belfastguzzi

There's something wrong with your logic there.

It says, credit cards welcome

I've added the weight of the MG standard exhaust to the figures in the first post. It's a stone heavier than than the Quat-D. So DL, you reckon that a PClll is a necessity with the Quat? Looks like I may get an analysis done.

Alexander Graham Bell! Didn't he invent the, umm, the bell?

Engine braking comes from compression, rather than lack of power as such. It is turning the power off that allows the engine compression to brake the motor. It's the power of compression taking over from the power of combustion. So the the thing that really changes the amount of engine braking is having lower (if the spark plug blows out ) or higher (like a diesel ) engine compression. I'm wondering if there is some additional effect from exhaust pressure characteristics, with changes in exhaust systems? It feels like it, but it could be down to the ears and the vibes and the infamous seat-of-the-pants-dyno rather than actuality. P.S. I don't have a PClll. I do have the MG Race ECU. So things are smooth enough. Maybe someday I'll get into dyno world and see what's really happening.

Remember that MCN has also promised us that Guzzi is launching The Stelvio in early 2007 – a competitor for BM's GS. They showed the drawing. Cough...

Try some searches to see if you can find relevant posts. Some others have had the same thing thing happen (with relatives or friends) and there should be lists of alternative parts somewhere here. For starters you can get the same levers and indicators cheaper from sources other than M Guzzi. Guzzi price for levers is crazy. I think I paid about £60. Apparently Ducati do the same part a lot cheaper. Buel indicators instead of MG... Start with a search under 'brake lever' or 'clutch lever' maybe?

Yeah, lack of instructions is a bit of a pain when, like me, you dismantle the bracket bits without noting what position they were in. It all mounts up easily when the hanger bracket is installed pointing north, either under or over the box bracket. But indeed this is the wrong way and results in a too low slung box. I did mount it pointing south (the correct way) to keep the box high. So did OBND (– from his photos). One reason that you'd expect Quat to address the 'design flaw' is that there isn't even enough clearance for their own bracket, due to the raised top plate. The end-point of their own bracket on that side, hits the box – never mind the longer Guzzi bracket that it has to bolt up to. Anyhows – last impressions (for now). A longer ride this afternoon confirmed first impressions. The Quat is a great drive. Sound is much more intrusive than with the cans. The Quat is also prone to setting off more vibrations. A couple of things relating to the nature of the sound and the higher register: • A peculiarity – I wore an Arai helmet this afternoon and found that the Quat created a continuous high frquency ringing in the Arai. I wasn't wearing earplugs: hopefully they would lessen that effect. I didn't notice the same thing with an AGV. • A double whammy – I think that the raucous effects noted may not all be due to the Quat box itself. I think that the (half) open airbox is exacerbating some of the Quat's hooliganism, whereas with the Ti cans I like the way that the induction sound adds something extra (different) to enrich the whole soundscape. The sound of the Quat's exhaust is more akin to the induction bark than is the sound from the MG cans. It is also coming from the same area, directly under the rider. So the sounds have more of a reinforcing effect, rather than having the complementary effect of the pipes, x-over and induction box. ? There seems to be less engine braking with the Quat system, than with the long pipes. Can anyone who knows the science of this stuff comment on whether this actually may be the case or is it an aural illusion?

First short road impressions. Up the hills, mostly narrow roads turn to turn, so **can't speak about top end. This is a very rideable set-up. Just as much as **Stucchi & Ti cans. Maybe more so. There was no need to worry about smoothness through the range (so far**).The weight distribution must make some difference too, though I also set-up suspension at the same time so this must give a small contribution to different feel (ended up fairly close to stock settings anyway). Sound With short pipes and single outlet, the nature of the sound is very different. More like an early aeroplane now. Which is a good thing. It doesn't have the basso profundo of the big Stucchi & long Ti cans. RDLaing is right about noise levels. At lower speeds a lot of noise effect comes from the proximity of outlet pipe to rider and road. Noise disappears at speed, more than with Ti pipes. You can still feel it at higher speeds though and the Ti 'feel' at those speeds is probably more satisfying. If you want orchestral manouvres, it's the Stucchi & Ti cans. If you want WWl fighter pilot manouvres, it's the Quat-D.

If you can get it for €740 that seems pretty good. Cheaper than it used to be. Edit: just seen the later posts. If that price is exclusive of vat it explains why it seemed lowish.

The question has raised before of weight comparison between the Ti Kit and Quat-D. I don't remember the info being posted and after a search I can't see any, so – here's what I have found. Complete system: MG OE cf sleeved cans + MG OE x-over + standard headers = 13.6Kg / 30 lb Complete system: MG Ti cans + Stucchi xover + standard headers = 9.6Kg / 21 lb Complete system: Quat-D race box + Quat headers = 8kg / 17.6 lb In the search I notice that OldbutnotDead had trouble getting the Quat box to sit where it should and he had to add a stack of washers, lowering the box, to get it mounted. V50Man also noted this "design flaw". As ObnD says, it's because the V.11 mounting bracket hits against the QD box and he says maybe there was some design change. It seems to me that the problem comes because Quat added a thick fibre mat under the riveted plate on the right side of the box. This is the plate under which the road baffle would be, I guess. This raised height means that there isn't enough clearance for mounting. This is the sort of dumb mistake we would expect from Quat must be showing solidarity with their countrymen----------------- I considered turning the Quat bracket upside down and also mounting it under the box bracket, which would have given the necessary clearance, but it would have made the box hang low at the rear – as OBND's washer stack has also done. So I did what the situation required... I went and got the big hammer. A few bashes at the shiney new Quat and clearance was restored. Sound? I'll see about making a recording tomorrow. First very short impression is that it's very different to the open Ti Kit. The Tis sound lovely: a great rough rumble. The Quat seems to be mad raucous. It's loud! Someone posted that the Quat is quiet I don't understand – maybe that was an older model and with road baffle installed. I wouldn't take this beast to an MOT. Maybe my ears deceived me and it will sound different tomorrow – as I said, I didn't run it long. It was getting dark as I was finishing off and by the time I got to the pipe springs, it was dark. The port/header spring stretch is shorter, so I got them on. The box/pipe fastening spring is a much longer stretch and I couldn't get it in the dark. I started the bike to see what it sounds like, thinking I would let it idle to burn off. But really, the sound was so interesting and enticing: I just had to rev it. What a sound! This is with half open airbox and MG race ECU. I had to rev it more. With a BANG, clatter and mighty flash of flame from the front of the bike, the header pipe flew off and the header spring went into orbit. Hence the short listening test. I'll fix it tomorrow, in daylight. This set-up may not be as smooth as the Ti kit, but I'm hoping that it will work ok with the 'better than stock' race ECU and open airbox. I'm not getting rid of the Ti kit. That will probably be the set-up that I will use most. This is just a fit of irresponsibility...and I couldn't resist a 'bargain'. I very much like the look of the V.11 without end cans. And, if I ever want to do pillion trips, lower rear footpegs can go back on (and panniers). But could they put up with the noise?

Adequate to generous space for the sandwiches – perfect

looking close to the essence of the perfect vehicle

I just knew that someone would misinterpret that. I trust that it wasn't deliberate Yours, Moto Guzzi's Superbike owner.

But...we've already got this

No. I measured the volume of fluid and there was 500ml, probably slightly more allowing for losses. That would give a level nearer the figure that you are talking about, as a level of 165mm doesn't use as much as 500ml.

Note how one of these manuals (the older one) says to 'ALWAYS have the spring in place' to take oil measurement and the other says to do it with spring out! Also the table in one shows that your 145 - 95 is off the chart (i.e. The level range shown goes from 150 to 190) while the other table indicates that it's in the middle of the range (80 to 110) :!: Science The 07282-04A manual seems to be more up-to-date than the other one.

Zigilo 98cc scroll down to the bottom of the page to find it. Stick the bits together and add a bit of imagination to make something like this

Thanks. re 2: that's what I did, except with spring out (as the manual I looked at said to do that). Your 95 is probably close to 145 without spring. I was looking at the manuals on ohlins.com – don't see one that is the exact same as our model. The MG Scura Ohlins manual was also confusing things as nothing matched what it says:

I have changed seals and put the forks back together, hopefully with parts in the correct order. This is another one of those jobs that will be much easier second time around. All is not completely clear though and I have found it a bit difficult to determine which are the right bits of info from various manuals and write-ups. For starters, the Scura Ohlins manual, as posted on Guzzitech, gives contradictory info from the various Ohlins RT43 manuals on the Ohlins site. 1) Rebound and compression adjusters 1.a) The V11 Scura manual says rebound is the screw at bottom of fork leg and compression is the screw on the top plugs: both set at 13 clicks from closed. Spring preload is nut on top plugs, set at 13 turns. 1.b ) Ohlins says rebound is top screw (9 - 12 clicks) & compression is on lower fork leg (6 - 16 clicks) Which is correct? Is the Scura set-up really opposite to the other R&T 43s? EDIT: I suppose that the practical application of some pressure will show which is which. 2) Oil level. Some manuals say to measure the level with spring in place, others with spring removed. I measured it without the spring, as it's hard enough to see the level accurately even like that. It's more difficult to measure down the side of the spring. How do any of you measure the oil level – what do you use to do it? I understand that the level is usually around 170mm. I filled to 165mm. Baldini has previously said that "Ohlins give air gap of 85mm w/springs. I'm going to try 90/95mm cos maybe it's a little hard as is.." I think he is now at 100mm and that probably equates to around 150mm without spring. 85 seems a very high oil level – if 170 is the general Ohlins figure (presumably without spring). Where do Ohlins give the 85mm figure? 3) Spring Pre-load The manuals say, adjust spring preload 25 - 30 mm static sag, 35-50 with rider. Info coming from Todd at Guzzitech give the following settings are for a 180lb rider (total with all gear on): Front forks: Set sag to 1/2" (12.7mm) +5.5 turns from full soft on the spring preload setting. Compression: +3 of 28 (max) from full soft. Rebound: +6 of 28 (max) from full soft We pulled the forks up through the triples @3/8" (9mm) or to the third line on the forks under the clip-ons, to maximize stability. So... 4) Fork height. People have set the fork length at the third ring to get sharper steering, but surely this should be with the fork leg pulled through the triple clamp AND the bar clamp, so that 3 rings / 9mm are showing clear above the top, bar clamp – not UNDER the bar clamp, 9mm above triple, as above? 5) Valve needle position The valve and spring that come out after piston shaft is removed: I put them back in, spring first and needle pointing down to bottom of fork leg. Is that correct? *P.S. The manual in the Fileshare Forum for 'Scura Fork' is not exactly the same as the actual fork fitted to the Scura.

Same here, but I didn't like to say, when your hopes were up with the new purchase.

You've got it all wrong or as you might say, wrooooooooooooooong. This isn't Serge's Forum. The subject of this thread is Serge's Forum – that's quite different. This is Serge's Forum. As if you didn't know. P.S. wait till you hear Cat Power's and Karen Elson's version of Serge G.'s 'Jet'aime'. It's fabby.

No, it's ok, you didn't. I certainly wasn't looking for or expecting one because I added more info. I just thought that it was worth adding something to the story. That, after all, is the interesting part of the quizzes – finding out more about interesting machinery or times.

When I went to look for the book cover pic, hundreds (almost) of tourist sites came up, based on the 'fame' that the book has brought to the Alpujarras. Strange that this site has had the exact opposite effect and killed the V.11 stone dead. It's in the top drawer.

Well – 110s seem to be scarcer than hen's teeth. I ordered one but they weren't even available at the store in England. It's coming from the factory, with no definite delivery date. There's been no sign of it, so I'm afraid that I went ahead and took the 120 today. As for location of the factory...I see that the Metzeler says Made in Brazil on it.