GuzziMoto

The griso uses a different estup then the V11. First you have to let the bike do its little gizmo dance with the tach and the digital display and the lights (ooooohh, the pretty lights). On mine (a Griso 11) if you push the button while this is going on nothing will happen, the bike will ignore you. After the light show ends, you can push the the button (you don't have to hold it, it will work even if you just push and release) and the starter motor will run until the bikes catches or 4 or 5 seconds pass, whichever comes first. I assume the Griso 12 does the same thing. If yours is not doing this then the dealer will probably have to replace expensive parts as this is all controlled by the computer I believe. Good luck.

I am not running it and I see no real benefits for road use. Even at the lower end of racing I see no benefits. Other then the cost it has no downsides/drawbacks, but in my opinion it does little more then lighten your wallet. But if you believe there's a benefit and running it makes you feel better then by all means do it. I'll spend my money on something else.

I was thinking "yeah, that's a normal weekend ride", doesn't everybody get to rides roads like that. Then I saw where you're from. Been to chicago, I feel your pain.

My apologies to gstallons. After re-reading what you said I realize I misunderstood what you posted. I believe we are all on the same page. Again, my apologies.

I believe the reference port would work opposite the way you describe. If you connected it to the intake manifold down stream of the throttlebody you would indeed get a drop in manifold vacuum sent to the reference port. But I'm pretty sure this would cause a reduction in fuel pressure not an increase. I don't think it would be a large change in pressure but it should decrease fuel pressure with a decrease in pressure at the port. Where it would help is if you had a turbocharged application and the increase in boost would cause an increase in fuel pressure. Yes you can hook it to the intake manifold (or somewhere else like the evap canister) but I can't imagine anywhere to hook it that would make the bike run better then having it vented to atmosphere (not some sort of micro-atmosphere inside of your home made engine temp sensor but the real atmosphere ).

For crying out loud.... Hack denied having said he had a problem with his V11 relating to the engine temp sensor. Greg then copied and pasted what Hack had posted about having symptoms of " less than accurate sensor operation". To which Hack responded by saying that the problem was with the "operation of the sensor", not "the way my Guzzi was running". So if you can seperate the two in your own mind (how the bike works vs. how the sensor works) then you will lean one way on this but if you would be unable to seperate how the bike works from how any of its parts work then you would likely lean the other. Obviously in Hacks mind Greg has not proved a thing, but the world is a bigger place then Hacks mind.

Who did you talk to at Penske? Michael Himmelsbach is the guy to talk to. He had one built for my wifes '00 V11 sport. I sent him specs from this forum on the shock and they had one built way faster then anyone else said they could. I had a trip coming up so that was important.

It is only going to LOOK like a clarinet, it isn't going to WORK like a clarinet. If you only care about the look, then having a "true" RCM is not important. But when someone like Todd refers to selling a "true" RCM he is refering to one that actually does what a RCM does.

The Giannelli appears to be what I was refering to as a muffler that mimicks the look of a RCM but is in fact NOT a RCM. In order for it to be a "true" RCM the interior volume of the RCM must not have baffles or anything else that would interfer with flow. That is why "true" RCM mufflers put the baffle AFTER the RCM. The Staintunes are probably the same but the links did not open for me. I am not refering to a "true" RCM based on what it looks like but on how it works. You may not like the look of an RCM with a muffler on the end but that has nothing to do with what it is or how it works. The Woods pipes and Cobra pipes are "true" RCMs with mufflers on the ends, the Giannelli (and almost certainly the Staintunes) are not. But I would agree they look better. The Viking pipe is either a true RCM with no baffle or a muffler mimicking the look of an RCM but not the performance. Without being able to see if there is a baffle inside I can not tell. Whichever it is, it is NOT a RCM with a muffler. It is either a RCM OR a muffler (just like the Giannelli and Staintune). Edir: FYI... I ended up yanking my GuzziTech pipe from Todd apart to confirm that yes indeed it is a "true" reverse cone megaphone design. The pipe diameter gets progressivly larger then tapers back down some and then the baffle/muffler is on the outlet of the reverse cone. The reverse cone on the end is for looks. The cone that makes it a "true" RCM is inside the pipe and cannot be seen from the outside.

The reverse cone is only at the end if you don't want to quiet down the noise. Once upon a time people didn't care about how loud it was, only how fast it went. RCMs did not have mufflers tacked on to the end of them. Life was good (but loud). Then they started passing and enforcing all kinds of noise regulations, first on the street (which relegated most RCMs to track use) then on race tracks (which probably lead to the development of the RCM muffler. Now, it is true that some mufflers that look like reverse cone megaphones are in fact just mufflers with an outside shape to look like the real thing. But there are a few companies that still to this day build true RCM mufflers (and RCMs with out mufflers). In general the size of the outlet in relation to the size of the inlet gives you an idea of how noisy and how much power an RCM will make. The outlet should be atleast 30 -50% larger then the inlet but you will find everything from the same size to twice as big. It isn't so much about right and wrong but about what the intended use is. Unfortuneatly in this case max power equates to max noise. Cobra and Ron Woods are probably two of the biggest makers of RCM mufflers I know of. Unfortunately both have moved away from making RCM exhausts for bikes and focused on ATVs (presumably there is more money there). Here are some links. The first one is a crappy site but the pictures show three different RCM's with mufflers on the end. http://www.thefind.com/sports/browse-cobra-megaphone This one is a Guzzi racebike with an unmuffled RCM giving you an idea what I mean about the size of the outlet. Click on the top two pics to enlarge. http://www.s3750motoguzzi.co.uk/david-v7sp...vidV7racer.html And this is a RCM with muffler made by Ron Woods for BMW/Rotax singles. http://www.rotax.net/pics/bmwexhaustbig.jpg Finally, here is a link to some RCM exhausts with mufflers made by Ron Woods for ATVs. http://www.rotax.net/ds450.html I hope this helps.

That is the only way I know of to control fuel map AND ignition.

That would be because your reverse cone has a fairly small exit hole. I have seen smaller, but many RCM exhausts have larger openings. But that is why I said "often" and not "always" or "most of the time". I am refering to RCM exhaust as a whole and not yours specifically. RCM exhausts made for max power tend to have a much larger exit and as a result are much louder. As for the baffle bein before or after the reverse cone, the baffle would obviously be in the last 10" or so of the pipe where the diameter is fairly constant. The reverse cone (if it is indeed a true reverse cone setup) would be next, right before the baffle and not easily visable to the naked eye. That is why people have said that to find out if it is a "true" reverse cone meg or not you would have to cut it open or take it apart. Not everything in life is what it seems to be.

Whether or not a gas has ethanol in it depends not so much on the refiner but on the area it's sold in. Ethanol is put into gas for emissions reasons. It is not done because it is cheaper to make ethanol then gasoline, it is more expensive. If you live in or near an area that does not require ethanol then consider yourself lucky.

RH, you have not backed up any of your experimentation (no, that's the wrong word. Experisumption is better, I know it's not a real word but then your experiments aren't real experiments) with anything but opinions and personal feelings. You have yet to actually measure how far off the stock sensor reads, you have not measured how far off your custom sensor reads. In fact you have not measured much of anything. What you have done is start with a stock sensor. You then modified it in a couple different ways, some of which actually improved the heat flow from the head to the sensor (that appears to be how it started, you wondering if adding thermal paste would improve the accuracy of the sensor. The answer is yes it does). When this experimentation resulted in a poorer running bike you then assumed that what you had done must have resulted in less accurate sensor readings, not more accurate (based on what I don't know). You then built a rig that cooled the sensor off (heat sink) and this improved things. Unfortuneatly the train jumped the tracks here and you decided that the heatsink was somehow ïmproving"sensor accuracy by causing heat to constantly flow into the sensor (it did, but this was because the heatsink was constantly COOLING the sensor). You then built a device to allow you to adjust the error of the stock sensor, by either adding to the error that was already there or even by replacing the signal with one under your control. Somehow you then seem to have decided that thermal mass and lag time were the culprits to this decrease in performance. Even though the stock sensor weighs a fraction of what the head weighs (and therefore has a fraction of its thermal mass) you decided you needed a sensor with less mass. Not a bad idea really, but when you picked a sensor that was designed to measure air temp and would not allow direct (or even near direct contact) with the head you made a mistake. Yes your new sensor setup has less thermal mass then the stock sensor. But the fact that it does not make contact with the head (or even near contact, the thermistor is actually inside a cavity in the nose of the sensor) was lost on you. You did manage to get better performance out of your Guzzi with this setup, so you therefore assumed that it must be more accurate then the stock setup. I am not really sure how you came to this result, but since you made several modifications previously that enhanced the accuracy of the sensor and each time was meet with poor results, and you only achieved improvements when you decreased the accuracy of the stock sensor (the variable resistor and the heatsink), but when a train jumps the tracks I just stay out of the way. So, please go on about how I'm a idiot and can't possibly understand all this high brow intellectual stuff. As I have said before and I'll say again, coming from you I take that as a compliment.

This from a guy who thinks air conducts heat better then brass. I understand heat flow. I also understand lag time. In this case lag would be minimal due to the small mass of the OEM sensor in relation to the cylinder head. Because that is what matters for lag in this case. Not what the sensor weighs but what it weighs compared to what the cylinder head weighs. And what lag there in in a metal heat flow path would be more then compensated for compared to a setup that uses air for the heat flow path by the fact that air does not conduct heat very well and metal does. But I am confident that you will fail to grasp this and once again either change the direction of the conversation or rebuff it with some insulting remark about me instead of actual facts about the superior heat flow characteristics of air over brass. Edit, WOOOHOOOO. Page 58.

Good lord RH. Here is the freakin post the quote came from. Even I know what you said. You also said before this that you have never heard of an issue with a V11 overheating. But that is another can of worms.

It seems that in one post, RH, you say that the stock sensor (with and/or with the brass holder) reads too hot. Then in another post, like this latest one, you say it runs too cold. Which is it? I would agree that with the brass holder it would slightly slow down response, but that might be more due to the cooling effect of the brass holder then the mass of it. Brass conducts heat pretty well, that is why it cools down the sensor. That is why Greg has insulated his brass holder and tells others to do the same. Something that doesn't conduct heat well is often called an insulator. At the risk of Ratchets wraith, I offer this. Improving the accuracy of the temp reading is easily done with a few simple steps. 1. Improve the flow of heat from the head to the sensor. This can be accomplished with direct contact, although that may lead to issues with different expansion rates of the different materials. You could also fill the gap with a medium (like thermal paste)that conducts heat better then air. This is easy because most solids and semi-solids conduct heat better then air. Air does not conduct heat that well. In fact, it is often used as a component in insulation. 2. Minimize the loss of heat thru any avenue except the path between the sensor and the head, the very same path that you improved in step one. This is the part where people like Greg insulate their brass holders. It is also the one area where the plastic holder is superior. Now I will duck and cover.

I have to say that this is not correct. Many old R.C. Megaphone pipes have small outlet holes. But just about every modern version, especially those built for max power, have outlet holes BIGGER then the inlet hole. Some of the fasts twins racers I have seen including Pete Johnsons Manfred Hecht tuned Raceco Guzzi fall into this catagory. The purpose of the reverse cone has NOTHING to do with not "letting the sound out quite as much". People may have started playing with the idea for that reason, but that is not what they do or why they are used in todays day and age. It has to do with creating positive and negative pressure waves headed back towards the exhaust valve. In fact, reverse cone megs often seem louder then the same meg without a reverse cone on it. I have also owned a few true reverse cone megaphones that had a muffler on the outlet of the reverse cone. It is not uncommon. Some people are confused by the reverse cone shaped outlet to the pipe thinking that that is where the reverse cone would be located. This is not always correct. If you are going to try to quiet down a R.C.M. exhaust you would put the baffle AFTER the reverse cone. I also have heard from Todd that he did not just willy-nilly choose such a large baffle, but that dyno testing the prototypes told him that larger was better. I have a catalyst from another pipe stuck in mine to take the sound down a bit. I'm sure this cost a few ponies but I can always pop it out if I need them back.

Too bad you don't live in Maryland, we have lemon laws that would force them to buy the bike back. I have never done that but I did use the threat of it to get a manufacturer to extend their warrenty because of issues the bike was having. I do agree that if you cannot get them to correctly fix it now I would ride it hard and fast, just make sure to keep records of service and what not so if it does fail they will not be able to back out of replacing it. I think a trip or two to the dyno is in order.

I have one of those from Todd on my Griso. Sweet pipe. Haven't taken it apart to see if it is indeed a "true" reverse cone design. It loks like it is. It does work well, though. Typically, "true" reverse cone megaphone designs can and do incorperate a muffler into the design with out comprimising the design. The way they do this is to have the reverse cone BEFORE the baffle tube/muffler.The cone flares out, then the reverse cone portion necks it back down a little but the body of the muffler stays the same size or even gets larger (to make room for glass packing). The baffle tube then mates up to th output of the "reverse" cone. This is probably one reason why Todds pipe has such a large baffle. The out put of the reverse cone is usually pretty large.The muffler takes the edge off the sound levels with out costing much (if any) power. There are plenty of non "true" reverse cone megaphone pipes out there like the Laverzzi's, I personally don't think it's a huge deal whether it is a "true" reverse cone design or not. But a well designed exhaust will work better then a poor designed exhaust every day of the week no matter what type of design.

I remember you making such a device from components you bought...., but I don't recall you buying a premade device. If you did and I missed it, sorry. Again, we have differing views on thermal dynamics. You think air has better heat transfer properties then metal and I think it's the other way around. Whatever. I say again, though. If you increase the accuracy of the stock sensor by adding goo (improving the thermal transfer properties) and your bike runs worse, I don't see the logic in your assumption that this new setup is even more accurate because your bike runs better. Ray, I do believe in the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" addage. But I have added goo to both my Guzzis sensors and saw an improvement in the way they run and the mileage they get. But it not a huge improvement for me. And depending on where you live and the temps and traffic you ride in it may be a negative change for you. It is easily undone though. And if you have a newer Guzzi with an O2 sensor I doubt it would be a negative. Those should be self correcting for mixture at everything but high load situations (where the factory map is too rich typically). But obviously if you try it and it doesn't work out it will be YOU, not me, swapping it back to the way it was. Sit back, have a beer or two and think long and hard before acting. I do think that many here would say that improving the accuracy of the sensor is a good thing, but how to achieve that and what else is required along with it is where the difference of opinion really lies.

Nah, this is too much fun just trying to keep score. I don't know if your bike had an issue and you did all this to fix it, or if your bike ran perfectly and you were just trying to improve perfection (technically impossible, but the way this thread is going.....) and in the end I don't care. The only reason I felt compelled to point that out was that you yourself would pound someone into the ground for being so ignorant to have made such a mistake. We have fundamental differences in our understandings of thermal dynamics. I think heat only flows in the direction of hot to cold until the cold is no longer cold and hot is no longer hot. I don't see how you could view your setup as being a more accurate ETS setup based on the evidence of your bike runs better now so it must be more accurate. And I'm sure the original Guzzi engineer who spec'd the ETS did not put in the amount of time and effort that you put in to just one of your average posts in this thread into spec'ing the sensor and housing. As I have said, I don't have an issue with you monkeying around with the ETS or any other sensor. I only want a spade called a spade. You know the idea is not new and there are companies that sell devices to allow you to modify the ETS signal?

Do you not even understand what you yourself are saying? Quote from post #797...."Please find anywhere in this thread where I posted that my engine ever ran "perfectly", and post the quote(s) with the usual Forum link(s) back to the source(s), as I have done with your post above." To which dlaing responded....."Sorry dude, I missed the niggling nits. I think I attributed the niggling nits to the preceding words: "If the bike actually ran anything approaching poorly as is (with the exception of a few niggling nits," My bad. I guess I don't read as well as I did in 4th grade.... QUOTE (ratchethack @ Feb 6 2009, 04:27 PM) Ideally, I'd be dynotuning a new map with as direct thermal connection between head and sensor as possible. If the bike actually ran anything approaching poorly as is (with the exception of a few niggling nits, by all objective measures it runs perfectly with the OE sensor holder without thermal conductive paste), I'd have re-mapped it long ago. To which you have yet to point out how wrong dlaing is or how he just cannot comprehend such high concepts, being a philistine or some such. Now normally I would not bother with a detail like that, but for you I feel it is my duty to society to point that out.

Dan M, so when you said "An open to the atmosphere thermistor can read the surrounding air immediately" you did in fact mean the sensor was vented to outside air? (as in the atmosphere we breathe?). I don't think that is what you meant, but if in fact you "did not misspeak. I said what I meant" then so be it. Not a normal use of the word, but I guess in your world the responsibility is on the reader to understand what you meant and not the speaker to pick the most appropriate words. The reference to the body of the stock sensor was in response to statements made by people to the effect that the stock sensor body acted like some sort of magical heat trap (heat goes in but it don't come out) that actually causes the sensor to heat up higher then the temp of the engine (those with superior grasps of thermodynamics no doubt). Due to the fact that the sensor tip is actually connected to the sensor body, yes some heat that goes into the sensor tip would end up in the sensor body.Some of that heat may end up flowing back into the sensor tip if it ends up being cooler then the sensor body but the rest of it would just radiate out the exposed part of the sensor body to the atmosphere ( that's the outside atmosphere, not the inside atmosphere). I do not feel this is an important aspect of the stock sensor, but to those who think the mass of the stock sensor is an issue it is relevant. dlaing has actually been fairly interested in RH's concept, and while he does question things when they don't add up he is clearly not against the idea completely. But to me it comes down to this. If you want to do it fine. But if you want to convince me that air transfers heat better then metal, you're going to have to do a better job of choosing your words then you have done so far. In fact, why don't we both hold our fingers 1 inch from a blow torch flame. I will fill that 1 inch with air and you can fill it with metal and no air. Yes air can change temp faster then metal, but no it does not conduct heat even remotely as well. Any 3rd grader could tell you that. You and RH act like people who don't agree with you are morons or something. But then you two make assumptions based on opinion, treat it like fact, and wrap it in B.S. If your bike ran lean when it got hot, got worse when you put heat transfer paste in between the sensor tip and the head, and that went away when you used an air temp sensor to measure the air gap temp instead of the head temp, well if you can't figure that one out I guess it is not my job to help you understand (because in all likelyhood you do not want to understand).