GuzziMoto

The "motorcycling's not for you" line was funny. But the weight transfer happens the moment the rear tire tries to slow the bike down, which is a fraction of a second before the rear tire locks up. If you want to compare the two with your scenario, that's fine. But a more comparable version of the acceleration side would be the opposite of your deceleration example. So, start off slow (or better yet from a stand still), rev the motor up with the bike in first or second gear (depending on how fast your going or if your standing still). You never said what gear you are atarting in, I'll assume you did not start in top gear. Now dump the clutch. If you don't wreck right then and there the rear tire will be "breaking traction" so much that there is smoke coming off it. Now, unless you know how to do a burn out already I would not suggest you try to do this based on what I have posted because that was an example to make a point and not meant as a tutorial on doing burnouts. But what it comes down to is this, a Guzzi motor makes something to the tune of 70 ft/lbs of torque in acceleration. It makes a fraction of that in deceleration. Ham fisted clutch work in either direction is a bad thing, and it may be more common in deceleration, but the possible loads in acceleration are many times higher then the possible loads in deceleration due to the many times greater availability of torque and traction.

Right before the wheel locks up. Look at it this way, the rear brake can lock the rear tire much easier then the front brake can lock the front tire. Does this mean that the rear brake has more power then the front brake?

No, I have to agree with dlang. The rear tire is easier to break traction during decel not because the engine can develop more force on compression braking then acceleration (if that were true it would be sad) but because the rear tire unloads during decel and has less grip (further reducing the loads on the drive train).

This past summer my wifes V11 had a leak from the front of the gear box. There was a small drain hole for the clutch housing that would drip a little. At first I thought it was from the back of the sump, but after taking the sump off and replacing the gasket I realized it was from the bottom of the clutch bell. I figured it was the rear main seal. I road her bike (doesn't get to happen often, she doesn't share well) and found that the clutch would occasionally slip, further confirming in my mind that it was the rear main seal. I thought it was leaking from the seal and getting on the clutch. Took it to a shop south of Harrisburg Pa (I live on the south side of Baltimore). There is a shop right near me (and you if you your moving to the DC area) but I hope to never take my bikes there again. Nothing personal, just don't like the way they work. The shop in Pa is a wild place. Their main income is from old Porsches, they do Guzzis for fun. They took the bike apart and found the breather hoseabove the clutch was not secured to the spigot (the bike just had the trans recall work done at the other shop, hmmm...) and that was mostif not all the leak. They changed the rear main seal and replaced the clutch friction plates because of the mileage and that I asked them to. They also were very thorough and found some other issues that had been missed. I hope all this sheds some light on your situation. Michael

On my wifes V11 we have an LED tail light made for a Suzuki DRZ 400. It happened because I have a DRZ and could see that the taillight I got for it woul fit the RossoPuro bracket on the bike. Just drill two holes and it's there. It is plenty bright, I think brighter then the stock unit. It even has a tag light and comes in red or clear. It's called the Edge taillight (not Edge2) from Wheeling Cycle Supply. http://www.wheelingcyclesupply.com/shop?ac...y&cat_id=72 It unbolts from the bracket it comes with and uses two bolts to attach to the bracket. I plan on trying to get one from them without the bracket but don't know yet if they will sell it that way.

One last time. The forks hitting the left steering stop is a pretty normal thing when the front brakes lock. It doesn't have to be the left steering stop. That's either coincedence or a result of you weighting the bars heavier on one side then the other (or something else, it doesn'y matter). The issue is the brakes locking up. And that could be caused by one of the calipers binding or unevenly worn pads (possibly relating to the fact that you put used pads on new disks). If one caliper binds and doesn't work, not only do you only have one caliper doing the actual braking (which has NOTHING to do with the forks hitting the steering stop) but the master cylinder is sized for two calipers so the ration between it and just the one caliper is all wrong. The result is brakes that may have a fair bit of power but, more importantly, no feel. That could cause you to lock the front without getting any warning or feel from the bike. This is only one of many possibilities and may not be what's wrong with your bike. But either something is wrong with your brakes or your tires if your front is locking up for no reason.

I'm no "Boy Racer" either. Just an old racer who was smart enough to live long enough to become an old racer.

Sorry Ratch. It's a racing term. Did not mean to confuse. As said it means the forks turned all the way to the stop.

The OP was about the front brake locking up, followed by the forks going full lock. Others may have speculated on the cause of the forks going full lock but, I'm sorry to say, I'm confident in saying the forks went full lock due to the front tire locking up. It is a normal part of crashing when the front tire locks. It doesn't have to happen but it often does. I don't think the forks going full lock is the root of his problem but merely an after-effect of the forks locking. The question in my opinion, is why are the forks locking. The part about one caliper sticking or binding has more to do with causing a problem with the brakes and nothing to do with the forks going full lock after the front tire locks up.

Sorry.Not trying to single you out specifically.. Just speculation about the riding ability of the OP and all this B.S. about the dangers of the front brake and that if you use the front brake and not the rear atlow speeds you will surely crash.I thought those kinds of old wives tales were only for Harley riders. As far as Eales forks, I'm not that old but as I recall as long as the lower link is lower at the axle then at the rear pivot then it has anti-dive, whether intended or not. Closest I have come is racing a Tesi. Don't think a brake disk on one side or the other will make a bike pull left or right. But if your brakes malfunction it could cause the brakes to lock up suddenly like the OP experienced. But it also could just be an old tire.

Holy smokes. You mean my wife and I have been riding wrong all these years. Good lord. Thanks for saving us. Pardon the sarcasm, but the B.S. is getting mighty deep in this thread. It sounds like the OP has enough experience riding and probably doesn't need/want people he doesn't know telling him how to ride. The question was could there be something wrong with his V11 and if so, What? I've already thrown in my two cents on another board but once again I'll say yes, there may be something wrong. It could be the tire is too old, it could be one of the brake calipers is hanging up. This is not to imply that would cause the bike to "pull to one side". He never said it pulled to one side. He said (I believe) that when the front tire locked up it went to full lock to one side and he crashed. That is how you typically crash if and when you lock up the front brake. I have done it myself a few times (it's part of learning to race). The question seems to be why the front tire is locking up in situations that it probably should not be locking up in. Rant over. Please return to your normally scheduled programming. Michael.

If I remember correctly, the earlier red frame bikes had slightly more aggressive steering geometry.

The true irony is that putting a tarriff on small bore european bikes while have little impact except to put US importers of said bikes out of business. It will do little else. If the goal of the tarriff is to get the EU's attention and maybe get them to allow US beef in the EU, Put a tarriff on something they will notice like cars. That would get the EU's attention fast. European car makers sell a much larger percentage of the total volume in the US then european bike makers, more so small bore bikes. If the US really wants to man up and make a point, do it. Just don't B.S. around with half hearted attempts that will do little other then to hurt US importers (putting americans out of a job).

Cats do more then burn any unburned fuel in the exhaust. They also convert toxic emmissions to less toxic emmissions. They do tend to hurt power output. Mainly, I believe, due to the restriction in the exhaust. Newer cats hurt power less then older cats. Some systems use multiple cats to get around the restriction issue. I doubt cats hurt power anymore then any other emmissions requirements. As a rule, emmissions regs hurt power. That is just a fact of life nowadays. Cats have other downsides as well. There isn't much in life that doesn't have pros and cons. I imagine the pros outweigh the cons. I don't care one way or the other. I just accept them as part of a car now.

The more the spark is shrouded (as it is on the E3) the harder it is for the intial flame front to spread. I doubt it would be a big difference but it is going in the wrong direction if your after improved performance.

The Volt is NOT an electric car and it never HAS to be plugged in. You CAN plug it in to charge up the batteries while at home and I expect most people would do that most of the time. Electricity is cheaper then gasoline. The Volt will be far cheaper then a gasoline car for most people to operate if it does 3/4's of what is expected. $40,000 is not cheap but that puts it in the middle of the road for new car prices.

How is the volt impractical. It will go 40 miles on electric alone, then keep going as long as there is gas in the tank. It will seat five adults. No it will not crush cars like a giant SUV, but that is not my basis for practicality.

If you are using the generator in a true hybrid, the power output of the generator only needs to be the average of the power needed. The generator charges the batteries and they power the motors.

Unfortunately I fear most of Guzzis R&D for the airbox goes into figuring out how to make it fit and not so much how to get max power. But even the tube that connects the throttlebody to the airbox has an effect on power output. Getting rid of that tube should change the power delivery. Will it make a large difference?No, I doubt it.

It is a general rule of thumb that short intakes are better for top end power at the expense of torque, and longer intakes promote torque at the expense of top end power. This is just a general rule of thumb and not an absolute. There is also another concept that smooth airflow thru the throttle bodies/carbs is important and will improve power at all rpms. I find that on older bikes you lose less by fitting pods like that (you may even gain power), but the newer the bike the more you lose doing that. Airflow in is as important as airflow out.

There are lots of opinions on this, but I think it will work. Evidently, so does Chevy. http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/?seo=...al_|_chevy_volt The idea is sound. The only question is will the technology be up to it. The long and short of the electric car conspiracy is if there is profit to be made the cars will be built. Until they figure out how to do it at a profit and not price themselves out of the market nothing will happen. I hope Chevy has figured it out. I would never have thought I would say anything pro-Chevy five years ago.

That is the point of the Chevy Volt. It may turn out to be the first true hybrid, where like a diesel electric train the engine only generates electricity for the electric motors that propel the car. Current mainstream hybrids have been a disappointment to me. No politics involved. Plus, you can plug it in to charge the batteries. If you only drive short trips the engine will hardly ever run. But if you drive for a longer distance and the batteries run down the engine fires up and charges the batteries. Stupidly brilliant.

True, profit drives corperations. Not idealism, not conspiracies. There is no great conspiracy to kill the electric car. No, oil companies aren't for them but they can't stop them. What will stop them (atleast for a while) is the market. It is hard to sell someone an electric car that can only go 40 miles on a charge. Or an electric gas hybrid that gets 20% better mileage but costs 40% more money. When they become economically feasable they will happen. The cost of the technology will come down and the cost of oil will go up. Eventually it will be cheaper to be green.

They never sold or leased those cars to the public. Shame. The first concept seemed the best. Stop trying to make the internal combustion motor directly propel the vehicule. They work best at one speed, so hook them to a generator. Use electric motors to drive the vehicule.

Oh, a .gov site. That would explain it. I usually get close to the EPA highway mileage. But hybrids are notorious for getting less then rated, which is why I told my mother she would not get the 34 mpg Ford claimed for the Escape. Last I heard she gets around 28. But I thought it interesting that atleast some people say the Malibu hybrid gets HIGHER then EPA rated. As I said niether the Malibu or the Escape impresses me. Their technology is almost the same. The Malibu has a slight edge, mostly due to GM having better combustion effiecency. What I am most interested is a real hybrid along the lines of a diesel/electric locomotive. That is what the Volt may be.