Warm Fuzzies?

[guzzi jon]

best bang for your buck will always be well run track days, you need to dial in your suspension, but good riders will smoke you on a goldwing or roadking if they know how to ride. Learn to ride on the track, then dial in your suspension, it will be easier, and you will be faster. When you see someone smoke a ricer on an eldo, it is not because they have their suspension dialed in

[dlaing]

When you see someone smoke a ricer on an eldo, it is not because they have their suspension dialed in

I am pretty sure this is the bike on which Mark Etheridge smoked me and my V11

or maybe it was this one????

No doubt, it is mostly all rider.

And I should certainly do a few track schools before turning my V11 into something like Guareschi's.

[dlaing]

These rhetorical questions are so boring....

Dave. Please. Have you mistaken this Forum for Uncle Wiggly's Fairy Tales?

I don't know your Uncle Wiggly. Sounds like something you should keep in your private life.

 

Have you been hanging out with Peter Pan, Twinkletoes, and Wacko Jacko again? bbblll:

grow up.

 

You've brought us a torque curve that shows ~55 lbs/ft. @ 2K RPM, ~65 lbs/ft. @ 3K RPM, and ~95 lbs./ft. @ 5.5K RPM! :grin

 

We're talking about the V-11 motor here, Dave. That's the motor that you and I and nearly everyone on this board, including Zagato, who started this thread, is riding with -- and will, with probably no exceptions, likely continue to ride with as long as we own our current Guzzi's.

 

You've obviously either dreamed this up out o' thin air, or it could be a highly modified V-11 curve lifted up about 30 lbs./ft. from where the peak belongs -- on a different scale altogether. I don't see any attempt at extrapolating points to scale at all. It's a ridiculous fabrication and a mockery. Why not just bring in the torque curve of a smallblock Chevy?! Why not a 426 Chrysler Hemi?

I agree, fantastic engine :grin

This is a kit that is available to all of us, that will, as far as I can tell, make our bikes run nearly as fast as Guareschi's

Is it still a "V11" if it has 1400+CCs?

Maybe it should be called a V14?

I gave you a link to the website with the details.

If you make an effort, you will see that I did an OK job at extrapolating points to scale. It is not perfectly to scale, but it is close enough to scale to show that this engine kit clearly makes more torque than the petty one liter four cylinder "competition"

Maybe the Guareschi victory is exactly what we need to inspire people to use this fantastic engine kit.

 

Now if you actually intend to achieve something resembling the above curve with a V-11 , Dave, will you also be making use of turbocharging, supercharging, nitrous oxide, maybe anti-gravity ion propulsion technology, or dilithium crystals?!

R-E-A-D the information at their website.

No Turbo, no nitrous, no BS. Just sound engineering and design.

Over 1400CC, water cooling, superior combustion chamber compared to V11's.

 

The curve above shows slightly more torque at 3K RPM than a stock V-11 produces at it's torque PEAK! . . . Think about this, Dave -- all 4 Jap motors on the chart you posted not only meet -- or substantially beat -- the stock V-11 torque peak at 65 lbs./ft. @ 5.5K RPM -- but where the V-11 torque curve begins to drop off at 6K RPM, all 4 Jappers' torque curves carry this torque and much more (with a short dip each for the Yam and Kaw), UP, passing up through ~75 lbs./ft. on the way to get to 12K RPM -- that's a whopping 5.5K RPM SPREAD for each one -- ABOVE the V-11 torque peak!!!!!

 

Is the Jappers' torque spread something that you imagine is even remotely reasonable to expect a V-11 motor to compete with on the road -- while having to carry ~150 lb. more chassis weight?!

97 lbs/ft is what this kit offers.

How can the silk purse 4 cylinders compete with there mere 70-75 lbs/ft of torque, that you have to wind the engine up to reach?!?

Don't forget, that in pursuit of the V11 silk purse conversion, weight reduction will be part of the plan, so we will looking at much less than a 150lb difference.

Beating the weight of a Honda VFR will be easy.

Getting down below 450 dry pounds a little more tricky and getting down to 400 dry pounds may be impossible. I know Paul and Zebulon are close to 400 pounds dry. Is it breaking the rules to use a G&B frame as Zeb does?

 

 

Getting back to the above fantasy torque curve, do you imagine this is practically achievable for most riders with V-11's on THIS planet? Do you mean to suggest that anything you can dream up, or that someone's claimed to've achieved with other motors is practically achievable with your V-11 for road use, Dave? Are there any actual credible examples of anything close to this that you know of -- anywhere? -- even ONE? Please do advise.

 

The only example that I know of won the BOT...on this planet, this year.

 

 

As I recall from a previous thread way back when, you were perfectly willing to believe -- without questioning it -- the claim by Eraldo Ferracci that 140 hp for a V-11 "is no problem" -- despite the lack of ANY evidence wotsoever that he'd ever done it, or anything close -- or that anyone else , for that matter, had ever done it, or anything close!!!!!! Is believing this wot passes for "open minded" in your book, Dave? In my book, this is known as "gullible".

 

Some people will buy ANYTHING they REALLY WANT TO BELIEVE IN without any evidence a-tall that it exists, won't they, Dave?

BELIEVE. (bored to 1288cc, but may not be street worthy...)

 

 

Tell you wot, Dave. I know some guys building a Bonneville Land Speed Record Guzzi for the Modified Partial Streamlined Pushrod Gas Class right now (not too far from me) who would happily give various hanging parts of their male anatomies to know how you might help them achieve the kind of a torque curve you posted above -- or anything close -- with their '87 LM SE 1000.

 

Now if you believe the above torque curve is possible for a V-11, and you could advise Bill R. & company at Team Subtle Crowbar how to build their motor (which is for most practical purposes the same motor without fuel injection), I'm sure you'd get some BIG credit helping them bring down the records they're chasing. . .

 

Now think about THIS, Dave -- Team Subtle Crowbar's motor only has to hold together for qualification and enough passes through the traps to hit 170 mph or above in each of 3 passes, and as far above that as they're able. After that, the motor can self-destruct on the last over-run. It can literally be designed to such a ragged, bleeding edge of extremes that they expect it to beat itself to death over only several dozen miles. So if you can convince Team Subtle Crowbar that you can achieve your fantasy curve and get the motor past the inspectors -- I reckon they'd be all ears!

 

Our Guzzis, on the other hand, (many of 'em anyway) need to be built to last many years on the road and to tolerate the abuse of traffic in most cases, some even many decades, and in some cases, (mine included) possibly longer than that. . .

 

Why Dave -- if you can help Team Subtle Crowbar achieve anything close to wot you seem to b'lieve you can do with your own V-11 (since evidently no one else on this planet has ever done it before!), you might well go down in history at the Bonneville Hall of Fame!

 

EDIT: Hey Dave -- how many o' the Jappers on your torque chart above d'you expect could make three 170+ mph passes at Bonneville with nothing more than a rear sprocket change -- straight off the showroom floor?

 

Is this important to you on the road? It isn't important to me in the slightest, but I'm pretty well aware of it -- but then, I reckon I have few false illusions about wot I'm riding based on nothing but wishful thinking . . .

Land Speed Records require one to follow rules.

Team Subtle Crowbar is obeying rules that would prohibit the engine modifications that I have suggested.

I believe that longevity is more important than 170MPH through the traps.

And I think building for longevity is part of the conversion process when going from sow's ear to silk purse.

Durability is good.

Lighter is good.

And, more power is good.

I certainly don't need 150HP. I would be very content with 100HP at the crank. And if I had 100 HP, a diet program, and a few sessions at track school, I think I could keep up fine with your average, non-suicidal R1 rider.

Yes, they could blow me away on the straights, big deal. It does not mean my bike is a sow's ear. A Sow's ear better describes a Ural. (apologies in advance to the fine owners of Urals )

And apologies for hijacking the thread....

[Guest ratchethack]

This is a kit that is available to all of us, that will, as far as I can tell, make our bikes run nearly as fast as Guareschi's

Errr, Dave -- as far as you can tell, WHAT EVIDENCE might be the basis for this particularly lovely leap of Laing-faith?!

 

Enquiring minds (well, you know. . .)

 

Dave, I would hasten to point out AGAIN that until you brought up the MGS-01 and the Big Bore motors, this thread and this discussion had centered around V-11 motors. You seem insistent on confusing and blurring the identity and focus of 3 different motors here. Let's make it clear to anyone who might not understand this that these are distinct and separate motors. I don't know of any credibly documented evidence that a successful conversion of one to the other has EVER been done with documented output for off-road use, let alone for road use, as you seem to imply is as easy and "seamless" as BELIEVING it CAN be done! Now if anyone has any credible information of any kind to the contrary, I'd love to know about it, but sorry -- I don't consider advertizing on a Web page to be the same as a foundation of EVIDENCE for wot you apparently actually BELIEVE!

 

You may be seriously confused here, Dave, but the rest of us are not. Wot most of us are interested in and -- without much of any exception, as I thought I'd pointed out before -- will continue to use as our motive unit, is the V-11 motor. Bringing in poorly documented information on other motors, launching fantastic, though irrelevant and largely baseless ideas, and fabricating torque curves to fit your wildest DREAMS and WISHES may be important to YOU, Dave -- but you've gotta understand that the rest of us live in the REAL WORLD, where our interests are evidently quite a bit more firmly grounded. . .

 

Since Big Bore doesn't publish a torque curve on their Web site, you evidently took it upon yourself to fabricate one, presumably ON BEHALF OF BIG BORE (?!) and post it here. What this has to do with a V-11 motor in the context of the previous discussion escapes me. Now you may well believe in wot you've dreamed-up, Dave -- but please don't presume that anyone else would be so foolish as to accept wot you've imagined as having anything to do with reality.

 

Is it still a "V11" if it has 1400+CCs?

Well, Dave, as far as I'm concerned, since the Big Bore motor requires NO PARTS WHATSOEVER sourced from a V-11, the answer to this would seem to be self-evident, but then, that's just me. Matter of fact, since it appears to use only a MG crank and cases (neither from a V-11, and only one moving MG part) it's not even much of a MG motor, is it?!

 

If you make an effort, you will see that I did an OK job at extrapolating points to scale. It is not perfectly to scale, but it is close enough to scale to show that this engine kit clearly makes more torque than the petty one liter four cylinder "competition"

Err, well Dave -- It would seem that I'd made quite a bit more of an effort than you did with your "OK job". Per my previous post above, I'd noted that your dreamed-up curve shows ~55 lbs/ft. @ 2K RPM, ~65 lbs/ft. @ 3K RPM, and ~95 lbs./ft. @ 5.5K RPM.

 

Once again -- Do you know of any credible dyno pull on any V-11 motor ever done anywhere on THIS planet that would approximate the curve you fabricated, Dave? To make this question easier to answer, do you know of ANY Moto Guzzi motor ever credibly dynoed anywhere (even on another planet) that could pull 55lbs/ft. at 2K RPM (as your dreamed-up curve shows) -- or anything CLOSE?!

This is a kit that is available to all of us, that will, as far as I can tell, make our bikes run nearly as fast as Guareschi's

As far as you can tell, Dave -- based on WOT, praytell? A Web site claim of peak torque? Other than the torque curve that you fabricated yourself, (which I'm sorry, is complete BS) do you have ANY other information at all that would approximate ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that this would be possible to achieve for a road-going V-11??!!

 

Maybe the Guareschi victory is exactly what we need to inspire people to use this fantastic engine kit.

Uh, Dave -- I reckon it might inspire people to use the Big Bore kit -- IF Guareschi's Formula 1 BOTT MGS-01 had used it!

 

Otherwise, there's no EARTHLY connection wotsoever. . .

 

Beating the weight of a Honda VFR will be easy.

Uh huh . . . Let us know when you're there, Dave. Then you can start work on the V-11 torque curve . . .

 

Is it breaking the rules to use a G&B frame as Zeb does?

Uhhh, wot rules, Dave? If you swap out your Guzzi frame for a G&B frame in pursuit of your wildest dreams, I reckon this would make your bike a G&B with a Guzzi motor, much the same as every other G&B.

 

Errr, Dave -- Here's the question I'd posed to you, word-for-word:

 

Getting back to the above fantasy torque curve, do you imagine this is practically achievable for most riders with V-11's on THIS planet? Do you mean to suggest that anything you can dream up, or that someone's claimed to've achieved with other motors is practically achievable with your V-11 for road use, Dave? Are there any actual credible examples of anything close to this that you know of -- anywhere? -- even ONE? Please do advise.

The only example that I know of won the BOT...on this planet, this year.

 

Are you suggesting that the F1 MGS-01 ridden to BOT victories at Daytona by Guareschi this year was a V-11, Dave?

 

Wot you BELIEVE, Dave, would seem to require some serious analysis on quite a few levels. . .

 

Better inform Moto Guzzi and the moto press, they all seem to've got this WRONG!

[helicopterjim R.I.P.]

Wow! Ratchet sure gets upset when someone points out something different or unusual in his posts. I wonder how Dave feels.

 

Maybe I'll go find my MGS dyno graph. It sure had lots of Tq at 3500 rpm.

[Guest Mattress]

Can anyone recommend a good track day event near Chicago? I want to improve my riding skills apart from any safety course. One concern though is possibility of making a mistake and damaging the bike to where I can't ride. Last year I was without the bike for weeks while parts were being looked for and acquired.

 

I haven't ridden too much this spring. Chicago isn't so fun to ride around in with lunatic red light runners and NONE of the streets have timed lights, so it is constant stop and go. I live 11 miles from work in the city. I counted 43 stoplights on my commute. O.k. some I caught green, but 80% or more you don't. Its maddening.

 

I'm thinking of getting a small trailer that a FWD honda civic could pull, so I could get the heck out of the congestion and into the countryside without the headache of doing it on the goose.

[badmotogoozer]

Rat's kinda like Eric Cartman on South Park when they make him Hall Monitor. He runs around whapping the kids on the head screaming "Respect mah Authority!!!".

 

Shame he can't have a spirited discussion without throwing the insults around.

 

Rj

[Guest ratchethack]

Wow! Ratchet sure gets upset when someone points out something different or unusual in his posts. I wonder how Dave feels.

 

Maybe I'll go find my MGS dyno graph. It sure had lots of Tq at 3500 rpm.

Heli-Jim, I reckon somebody has to reel Dave in from time to time.

 

Otherwise he seems to suffer chronic delusions, that, uninterrupted, go wildly careening off . . .

 

There are always neophytes and just plain fools, who, lacking sufficient understanding and common sense, are susceptible to being easily duped. Entire cottage industries thrive, always ready to fleece the unwary, as well as those who perpetually lack discernment.

 

Putting a stake in the heart of the most popular delusions is a dirty job, but somebody's just gotta do it. . .

 

BTW -- I'd be interested in taking a gander at your MGS-01 torque curve myself.

 

TIA

[helicopterjim R.I.P.]

Ahah! Found it. But its the old one. I have a new graph after a bit of cleaning up the leanness and it helped the big Tq dip but the dip is still pronounced. peak HP is up a couple too!

 

[badmotogoozer]

Speaking of chronic delusions - what about the post you deleted Rat??

 

Rj

[Guest ratchethack]

Impressive, Heli-Jim. Sorry about the previously deleted post. I hafta convert to lbs./ft., can't think in Nm.

 

For comparison purposes:

 

Dave's fabricated fantasy curve for the Big Bore motor shows

 

~55 lbs/ft. @ 2K RPM, ~65 lbs/ft. @ 3K RPM, and ~95 lbs./ft. @ 5.5K RPM

 

Your curve shows

 

(off the chart) @ 2K RPM, 59 lbs./ft. @ 3K RPM, and ~73 lbs./ft. at 5.5K RPM

 

Nice torque peak at 85 lbs./ft @ 7K RPM.

 

EDIT: As you noted, that's one wicked hole between 3.7-5K RPM - much more pronounced than the stock V-11.

 

NIIIIICE "hump" from 5-9K RPM, though!!

 

So Dave's fabricated fantasy Big Bore torque curve is 30% higher than your MGS-01 at the V-11 torque peak, 5.5K RPM. And it shows ~55 lbs./ft. just above idle, at 2K RPM.

 

Hmmm. D'you buy it, Heli-Jim?

[Tom M]

 

So Dave's fabricated fantasy Big Bore torque curve is 30% higher than your MGS-01 at the V-11 torque peak, 5.5K RPM. And it shows ~55 lbs./ft. just above idle, at 2K RPM.

 

Hmmm. D'you buy it, Heli-Jim?

 

Nice dyno chart Jim!

 

Ratchet, did you see the dyno chart in the "details" section of the bigbore.it website? The torque curve shows about 7.6 Kgm @ 2000 rpm which equals about 55 ft lbs if my math is right. Maybe the bigbore folks made that up but Dave didn't.

[badmotogoozer]

Impressive, Heli-Jim. Sorry about the previously deleted post. I hafta convert to lbs./ft., can't think in Nm.

 

 

Noooo... that's not why you deleted your post. Why don't you mention anything about reading torque and HP @2000 rpm off Jim's chart?

 

Oh, right... graphs and charts with numbers on them can be confusing, can't they?

 

Rj

[Guest ratchethack]

Ratchet, did you see the dyno chart in the "details" section of the bigbore.it website? The torque curve shows about 7.6 Kgm @ 2000 rpm which equals about 55 ft lbs if my math is right. Maybe the bigbore folks made that up but Dave didn't.

Tom, my sincere thanks for pointing this out!

 

It seems that apologies are due. Mea culpa's all around, and I'm sorry to Dave, to The Forum, and to the Guzzi community at large. I'd been thru the slides at the "details" section many times on that site, and had evidently missed this -- though for whatever reason, the unit of measure descriptions on the chart are impossible to read on my view, and without this, it's not of much use. I may have seen it and discarded it for this reason (can't recall). Now if Dave and others have accurately identified the units of measure and done the conversions and plotted the points and used this for the basis of the aforementioned transposed torque chart, I must stand corrected for my lack of attention to this, and rightfully so!

 

Please accept my apologies for having accused you of a fabrication, Dave. It was an honest mistake, fully admitted and forgiveness begged for.

 

Ryan, you may now let wotever celebration you believe is warranted commence. Perhaps a laughing hyena dance to symbolize the theft of a morsel from the efforts of others?

 

HOWEVER -- Leave us all be clear about the following, Gents. The existence of a chart on the Web site of the mfg'r. doesn't mean that it's anything other than hype -- Nor should anyone else be expected to accept such a chart at face value! Without SOME corroborating independent analysis, it must be considered UNVERIFIED at best. It's certainly less than responsible to be bandying the chart or the numbers about as if they were known to be adequately tested and duplicatable by SOME kind of a credibly verifiable independent source -- and several would be far more preferrable!

 

The numbers presented are NOT believable to Yours Truly. Consider that 55 lbs./ft at 2K RPM, for example, is well over 50% of the claimed torque peak of the Big Bore motor at 5.7K RPM, and only 10 lbs./ft. off the stock V-11 torque peak at 5.5K RPM! At just above IDLE?! Does this sound REASONABLE??

 

Is there anyone ANYWHERE who knows ANYONE with any experience with the Big Bore motor???

 

Does it seem reasonable to expect that if it's available and shipping with any kind of support behind it that it'd be recognized in Guzzi circles -- either pro or con -- SOMEWHERE??

 

EDIT: The chart at the Big Bore site is still not deciperable on the torque legend. HOWEVER, it's pretty clear that the value given by the curve at 2K RPM is THE SAME as the value at 1.5K RPM.

 

This means, Gents, that their claim includes 55lbs./ft. at just a few hundred RPM above idle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Does y'er garden variety farm tractor put out 55 lbs./ft. at 1500 RPM??

 

Does anybody buy that one??

 

Enquiring minds (well, you know)

 

SECOND EDIT:

 

There are (or were) rumors that Guareschi's first Guzzi BOT Guzzi used the Big Bore motor, and only later versions used the MGS-01 motor. If this is true, there seems to be an unusual lack of information about this. For starters, if the Big Bore motor had managed a successful racing campaign in this role, the lack of any mention of it on their Web site would seem more than suspicious. The lack of any mention of any other racing success would seem to make it doubly suspicious.

 

It begs the question that if Guzzi discontinued racing with the Big Bore motor, what would've been the reason -- water cooling suddenly not allowed? Motor not up to racing demands?

 

I'm sure Dave will have all the details, as soon as he gets to an unsupervised logon.

[Dan M]

Can anyone recommend a good track day event near Chicago? I want to improve my riding skills apart from any safety course. One concern though is possibility of making a mistake and damaging the bike to where I can't ride. Last year I was without the bike for weeks while parts were being looked for and acquired.

 

I haven't ridden too much this spring. Chicago isn't so fun to ride around in with lunatic red light runners and NONE of the streets have timed lights, so it is constant stop and go. I live 11 miles from work in the city. I counted 43 stoplights on my commute. O.k. some I caught green, but 80% or more you don't. Its maddening.

 

I'm thinking of getting a small trailer that a FWD honda civic could pull, so I could get the heck out of the congestion and into the countryside without the headache of doing it on the goose.

 

Mattress, If you come across a track day anywhere around here, I'm with you. I live far south (227th) near Indiana. When we ride we generally head south from here - away from the traffic. If you ever wanted to make the trek south, PM me and I'll let you know when / were some guys will meet. We usually do a loosely organized 100-300 mile ride about once a month.