spring rate" but if you mean the rate that it will feel like then no, a 400lb spring with a 1:2 leverage ratio between the shock and the wheel will feel like a 200lb spring.

Measuring the stock shock is the best way to get an accurate spring rate from it. You can have pro's do it with real measuring equipment or you can do it yourself. All you need to do is measure the force it takes to compress the spring a measured distance. The standard for rear springs (in the US) is how many lbs to compress the spring 1", but that is a high number and going for 1/2" or even 1/4" would likely do just fine although it would double or quadruple your error factor.

I don't see how telling others how I set up my wifes V11 is helpful to others. Telling them how to set their bike up correctly could be useful, but that is not my job. As mentioned there is plenty of info already posted on that very subject there for the reading. My concern and the reason for correcting the errors in Wackers post is that many here and others browsing through may not know that what he said was not 100% fact and if no one questions it they may believe it to be so. I do not worry about every little inaccuracy, but when there is more wrong then right I feel compelled to speak up. If that is not a good thing to you or anyone else here then I encourage you to skip my posts. But if you feel how my wifes V11 is setup will help you, well I am not crazy enough to post info on the internet about my wifes weight but I will give some info about the components. It has a Penske shock built and valved for her weight and style. After putting it on all I had to do is take a couple clicks out of the compression. Where it ended up matters little as the valving is specific to her shock. The spring rate would relate to her weight so you will have to guess. The preload and sag is pretty much standard fair. I didn't have to adjust it after Penske built it. They do good work. The fork I have the stock springs in and sag is okay (woops, I may have said too much), but I did modify the valving so that the fork actually had compression dampening. As delivered there was only rebound dampening and a slightly adjustable hydraulic bump stop. That required blocking off oil passages in the cartridge to force oil to go through the piston instead of around it. I have mentioned this before but either no one else has forks like this or no one else has thought it is a problem. The fork mods made a world of improvement turning the harsh feeling front end into a much smoother but sharper feeling ride as they no longer bottomed over every decent size bump and reacted much quicker to front end inputs. No sign of the Twitchy Red Frame Demon either (no steering damper either, that was also a huge improvement but as it was bad it is not a fair comparison).

No ego involved here, at least on my part. I just don't want to see somebody read something here and assume that because no one pointed out how wrong it is that it must be right and then base decisions they make on bad info. I see your response to having it pointed out that you are wrong hasn't changed. The quality of your insults has little to do with whether you are right or wrong. But I imagine it makes you feel better. You speak of providing "value" to this discussion, but what sort of "value" are you adding, when you post info that ranges from slightly wrong to completely wrong. As I said, not everything you post is wrong but sometimes you get out on the thin ice of your own knowledge and don't seem to know it. If you have some sort of argument to support your claims then by all means bring them out for all to see. As for your insults to me I don't care. Your words are feeble and weak, old man. They mean nothing. Post up something to show how superior your knowledge of motorcycle suspension to mine and put me in my place. Otherwise, it's just noise.

dlaing, you are correct in that you can figure out the OEM spring rate (at least pretty dang close) if you have accurate numbers on the sag with the old spring and accurate numbers with the new spring as well as an accurate rate for the new spring. But I believe you are incorrect that the ratio of rear shock travel to rear wheel travel does not enter into it. It does, but opposite the way Hatchet Wacker says it does. The 1:2 ratio means that a 50 lb increase in spring rate at the shock would have a 25 lb net effect at the rear wheel since the rear wheel only moves half as far relative to the rest of the bike for a given amount of shock movement. This means that while an increase of 50 lbs in spring rate at the shock would only result in an extra 25 lbs being required to compress the rear suspension 1". This fact coupled with the measurements Hatchet Wacker provides leads me to think that his numbers don't add up. And rather then try to figure out what the actual rate change is it would be easier to measure a stock spring myself. Just a matter of time to get to it. Edit... After thinking about it I think you are correct that the ratio doesn't enter into it as all measurements are taken at the rear wheel and are comparable as a percent. The ratio is only going to determine the wheel travel for a given shock travel and thus only effects results at the wheel relative to changes at the shock as hard numbers not percents. The percents will be the same. Sorry dlaing. I think you're right.

I am not so sure there is "always hope". For example, I used to "hope"that you would stop with all the name calling and insults and actually limit the discussion to facts, but I can't see that ever happening. What would you have to say? Edit.. Sorry that was mean. I apologize. Hatchet Wacker does provide good info in many cases. He just doesn't seem to know the difference between what he knows and what he thinks he knows.

Wow, Hatchet Wacker,that was almost coherent and correct. But, not quite. Some of it could be attributed to opinion and different ways of seeing things (ie, is the glass half full or half empty, whether you have straight rate or progressive springs). But normal preload does not effect spring rate unless you have a set of aftermarket progressive springs, so unless you have so much preload that there is no sag adding or subtracting preload does not make the ride stiffer or softer unless you consider that with out enough preload the suspension will bottom and the ride will seem stiff or harsh. With straight rate/stock springs preload effects ride height, with virtually no effect on spring rate unless you are way off one way or the other. Now, you and a few others do have progressive springs in the front. And while you may be perfectly happy with them, the fact the changing preload/ride height alters the base spring rate is one of the reasons I don't use progressive springs. But to each their own. HW, you almost got the bit about the ratio of spring rate to travel correct, you even seemed like you were gonna say it and then you didn't. You say there is about a "1:2 swingarm leverage (shock travel to wheel spindle travel)" ratio for the shock travel vs. rear wheel travel (based on yours and others measurements of the rear suspension, I doubt it is a constant rate and likely changes through the stroke of the rear wheel), meaning that a 500 lb spring will allow the rear suspension to(added for clarity) compress one inch under 250 lbs of weight. This is opposite to what you imply/say with regard to your "measly" 11 lb rate increase being larger then it seems. It is in fact smaller then it seems. Meaning that a 50 lb change in the spring rate at the shock is only good for a 25 lb effective rate at the wheel. But up front the ratio is 2:1 wheel travel to spring rate, because of the fact that there are two springs, the opposite of the rear. A small change up front makes a larger difference since it is doubled. And finally, while it is true that the amount of sag with a rider on board is not as useful a piece of info without knowing the amount of free sag (no rider on board) to say that the difference between the two is the only number you need to know, well that may be something that comes down to opinion. I can see how if all you wanted to know is whether your spring rate is correct or not then maybe you could make an argument that that was all you need. And if you spring was truly a straight rate spring then you might even be correct. But since springs aren't all straight rate and when there is a linkage or angled shock involved the effective rate of the spring (the effect it has on the movement of the rear wheel) is no longer straight rate, that statement is a bit misleading. If you are sincerely trying to set up your suspension then you need to know free sag and race sag (sag with rider on board). The difference between the two is not as important as what the two are. If you set your race sag and your free sag is too high or too low (or none at all) then your spring rate is off. It is that simple. Getting the first two right is what it is about, not just getting the difference between the two to a given value. But that one as I said could be down to opinion and you are entitled to your own. Funny the two links you posted did not support your opinion on that matter. Well, one thing I can agree with you own is that anyone interested in learning about suspension setup should go out there and research the subject. There is much info out there and much of it is good. But as this thread illustrates you can't believe everything you read on the internet. Let the insults begin.

It's not my bike, and you can certainly paint your bike any color you want, but since you asked for opinions here's mine. Even Ducatis look better in yellow. And there is something "wrong" about painting a Guzzi in Ducati red. And the original maroon was a beautiful color. Not what I would have done.

Yes, the Cyclone and Blast screens are different. But they both have the hump in the center and will fit with the stock gauge cluster on a V11. I just wanted to point out that the Lightning screen had the hump offset to one side and it does not fit the stock V11 gauge cluster. The gauge cluster on a Lightning is offset to match the screen. It is a cool look and I like it, but making it work on a V11 (offsetting the gauges to match) is a bit more work. The center hump fits the bulge in the stock set up with out modification. What I really want is to go with is the dual headlight and fly screen setup off one of the newer Lightnings on my Daytona/cafe project. But that is pie in the sky.

Only thing that I can add is that the 99 and up Lightning used a different fly screen with an offset hump. The M2 Cyclone or Blast screen is what you want if you are using the stock V11 gauge cluster. The early Lightnings ('98 and before) had the hump offset to one side and the later ones (99 and later) had the hump offset to the other side.

We get about 40-42 mpg (US gallon) with a 2001 V11 running a PCIII. Your map has a large effect, as does your riding style and even the local fuel content.