GuzziMoto

First, how about setting sag front and rear. As mentioned, too much rear sag can cause the bike to run wide on corner exit. Setting sag is easy to do and very important to the way the bike handles. One thing to point out is that if your springs are too soft (or to hard) then increasing preload to get the sag correct is not the same as having the correct springs. Adding preload does not change the spring tension but only changes the ride height. A simple test of this is to check sag both laden (with a rider aboard) as well as unladen (no rider). Laden sag should be around 20-25% of total travel and unladen sag should be around 5 - 10mm. The actual number for unladen sag is not as important as the fact that there is some sag even with no rider on board. If you have no unladen sag it means your spring is too soft. Unless you are a light weight rider there is a good chance you have too much rear sag. Since you mention this as being an issue in combination corners I will say that it can be caused by the steering damper if it is not letting you turn the bike quick enough, but that is only a possibility and not very likely unless you ride very hard and fast. It is easy to test, though, just remove the damper and ride (carefully at first in case your V11 is possessed by one of those "Demons" the other threads mentions). After you set sag you may want to try dropping the front end 10 mm or so by sliding the fork tubes up in the triple clamps. This steepens the rake but also decreases the trail so it will hurt stability a little. This should not be a problem if you run a damper but I would be careful to test the handling gradually when you make such a change, with or without a damper. Jacking up the rear ride height does the same thing as dropping the front (with the same draw backs plus higher seat height and more ground clearance). Hope this helps. FYI.. I have a 2000 V11 with no steering damper, Marz. front forks at stock height (but modded to actually have compression dampening), and a Penske rear shock and it does not have the issues you describe. I mention that only in that it should not be a problem running wide.

Now I understand... Hatchet Rack truly does not understand this subject, but is absolutely sure he's right. It's amazing he has time to type all this B.S., where does he find the time with all the whacking he does?

After watching the home video, it clearly shows Haga beating Rea into the corner, but it is not as good an angle to show Rea hitting Haga. But it does show Haga beating Rea to the corner and then Rea hitting/clipping Haga as he went by knocking Haga down (again). I am not saying Rea should be banned or penalized in any way, but if he's a respectable person maybe he should man up and say "my bad" or something. Even a half hearted apology would be better then avoiding the issue except to say it was nobodies fault. The general rule of thumb is it is the passing rider who is responsible for passing cleanly. I understand that everyone, even pro racers, makes mistakes. But when you do taking responsibilty for those mistakes is better then saying sh!t h@ppens. Rea is an up and coming racer who could be a top level racer some day but Haga is already there and deserves some respect.

Can't watch videos at work but here's what Haga had to say about it from a press release (meaning he has calmed down and it has been filtered). "Rea came up fast on the straight and hit me. There was nothing I could do and I couldn’t restart the bike. I’m angry as it is the second time this has happened; I guess the only consolation is that I’m not hurt.” Now, Haga is a class act and I would not expect him to go around trashing anyone for making a mistake like that. Most if not all racers have or will make an error in judgement at some point in their career. Some will do it over and over. What is most interesting is how they respond when they have made an error that resulted in another rider being knocked down. It gets even more interesting when the guy knocked down is a championship contender. I'll watch the video when I get home tonight but the video from TV showed a pretty good angle of it.

I never said he MEANT to plow into Haga. But "racing incident" is stretching it. He certainly did not seem to try NOT to plow into Haga. He just ignored the fact that another rider had beaten him to the corner and went full speed ahead as if Haga was not there. Much like Kallio did to Melandri. The racing rule of thumb that applies here is that the first guy into the corner has the line and it is up to the others to GO AROUND HIM. The shame of it is that a rider that is not in the chase has probably determined the outcome of the Championship. In the end he not only robbed Haga, but the fans as well.

Thankfully he was a little more careful then his move on Haga.

I had a Shindy a long time ago. They may not be made the same now, but mine was okay for what it cost. The extra travel was why I picked it as well. Do you keep your bike inside (garage, shed)? That was one negative I remember was that it rusted a little on the shaft. Of course that was a long time ago and may not be an issue anymore. I am a firm believer in testing how the damper feels as you stroke it thru its travel. I used to compare dampers that I was considering buying by their action. It needs to be smooth and should not bind. When it begins to move it must not require extra effort to start it moving then less effort to keep it moving. I know this may sound obvious, but I have seen plenty of dampers that did not pass this test.

The name rings a bell, but I don't remember him. I am bad with people and names. Back in '94 and '95. I raced a Ducati (Gotham Racing) in Battle of the Twins F2 and was national champion in that class both years. I met a lot of great people doing that and still remember/talk to some of them. I am disappointed that I have a race (SuperMoto) that will keep me from Barbers this October for the race there. I wanted to go watch but as I am battling for a local title I feel compelled to race. I keep telling myself it is no longer about winning but about fun, but as I say "winning is the most fun".

I know this is a waste of time, but today I got time to waste. So, Hatchet Rack has determined that my wife and I are "afraid of steering dampers" even though I have never stated that and in fact I have said that if you want to run a steering damper then run one, if you don't need it then take it off. I don't care one way or the other, it is a matter of personal preference (and how well you have your bike set up and maintained). I have ridden and raced many bikes. Some of them have had steering dampers and some haven't, I don't recall ever being "afraid" of the ones with. My wife and I no longer get to compete in parking lot racing as they no longer run the series we competed in. But since you appear to have no idea what parking lot racing is or was about you really shouldn't comment on it as you tend to look stupid to those who actually have a clue, kinda like the whole upgrading your brake master cylinder thing that you had never done but knew was a bad thing. With out parking lot racing anymore I still get to race Super Moto and my wife has done track days. I hope to road race some more in the near future but even if I don't get to I have in the past won more races then I can count and along the way have a few regional and national championships to my credit with CCS and AHRMA. I'm sure you have equally impressive credentials as you seem to be such an expert. Let me try to help your expert understanding of this one more time. My wifes V11 came with a steering damper. My Griso did not. The one on the V11 went bad and caused a handling problem at about 10k miles and was removed. 30k miles later it is working fine with out one and my wife (and I) prefers the way the bike handles without it. The steering is lighter and the bike gives you more feed back as to what the front end is doing. This does not mean that everybody should remove their steer dampers from their V11s but on the other hand if you would like to (even just to see what it is like) then by all means take the damper off. The geometry of the bike is pretty middle of the road and can be ridden without one if you so choose. My griso (which has a longer wheelbase then a V11 but otherwise has rake and trail much like the later V11s) did not come with a steering damper and works just fine without one. And as a final note, While some bikes do have viscous steering dampers (not sure why you feel compelled to differentiate, I don't think anyone makes any other kinds anymore) that can be adjusted "on the fly", that does not mean all of them can be. And some of them cannot be adjusted at all. But your notion that the "correct" way to use a steering damper is the way you do is arrogant and moronic. There is no "correct" way to use one that implies that all the other ways are wrong. Using it in whatever manner you see fit as long as it doesn't result in you laying on the pavement is correct. While I don't subscribe to the theory that red frame V11s are inherently unstable, I am curious why such a well setup bike such as yours needs one so badly. Even Ed, the guy with actual credentials to his name to back up an opinion says that Guzzis are on average stable. What is the story?

Not positive what width rear rim you have but I think it's 4.5 inches wide. If that's true then a 160 width tire will fit a little better then a 170. If it's a 5.5 inch rim then you want a 170. Different tire brands have different actual widths and heights. If you have a 4.5 inch rim you will find there is some difference there and you may find that a 160/60 is a bit shorter and you may need to raise the rear ride height or lower the front to maintain the same geometry. A 160/70 is harder to find but may be a better fit, again depending on the brand. If you measure the diameter/circumference of your 170/60 and then use that as a basis to either find a 160 width tire to replace it with or to figure out what changes you need to make to maintain the balance of your bike with a different diameter tire. And for what it's worth, I would rather replace both front and rear tires together with a cheaper brand (like Continental) then just replace the rear with a non matching tire (or even a matching tire if the front is more then half way worn). I'm sure others will pipe in with all kinds of differing opinions.

When has Scotch not helped?

I'm not touching Hacks comments. Even Ed said do this at your own risk. docc, setting sag correctly is a whole nother can of worms. And while you could compensate for too much rear sag by dropping the front, this is not "increasing" the steering head angle beyong the stock specs but putting it back where it was supposed to be in the first place. If you have too much rear sag the geometry is wrong to begin with and you need to fix that issue before you start messing with the geometry. Droppng the front to compensate for too much rear sag is not the way to go. First you correctly set sag front and rear. At that point you are about at the stock geometry specs (I say "about" because this is after all Guzzi we are talking about), from there you can adjust things like front and rear ride height. And until you cross the point of not having enough trail for proper stability you will not see a big change. Decreasing the front head angle with the back end too low is probably not actually decreasing trail from the stock spec but possibly reducing it down to the original amount intended. Meaning, if you lower both the front (dropping the front end thru the triple clamps)and the back (too much sag or shortening the shock) you are not increasing the head angle or decreasing the trail (if you do both evenly) as the two ends work together.

That depends on your point of veiw as to which is which. To some (racers) increased rake means a steeper head angle. To other (Harley riders) increased rake may mean less steering angle. Either way, yes I have extesively played with that on a number of bikes. I have been racing bikes since '89 and have been pretty successful at it. Steepening the steering head angle makes the bike steer quicker and lighter (the "lighter" part is due to the decrease in trail). The trade off is a decrease in the self centering tendency of the front end that trail is responsible for. This results in a decrease in stability. The weight shift is a much smaller effect then the decrease in trail. In every cae I have experienced, dropping the front end to increase the steering angle (steeper rake) has resulted in a less stable bike. If the bike has a surplus of trail then the effect will be small, but it is almost always going in the direction of quicker steering/less stable. I say "almost always" only because nothing in this field is an absolute. Have you read about the guy who invented counter rotating brake discs? They allowed the bike to run stupidly steep steering head angles (like 10 degrees) with no stability issues. There is a lot more to stability then steering head angle. In fact, my old Buell had something like 23 degrees of rake and no steering damper and it had zero stability issues, even when raced. Of course, I was not racing with WERA (they require bikes to have steering dampers whether they need them or not), I don't usually race with WERA. Any, that is besides the point. Steeping steering head angles usually result in quicker, lighter steering with a little less stability. When you do not have a steering damper it is easier to tell the difference. A steering damper will likely mask any decrease in stability due to a decrease in trail, allowing you to "feel" that it more stable due to the very slight increase in front end weight.

I came close to buying one but did not. Turned out to be a good thing as the early 550's had a bad habit of blowing up. They have supposedly cured that issue and I may have one yet.

I agree with you on that. I do not think people always understand what they do and/or why they get the results they did, but that doesn't change the fact that some red frame V11s are fine with no steering dampers. The stability issue (if there is one) is more down to the operator.

Red frame bike, no damper, no stability problems. There are others, I believe. Whether you have a steering damper depends more on the rider then the color of the frame. And stability depends more on trail then rake. Dropping the front end increases the rake and puts slightly more weight on the front, unfortuneatly it also decreases trail which is a bad thing. As I recall Hacks red frame bike also has the front end dropped also decreasing the trail (and stability). You can't blame the frame for that.

I put Billy-Bob bars on my wifes clip-on equiped V11 without having to change the clutch line. I had to re-route it to make it a straighter path but the stock clutch line was able to work. I did the same thing with the brake line, running it up behing the forks. I keep telling myself that one day I will get a proper extended line made but it hasn't happened yet.

Oh.. they have all kinds of "serious" problems, like kickstand nuts that come loose and exhaust brackets that break. There should be recalls about that kind of stuff least someone get seriously hurt.

I like the Napoleans. They are pretty much a full size mirror so you can see what's behind you. They are not as trick as some of the others but they do work for me.

The heat could effect the damper. However, aside from causing the damper to fade slightly I doubt it would have a noticable impact on longevity. Rear shocks work under the same principle as steering dampers and quite a few of those are located near the rear cylinder of twins and aside from fade there is no other issues. The piece by Ed on dampers has a few interesting tidbits, but I would not recommend following his procedure for test the "stability" of your bike. Even Ed takes no responsibity for what could happen. Plus it has little to do with whether or not your bike needs a steering damper or not. And how can you write a piece on steering dampers without discussing trail. It has more impact on "wobble" then rake does and is responsible for most of the natural dampening of the front end. It is very simple, if your bike, the way you ride it, has a tendency to shake the steering then you should have a steering damper. If it does not shake its head then a steering damper will not make your bike safer. The "correct" way to use one is a stupid thing to say as there is no "correct" way aside from making sure the damper is in good working order and does not bind or stick. It absolutely needs to work smoothly, if it binds or sticks it could cause your bike to wobble when it otherwise would not. Most people who use a damper tend to turn it down as low as they can, if your bike wobbles then turn it up but otherwise most keep it as low as possible since it does slow the steering down. Some will turn it up when riding at higher speeds or over bumpy pavement but again, if your bike is not shaking its head then turning it up will not make your bike safer. You may prefer the feel of it turned up and that is fine but that is a personal preference thing and not a safety thing. Some people do not seem to understand the difference between the two. V11s came stock with a steering damper. The steering geometry they have is pretty close to the geometry of the new Breva which does not come stock with a steering damper. The geometry of even the red frame V11s is not that extreme and does not typically require a damper. The stock steering damper is there for looks more then for safety. the stock damper does have a tendency to fail and if you do keep it on the bike then keep an eye on it as mentioned above. If you want to try your V11 without a steering damper then go ahead. You will not be the first person to ride one without a steering damper and you certainly won't be the last. If you prefer the bike with a steering damper on it (whether for looks, for feel, or maybe your bike shakes its head the way you ride it) then keep the damper on it. But if you keep it then maintain it and make sure it is working correctly. And on this matter just like any other, you need to decide whether you will take advice from someone who has already done what you are asking about or if you will listen to someone who has never done it and doesnt actually have experience with the subject at hand.

Wow....Hack has really outdone himself this time. That has to be a record for the longest post with no actual knowledge of the subject matter. Unlike Hack, who has zero racing miles under his belt, I have actually raced at the track in the third video countless times as it is my home track. I think to try and make the point that a steering damper is absolutely required on a Guzzi ridden on the street based on videos of track bikes crashing in a wobble (ignoring the fact that the vast majority of track bikes have steering dampers so the odds are that the bikes in videos had steering dampers) is a new standard in something. I am not sure what that something is, but it is definetely something. If you have a bike that wobbles the way you ride it you should have a steering damper. Having a steering damper does not mean your bike will not wobble. As Hacks own video shows, wobbling can happen with one. But if your bike wobbles the way you ride it then a steering damper is a good idea. It may save your ass (or it may not). I had two bikes with dampers mounted (on racetracks) that wobbled into a crash. One wobbled so hard it broke the steering stops. I'm just saying a damper does not make your bike wobble proof. Some bikes do need steering dampers. Hell, some riders need steering dampers. But to try to make a case that all motorcycles need steering dampers because they are required for track use and then posting videos of track bikes (presumably with steering dampers mounted) wobbling and crashing is the rantings of idiot (with no actual track experience to back up his track case). Next you'll be using the "Chewbaca defense". Some bikes need steering dampers. Some riders need steering dampers. Some riders want steering dampers. Some are perfectly happy without them.... It depends on the bike and/or how you ride. Edit. Wow...after reading Hacks post again I realize it is full of more ignorance then I previously gave him credit for. For example, if he has never even slammed his bike in a corner hard enough to feel the resistence of the steering damper and yet he is spewing this nonsense that a damper does not alter the feel of a bike...well as they say. Those that can, do. And those that can't, teach. Hack is obviously meant to be a teacher. A V11 does not need a steering damper to be safely operated on the road. If you want a damper on yours then by all means have at it. But to suggest that every one needs one is beyond moronic.

I am more then happy to trust that you know the difference. It is possible that we are using different definitions of the term "wobble", but I think we are on the same page. I am not saying that some V11's don't wobble. But if a V11 does wobble it is because something is wrong. It could be anything from bad bearings to bad steering damper to bad riding (not you personally), but there is something about a V11 that wobbles that is different from the many that don't. Maybe it is a frame that is not straight or a loose or broken engine mount but it is something. The fact that you or even Guzzi has not figured out what it is does not mean that the problem is not there. It just means the problem has not been found. It could be as simple as poor manufacturing tolerances, but I like to think that is not the case. I have seen Japanese bikes that when brand new had the front wheel out of line with the rear wheel by 1/4" or more. It is entirely conceivable that Guzzi is worse then that. But that is not the design of the bikes fault. The red frame Guzzis are my favorite handling Guzzi because of how sharp they are. I don't think they are the perfect Guzzi for everybody, but they are the perfect Guzzi for me. My Griso is cool, but my wifes red frame Guzzi is a much sharper tool. The Griso is fast, but it lacks the quick steering and feedback. It is numb in comparison.

Yes, some have spent considerable effort fine tuning their V11's. My wife and I have not however. The bike has been dead stable from day one. The only times it has not been stable was when the rear wheel bearings took a dump and when the steering damper (a somewhat common problem) took a dump. The steering damper in particular had a pronounced effect on the bike. It was scary to ride. Removed the dampener and the problem was solved. 30 some thousand miles later the bad dampener is still sitting in my tool box and the bikes works great without one. Might get a new one someday, but no rush. After about 20k miles I altered the dampening characteristics of the forks so that it actually has compression dampening (stock it did not). This had little to do with any weaving or wobbling issue but helped the comfort of the ride quite a bit. The bike has a Penske shock now but that is only because the stocker cracked at the lower eye after 30+ thousand miles. I have not found the bike to be any different then any other bike I have owned in terms of setting it up. So, the bike has been stable from day one and continues to be stable after more then 40,000 miles. If someone has a V11, red frame or not, and it is unstable then there is something wrong with it. I could see someone getting off a later LWB V11 (or a Griso or tonti frame bike) and on to a short frame one and being intimidated by how much quicker it steers, but that does not mean the bike is unstable. If it is then something is wrong with it. It could be anything from condition of the bike to how it is loaded or ridden. And it can happen to any bike, not just V11's. Any two wheeled vehicule can wobble. Bikes with aggressive geometry are more prone to this then others. The V11 series, red frame or not, do not fall into that catagory. That does not mean they won't wobble, just that they are not as likely to do it as some other bikes. Kick a dog and it might bite you, that does not mean that all dogs will bite you.

Personally Greg, I don't discount the idea that some red frame V11s wobble. I have no reason to doubt you. But if you are making an assumption that they wobble because of the steering geometry (that they share with the majority of red frame V11s that don't wobble) then there I have to disagree. We may have different definitions of "wobble", but whatever your definition is if it is a trait that is not shared by the rest of them then it must be caused by something that is also not shared. Even red frame V11s are no where near the "edge" of the geometry envelope.

I have no doubt that some red frame Guzzis can or will wobble. I have only ridden 3, and none of them wobbled. But since I have not ridden all of them I defer on that to people who have ridden one that wobbled. But the real question is WHY do they wobble (the few that do) and did Guzzi change the geometry to stop them from wobbling. First the why part. Lets see, stock geometry of a red frame Guzzi is pretty conservative by todays standards. Even when they were new they were not pushing the boundaries of geometry. Plus you have the question of "If it is the geometry that causes them to wobble why don't they all wobble, since they all have the same geometry?". The answer would appear to be that it was not the geometry causing some of them to wobble. If it was then since all the red frame V11s share the same geometry they would all wobble. They don't so it is not. But there are many other things that could cause a bike to wobble. It could be a frame rigidity issue. Again, the same process of commonality tends to rule that out. But it is possible that some frame were lacking in that dept due to incorrect bolting up or flawed frames. I cannot say that is not the case so that I cannot rule out. What else causes wobbles. Well, it can be due to anything from tire pressure to rider technique, poor suspension setup to faulty steering dampers. But one thing is for sure, it has to be something that is unique to the ones that wobble and not something shared with those that don't. This rules out a few things, like geometry. Now as for why Guzzi changed the geometry of the later bikes (and as I recall, they did not across the board switch but actually they sold both variants during the transition. This also tends to rule out the theory that the red frame bikes were prone to crashing). I would venture a guess that they received some bad press from the Euro mags as well as customer feed back that cried for a more traditional steering feel. The bad press from the Euro mags part is easy to believe as I have seen them do the same to other bikes that were perfectly fine when rode correctly, but the Euro press (at least some of them) seem to feel it is their job to ride the test bikes in whatever stupid or crazy manner they can in an effort to make the bikes misbehave and then if it does they slam the bike for being dangerous and/or flawed. I will admit that this sells magazines, but it has little to do with the actual quality of the bikes, unless you think that we need to be saved from ourselves. I would guess that the bad press (if it really happened, I am only guessing) coupled with customer feedback calling for a slower steering, more traditional Guzzi feel, triggered the change. Probably more to do with customer feedback then bad press, judging by the gradual changeover rather then a sudden switch. But, I reckon this is all a waste of time as I doubt Greg or Hack will change their minds on this. In the end we all have to make our own decisions about what we believe and we typically base that on our own experiences. In the end, my experiences are that I have been thrown off 3 bikes in a wobble. None were Guzzis. One was a TL1000R (they tend to wobble when you put slicks on them), one was a FZR 400 (it only did it because it suffered a flat tire which triggered the wobble, in spite of geometry more aggressive then a red frame V11) and the last was a Sportster (which did it because I screwed with the geometry in an effort to make it handle). None of the wobbles were the bikes fault. Some people like to blame the bike but I know it was my fault in all three cases. But I also know that a red frame Guzzi is NOT inherently unstable and if it wobbles there is something wrong (with the bike, the rider, or both).