GuzziMoto

This is way more appealing then the Terreblanche designs Guzzi brought. Re-paint it (any color but red) and I would happily buy one.

It is good to see Guzzi with new stuff to show off, but these are not what I would hope for. They are typical Terreblanche designs. Ducati must be laughing their butts off.

The funny part of it is that Buell was building exhausts that made power and were quiet. But Harley just seems to build the stock pipes to meet noise reg's knowing the customer will swap them out for open pipes, often before taking delivery of the bike.

I laughed my a$$ of when I saw that episode. It was funny, and true.

Oh, and to add comment about the supertrapp mufflers, I have no experience with those specific ones but I did use a supertrapp internal disc slip-on on a Buell Lightning and it worked great. One of the few mufflers that made more power then the stock muffler and it sounded great. I don't know how relevant that is as it was a Buell with a proper two into one pipe. But it did work great. I had to add some discs to it for those results and it was a little loud (but not too loud).

The crossover on a V11 is much better then the old colostomy bag. But it is far from perfect. It does not manage exhaust flow as well as it could. It has a perforated baffle to help direct flow and reduce sound (I suspect the reduce sound part is the part they spent the majority of development money on). Switching to a better designed (I have not seen one yet I would call perfect) crossover can help fill in the hole in the mid range. I want to someday build or have built a better crossover, one that merges the two flows together properly and then splits them back apart. But until then...

In my experience, there is little measurable difference between one set of cans and another. There is usually a small gain when going from stock to aftermarket mufflers, but not always. Some bikes, like some Buells I have played with, actually LOST a little bit of power going from stock to aftermarket cans. I doubt the factory OEM Guzzi cans are that well designed, but you get the idea. Usually the increase in power is more "perceived" then real. But that is okay, as most of us ride because we enjoy it, and if something increases the enjoyment it doesn't matter to me why. Crossovers and collectors, on the otherhand, can make a noticeable difference in output, as RH said. They can move the power around or flatout increase the power output. But if you are happy with the power output as is and just want the bike to sound and look better then swapping cans is fine.

Sorry, I guess I should have put one of those goofy smilely faces or something to indicate that I was not serious about the "air springs". I figured one good poke deserves another.

What if you run air springs. I heard they were the bomb. Seriously, the mounting points to the frame will be the same. I say go for it and let us know how it went. If you can do... then don't worry about those who can't.

Done

You jumped in to the defense of HatchetWacker and pronounced that I was "Friggen hair splitting again" because I pointed out Wackers mistake and deemed that I was wrong and that WP likely just couldn't be bothered to put up a correct picture of a straight rate spring. Then you made a crack, "Reminds me of another excitable boy around the net." Now maybe you meant that in some sort of positive, constructive, way. But it sounded to me like you were saying Wacker was right and I was wrong. That turns out to not be the case. I also don't consider it to be "hair splitting" when in a discussion about progressive springs vs. straight rate springs that when someone post an example of straight rate springs to support his side and the example he posts is in fact progressive rate springs. That seems like it is central to the issue at hand. And if you care to check you will find that I typically don't start with the insults, that is wackers thing. But I do return them at times. You perhaps had the misfortune of jumping in to it after it had already gotten nasty (Wackers first post referencing me started off with insults and never looked back). To that I say, if you jump in a puddle of sh!t you're likely to get some on you. You stated that the photos were in error and implied that Wacker was correct and as it turns out the photos were not in error but you and Wacker were. At that point you can man up and say "My bad" or you can be belligerent and keep trying to paint it like I am the one to blame. I didn't make that choice for you, you did. And for the record, I said post something to support your assertion that I was wrong OR STFU. You responded with sarcasm and questioning my character.

More then you have put in to this thread. Atleast I offered some technical input, all you have done is jump on the HatchetWacker bandwagon in support of him without having any idea about what was going on. I say that because if you had bothered to investigate what Wacker posted you too would have seen that he was mistaken. But do you or Wacker stand up and say "Oops, my bad. Sorry I was mistaken"? No, you then proceed to hurl insults at me and question my character when my only mistake here was to question what Wacker posted (although it was not hard to see that his info was in error). So, if you don't like me, that's fine. I don't care. But if you have issue with info I have posted please feel free to post your own evidence to show that I am in error. But if all you have is to hurl insults at me and question my character, well sh!t, you don't even know me. And if you think that pointing out that Wackers response to someone else saying that the fact that the progressive spring he posted about that only comes in a one size fits all package does not support his original point by posting a link that shows a straight rate spring that also comes in a one size fits all package was in fact another progressive spring and not a straight rate spring as he said is hair splitting then you are obviously someone who does not let the facts of the matter cloud the issue. In that case I doubt you will ever learn anything you don't already know. As far as me busting on Wacker I'd have to say that he brings it on himself. I don't jump straight to the insults and character assasination, but I do throw it back hard. If you can't take it then don't dish it out.

Is that HatchetWacker speak for "Oops, sorry. My bad. I posted inaccurate info and I'm sorry. Please disregard what I said"? If so then apology accepted.

To a large extent, yes. A 170 on a 5.5" rim will have a flatter profile and less contact patch at high angles of lean. But a 190 on a 5.5" rim (or a 170 on a 4.5" rim) will likely have a mushroom shaped profile and also have a smaller contact patch at high angles of lean. This tends to happen because many tires are designed to be stiffer in the middle and more flexible towards the edges, this means that when you squeeze a larger tire on to a skinnier rin it does not pinch evenly but tends to pinch in more at the sides of the tread and less at the center. Race oriented tires are less likely to have this issue as they are usually reinforced in the middle like street tires are. Is it the end of the world either way? No. In fact, depending on rider preference, you may prefer the feel of a narrower tire or a wider tire as evidenced by others who like the feel of a 190 on a 5.5" rim. Unless you ride on the track or ride like an idiot on the street I doubt you will "run out of tread" with a 170 on a 5.5" rim. There is something of a "right and wrong" here, but in the end the most important factor is rider preference. Slavomir, I was not trying to question your situation but expressing my amazement of it. I have no doubt what you say is true, I just find it silly that they would do that. America has plenty of issues but so far that is not one of them. We can run whatever size tire we can fit.

No I am not suggesting that WP is selling straight rate springs with a photo of progrssive springs. You suggested that, likely unknowingly, as you may not be able to tell the difference between the two. My point is that the "straight rate" springs you posted a link to as an example of "one size fits all" straight rate springs are in fact progressive springs. I don't have an issue with WP's web site. It only took me 3 minutes to find out that the springs you linked to were indeed progressive springs.

Just doing my part to make sure that when you post inaccurate info on subjects you know little about that you are called on it. If you would stop posting things you do not know much about and stick to what you do know I wouldn't have to go thru all this trouble.

It is not "hair splitting" to point out that the springs HatchetWacker posted a link to and made a point of saying they were straight rate springs appear to indeed be progressive springs. In fact, here is a bit more info on the WP Pro-Line springs which seems to clearly refer to them as "progressive" springs. http://www.wpsuspension.com/products/forksprings.php Post something to support what you are saying or STFU.

That is strange that they have an issue with putting a 190 on a 5.5" rim when Dunlop does not. They say 5.5" - 6.0" rim width for their 190's. Pirelli as well lists acceptable rim widths for their 190 as 5.5" - 6.0". But I would go with a narrower rear tire for better handling. The width of what rear tire you run in part depends on the width of the rim. If it is a 4.5" rim then a 160 is the optimum width. If it is a 5.5" rim then a 180 is the optimum width (although a 170 does fall into that range as well but the perfect width for a 170 is often 5.0"). It is easy to look at the specs of the different tires and see what width rim they were designed for.

I am pointing out that the link you posted had a set of springs for sale. The picture of the springs for sale in the link was a picture of progressive springs. This is what I said and I'll say it again if you like. I don't doubt that you cannot tell the difference between straight rate springs and progressive springs so I thought I would help you out. The pictured springs are progressive springs. Whether the picture is representative of the actual springs they are selling I don't know. But the picture clearly shows progressive springs. I take no responsibility for a link YOU posted, I am merely pointing out that the "straight rate" springs YOU posted a link to are shown in a picture on that link as progressive springs.

Actually, HatchetWacker, if the picture can be believed those WP springs are progressive springs. But how could you have known that? The reality of owning an obscure bike like a Guzzi means that things like finding the right rate springs for your forks is much harder then when you own a modern Honkawazukiha sport bike. As Greg put it, often you must figure out what springs from another bike will work in your Guzzi. It comes down to talking to some one who knows springs and giving them the diameter of your springs as well as the length and weights of the bike and you. Hopefully they will be able to find something that will meet your needs. But this is not something you are likely to find just posted on a web site with a price. You need to call a suspension specialist and talk to them.

Is that a good thing?

Actually, it is more like saying that one size fits all tires are better then tires that are the right size.

Sorry, I assumed that when you said "the preferred choice over straight rate" that you were implying that they were better then straight rate. Maybe you meant they had a higher profit margin? Maybe you were talking about rear suspensions? And if you don't think that progressive springs are better then straight rate springs then what is it I said that you take exception to... I said that straight rate springs were best but that progressive spring would be fine for most people on the street and that any set of springs that was the correct rate were better then springs that were not. But racers do not usually use progressive springs. There is a reason for that. But what is with the racer hate? Did a racer steal your girl along time ago? What gives? On behalf of racers everywhere, what ever it was, I apologize.

Hachetwacker, I am sorry you cannot grasp this stuff, but it is not my problem. Maybe you already know so much that there is no more room for new learning. If you cannot understand that a progressive rate spring typically has some coils that are wound closer together and as they compress they coil bind which shortens the length of the spring and increases the rate of the spring. You can also increase the rate of a spring by cutting out a section and replace it with solid spacer. When you apply preload to the spring a progressive spring will loose a part or all of its lower rate compression first. The spring will keep compressing after all of its lower rate compression is used up, it will just take more energy to compress because it is now the higher rate part that is compressing. In a progressive spring all the coils do not coil bind at the same time. The ones that are closer together coil bind first which raises the spring rate for the rest of the springs travel. If 10 coils out of your 25 coil spring are the ones that are closer together and when you preload the spring 8 of these coils touch one another (coil bind) then you have used up most of you lighter spring rate and most of what is left will be the higher rate. this will alter the point in travel where the increase in spring rate occurs. If you only had 8 coils wound closer together to begin with and they are all touching (coil bound) then you now have in essence a straight rate spring. This is really simple and until you can grasp this none of the rest is worth discussing. As for my experience with springs, I have used Progressive Suspension standard progressive springs, plus some trick dual rate springs with an adjustable cross-over point, and straight rate springs. Some of the straight rate springs were in high dollar Ohlins Superbike forks and some were in OEM forks. As Greg said the best results were obtained by using straight rate springs of the correct rate. Progressive rate springs are a bit less rate sensitive but do not work as well. The dual rate springs with adjustable cross-over seemed like a novel idea and while they did perform better then the progressive springs they were not better then the straight rate springs. You seem to have some sort of hatred of people who actually do things instead of sitting around talking about how things "should" work. The fact that I have more experience then you on this matter does not mean my opinion is less valid then yours. Run progressive rate springs, I don't care. But please don't try to tell me and anyone else listening that progressive springs are superior to straight rate springs.

Hope this helps. And by the way, I am not a boy racer. I have raced quite a bit (and still do) and been sucessful at it but I didn't even start untill I was in my 20's and that was a long time ago.