V11 Suspension.......

[raceboy]

Hey boys & girls,

 

I've read on this forum that the V11 the ride/handling is acceptable, but if pushed harder the V11 tends show its suspension short comings. Now, I have read all (or most) info regarding fork and shock setup etc.; but the the topic I would like to get into is not so much component setup but the 'Geometry' of the V11.

 

The comments relate to the length of the swing arm and the front steering head geometry. What are the thoughts regarding the swing arm? What should or can be done? How should have Guzzi designed it? Thoughts about the front steering head/fork geometry?

 

May be some of the guys who have raced the V11 over the years and have done work along these lines can contribute as well. Where can this info be obtained?

 

Looking forward to everyone's thoughts.

 

Cheers,

Raceboy

[dlaing]

Cool question!

Some things that can be done are frame bracing.

Later V11s have alot more bracing and thus are more stable, but possibly less "fun" Also later V11s have slightly different geometry.

If your objective is better handling and money ( within reason ) is no object, then you might consider custom pork chops to move the swing arm axis more inline with the U-joint access. This will shorten the wheel base significantly, making the heavy bike more nimble. You would have to shorten the shaft for this to work.

Negatives are increased rear weight bias, more torque effect on shaft, possibly worse foot peg ergos, and less comfort over bumps, which are presumably reasons Guzzi went in the other direction. Forum member Paul M. did something similar to his bike, not a V11...He can better explain the positive reasons for the mod.

A sharper steering angle should make it more nimble. I think there may be a bearing kit that steepens the angle.

Shedding weight, especially unsprung weight will help. Wheels are the easiest place to make big gains, but why stop there?

Battery location could be moved to just behind front wheel, if you go with a smaller battery or pair of batteries.

Rear sub-frame could go on a diet, especially if rear seating is eliminated.

Drilling cush drive allegedly makes for smoother reaction to throttle input.

Obviously improvements to spring rate and damping can be made. I went with Olins forks and Penske shock, but there are many options.

I think Guzzi did a fine job, but should have specified lighter wheels and firmer springs.

[raceboy]

Thanks dlaing for your thoughts.

 

I have the 2004 V11 which I believe has the extra bracing (frame to engine down low at back of engine) and has the longer wheelbase as dlaing explained. By the way, what did Guzzi change to make the later V11's longer in the wheel base... steering angle, frame, swing arm???

 

Yes no doubt the V11 needs to go on a diet which I'm slowly working on and hopefully wheels will be included. Also something else that dlaing mentioned is weight re-allocation or re-distribution i.e. the battery. This exercise helps to fine tune the handling of a bike.

 

Generally when a new Japanese sport / super bike has an issue with the swing arm (strength / geometry, etc.) someone specs a new swing arm to deal with the issue(s) and everyone is happy. Has anyone designed a new swing arm for the V11??? The trick is to know what the new dimensions should be. I have no problem in making a swing arm, I've made two in the past for my race bikes.... (not pretty but worked).

 

The steering head angle can be changed by swapping out stock bearings for the 1 degree offset head bearings or cut and re-weld the head stock, more time consuming than expensive.

 

I am curious about the 'Pork Chop' rework and the drilling of the 'Cushdrive'. I'd like to hear more about that.

 

I've searched high and low for a new O.E.M. Ohlins shock without luck, so I'm in the process of getting ready to buy a Penske shock. I will deal with the front forks once the new shock is in place. This should take care of the basics of V11 handling. (By the way, if anyone knows where I can find a new O.E.M. Ohlins SPEAK NOW!!!)

 

I recently bought a large 'Hobby' CNC Milling Machine. Should be setup as soon as the space is cleared out.

I'm looking forward to making some goodies for the V11. I have some ideas but always looking for suggestions and / or drawings.

 

Cheers Eh!

Raceboy

[Murray]

Part of the vaugue front end of the v11 even when compared to the older 1100 sport is the lower seat height and the switch to high rise bars I think there would be a significant gain to be had buy simply going back to clip ons under the top yoke. This would transfer more of the rider weight onto the front wheel in order to give it better direction. Depending on which V11 you had i would seriously consider going back to the 4.5 inch rim and the 160 size rear tyre. It will never feel like a modern fire blade but Guzzi trying to adapt a sports bike frame for touring didn't do it any favours. Oh and seriously consider getting rid of the stock steering damper even on its lowest setting it drags on the steering quiet a bit, on the 1100 sport I run none at all but some people aren't comfortable with that idea.

[Dan M]

Hey RB,

 

You do have the long frame bike.

Much can be done to improve handling but you will get to a point of diminishing returns. Trying to chase the weight and handling of a modern sport bike is a bit unreasonable.

That said, the stuff that seems to make the most difference IMHO are these. Proper springing of the fork and a better properly sprung shock will do wonders. Dropping the front end 10 to 13mm quickens things too. A 170 section rear tire also improves steering as does lighter wheels. The lighter wheels and 170 tire quickened the steering on my bike enough for me to go back and raise the front some for more stability.

I looked into offset steering bearings before the other mods were made. Now I'm glad I left it alone. Part of the MG charm is how it takes high speed sweepers as if on rails. Too much of the above and that will be lost.

 

Hope this helps

[Guest ratchethack]

Hey boys & girls,

 

I've read on this forum that the V11 the ride/handling is acceptable, but if pushed harder the V11 tends show its suspension short comings. Now, I have read all (or most) info regarding fork and shock setup etc.; but the the topic I would like to get into is not so much component setup but the 'Geometry' of the V11.

 

The comments relate to the length of the swing arm and the front steering head geometry. What are the thoughts regarding the swing arm? What should or can be done? How should have Guzzi designed it? Thoughts about the front steering head/fork geometry?

 

May be some of the guys who have raced the V11 over the years and have done work along these lines can contribute as well. Where can this info be obtained?

 

Looking forward to everyone's thoughts.

 

Cheers,

Raceboy

RB, the comments above are all spot-on, IMHO (with a coupla exceptions I won't comment on).

 

Your Q's are oriented toward chassis performance, rather than the typical "creative" butt jewelry pursuits of the Parking Lot Posers and Parade Float Builders crowd, or the even more typical practice of blindly chasing peaks on dyno charts. Refreshing!

 

But without a deeper understanding of your objectives and what's "acceptable" for you, I find your inquiry a bit hard to respond to with specifics. If you're looking to redesign the chassis and do such things as relocate the swingarm pivot to lengthen the swingarm, and maybe go to a linked rising-rate design chasing handling, I assume you have both the objective and capability of more or less building up a new chassis from scratch. If competitive racing is your objective, of course multiple Pandora's boxes await you dead ahead, as well as on all sides -- as you well know, if you possess the requisite expertise. Maybe this is exactly the set of challenges you're looking for? If so, more power to you, and I applaud your intent.

 

Relative to leading competitive motor/chassis designs, you know that it's for the most part going to remain a relative slug no matter what you do, being a 50-year-old air cooled pushrod motor design with a fairly crude FI shoe-horned to fit, with a rear suspension design found on bikes 60 years ago (and with a few notable exceptions, not much found on current designs on or off the track ever since), being a good 150 lbs. overweight and severely underpowered, with a great whallopping rear weight bias, and an unsprung weight of the rear wheel assembly that can never be trimmed to much less than a boat-anchor-hefty 50 lbs. without converting to chain drive (yeah, that's been done, too).

 

Most "Racer Boys" tend to recognize most of the above up front, and would've bought into a proper platform for building a competitive "race bike" in the first place.

 

But to respond to your Q's on "what should Guzzi have done?" and "What can be done?", I reckon opinions vary, are limitless, and how high is the sky? A better set of Q's to start with might be, "How big is your bank account?" and "How much time and effort are you envisioning here?" I reckon it could suck up more than all you've got in all categories for the rest of your life.

 

We've had posters on this Forum who're notorious for singing the limitless praises of replacing every single component on the V11 with something "better" sans the gearbox case by my tally, chasing "improvements". . . And if you're converting to a far more "performance" oriented chain drive chassis, you can take the gearbox case out too. This begs further Q's; "How much can you completely replace on a V11 with non-Guzzi components before it's no longer a V11?", and if you know up front that you're going past that point anyway -- "Wouldn't it be lots easier, cheaper, and quicker to start from scratch and build a "bitsa whatsit" from the ground up??"

 

Not that this is always the case, mind you (heaven forfend!), but some (far more than would ever admit it, I know for a fact in 2 out of 2 cases I'm most familiar with) have gone many tens of thou $$ USD down the "bolt on the bling" path in the general direction of poorly defined 'V11 Nirvana' objectives, and wound up deeply regretting it, having stuck themselves with unrideable boat-anchors that they sold off in disgust at a great loss, just to get them out of their sight, cursing Guzzi into perpetuity, and rueing the day they first saw the one they bought and immediately started hacking up. The aforementioned two such sad cases were in my own neighborhood, both with my exact year and model V11. One of the 2 left his "silent" account behind him on this Forum many years ago without the slightest admission wotsoever of the deep hole he'd dug himself into, nor was there any hint here of his regret at doing what he'd done prior to dumping his Guzzi at a huge loss for another new bike that he could actually enjoy riding. Both of these guys curse Guzzis publicly to this day. Many more find themselves on the never-ending shining path to the "Unreachable Dream" and tell you they just enjoy "the journey" -- and to each his own. I'm still happily riding mine pretty regularly.

 

IMHO, best throw some kind of a fence around your objectives up front, and at least consider enjoying the bike for what it is, with all its limitations -- not for what it isn't, never has been, and never can be.

 

But o' course, that's just me, and I'm merely a crotchety old Road Geez who's somehow continued to find a great deal of enjoyment in his V11 on the road, once properly sprung and the OE chassis is set-up correctly as it was designed in the first place (a far more unheard-of than heard-of circumstance, it would seem ), and who considers it far beyond "acceptable" (not to mention sensible, reasonable, and preferrable) to avoid the track altogether. . .

 

There are lots more hereabouts who do pretty much the same as me (give or take), but who would never admit to such foolishness. . .

[raceboy]

Maybe I should have explained myself a little better. I bought a Moto Guzzi V11 for one reason and one reason only..... Because it is a Moto Guzzi.

When I was endurance racing during the 80's I fell in love with that brute of an bike from Dr. John Wittner. Since then I've always wanted one, and last year finally bought one. I'm just glad I didn't race in the GTO class against Dr J's Guzzi.

 

I'm not trying to take a 2004 V11 and re-create the latest R1-CBR-GSXR-ZX track ripping beast. I'm not even trying to recreate Dr. John's Guzzi. I just want a cool and enjoyable bike to blast some country twisties up here, some sport touring (Guzzi Rallies), maybe head down to the cafe and pose with a chick on the back (insert wet dream here) and the occasional lap on the track...................................

 

BUT let me make it clear. If I want to turn fast laps, on a race track, on a race bike, on race slicks I will use either my open class MX motor in a TZ 250 frame or my new Aprilia RS125........ Can YOU SaY YYEEEEHHAAAAAAAA opps sorry wrong forum.

 

I thought I would ask and get into an interesting discussion, throw some ideas around and if something reasonable comes out it I might even try it. Making a swing arm ... maybe. Designing and constructing a new frame..... only if I had a spare motor and was putting it on the track, and at this age can't be bothered anymore.

 

I'm not into the bling-bling factor; well save for the Rizoma bar-end mirror. I only buy or make parts that serve to improve in what ever capacity from the original part used. I know a swing arm swap is a major undertaking for most, and for some bolting on a carrier or luggage case is a major project that requires a dealers help. I'm not suggesting that we all go broke and crazy to build the ultimate Guzzi.... someone beat us to it; MGS-01.

 

Umm, so lets continue....

 

Cheers,

aka JohnnyTheBoy ...... if anyone knows what movie that was from they get a cookie

[The Monkey]

This is interesting, here is a question for all. Would it be possible to attain the old (shorter wheelbase) and reduced rake angle (later model long frame) by cutting neck off the latter and welding/gusseting it onto the older spine. Assuming you were starting with an early model would this give you the desired reduction in rake and wheelbase in addition to getting down to a 160 rear tyre? Also is any butchery required to mount the extra aft supports from the late frame on the early frame. I ask this as a friend has just straightened and gusseted a tweaked early neck. Also to give more food to the thought process going on.

[GuzziMoto]

Well, Raceboy. You walked right into that one didn't you.

There is some truth to what Hack says, you can mess up a Guzzi with mis-guided mods. But the reality is you can mess up ANY bike with mis-guided mods. But the potential rewards for modding a Guzzi are greater then the potential rewards for modding most other bikes due to the higher un-realized potential in the bike. Most Jap bikes come from the factory already achieving most of what they can do and doing it quite well. Playing with swingarm length and chassis geometry is not something to take lightly. But that is not to say that it is not a path that offers improvement. The early V11's had steeper steering rake, narrower rear tires /rims, and quicker steering as a result. Later bikes are dumbed down a little because some people thought quicker steering on a Guzzi was a bad thing. I do not agree. There are various ways to alter the later bikes to work like the early bikes, everything from offset bearing kits to Computrack. The effect of the rear rim width should not be under estimated. The swing arm length is a harder thing to modify as well as predict the results of said modification. But in my opinion a longer swing arm with the pivot point lined up better with the U joint up front along with the rear axle moved back, couples with moving the front wheel back closer to the engine would be the way I would go if I had the time and money to throw at it. But that is not likely to happen any time soon.

As far as the basic design of the Guzzi rear suspension and chassis, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with it and there is little advantage in my opinion to redesigning it. The same design concepts are used on other modern bikes to great effect, It is not the outdated stone axe some would have you believe. It is true that the basic design concepts Guzzi has employed for the V11 chassis are quite old, It is probably the best handling street legal Guzzi ever to come out of the factory. There is room for improvement, but as with any such project if you don't know where you're going you'll probably end up somewhere else. Somewhere you may not want to be.

Best of luck to ya'. Don't let the nay sayers beat ya down and keep us posted on what you do and how it works. If Dr John listened to people like Hack we would not have a V11 in the first place.

 

Edit; the first Road Warrior movie

[Guest ratchethack]

This is interesting, here is a question for all. Would it be possible to attain the old (shorter wheelbase) and reduced rake angle (later model long frame) by cutting neck off the latter and welding/gusseting it onto the older spine. Assuming you were starting with an early model would this give you the desired reduction in rake and wheelbase in addition to getting down to a 160 rear tyre?

If I understand this correctly (not at all sure), it is indeed possible to cut and re-weld the frame to go from the "long frame" 26 degree rake (as on all V11's with the exception of the "short frame" 2000 Sport and Rosso Mandello) to achieve the steeper 25 degree rake of the "short frame" bikes. I'm aware of at least one who claims to've done this. Assuming this could be done properly and with the right precision, it could obviously be done in either direction.

 

Motivations would seem to vary, but dropping the triples on the forks by one inch achieves the same geometry change in rake and trail (26 to 25 degrees), while giving up considerable ground clearance. By the same token, raising rear ride height by an inch also accomplishes the same, while gaining considerable ground clearance.

 

Also is any butchery required to mount the extra aft supports from the late frame on the early frame. I ask this as a friend has just straightened and gusseted a tweaked early neck. Also to give more food to the thought process going on.

Lots of guys have explored this one, but none I'm aware of have done it. One of the requirements to use the OE "upgrade" under-porkchop gussets is having the engine block milled to accept mounting studs at exactly the correct points. This generally seems to've looked at least enough like potential butchery and ensuing mayhem to many to take most o' the starch out of the idea.

[GuzziMoto]

This is interesting, here is a question for all. Would it be possible to attain the old (shorter wheelbase) and reduced rake angle (later model long frame) by cutting neck off the latter and welding/gusseting it onto the older spine. Assuming you were starting with an early model would this give you the desired reduction in rake and wheelbase in addition to getting down to a 160 rear tyre? Also is any butchery required to mount the extra aft supports from the late frame on the early frame. I ask this as a friend has just straightened and gusseted a tweaked early neck. Also to give more food to the thought process going on.

You can achieve this with an offset bearing kit for less trouble then cutting and rewelding. And unless you have absolute faith in your welder I would go the off set bearing route.

The steeper rake is, I believe, what gives the earlier V11s a shorter wheel base. There are several ways to get there from here.

[Guest ratchethack]

. . . the potential rewards for modding a Guzzi are greater then the potential rewards for modding most other bikes due to the higher un-realized potential in the bike. Most Jap bikes come from the factory already achieving most of what they can do and doing it quite well.

Interesting, GMoto. Seems you've made quite the broad, unsubstantiated claim here^.

 

Got any examples to back this up?

 

Are you referring to engine performance mods? If so, according to consistent statements to the contrary for at least 6 years on this Forum by Pro wrench, engine builder, and erstwhile Guzzi race team pit crew chief Pete Roper, all posted as clearly as any statements he's ever made here, you've got this exactly backwards.

 

Here's one of many, as only Pete can put it, when explaining that the V11 motor was delivered with very nearly all the reliable output it's capable of producing (the emphasis is mine):

Firstly I'd like to ask people how much reliability they are prepared to sacrifice? The Guzzi donk is essentially unchanged in it's oveall architechture since it's inception in 1967. It is, in all real ways, a horrible, antedeluvian bit of shit that should of been put out to pasture at the very latest by 1985 but it still keeps soldiering on. Why?

 

Well basically because it is a profoundly GOOD design, punching far above it's weight and delivering a magnificence of true *ROAD* performance. No, it doesn't make 100BHP. No it's BMEP figures compared to anything *modern* are pitiable. Who really gives a fat, flying f*ck?

 

If you want endless power go out and buy something that will give it to you straight out of the crate! Why even bother with THINKING about a Guzzi?

 

The Current V11, or subsequent Griso/Breva engine is taken about as far as you can take the design and still hope to have any semblance of reliability. The cam fitted to the V11 is very similar to the old P3/SS cam and when we were fitting these in the eighties it was accepted that there was a trade off in terms of engine component longevity. You can fit much wilder cams, (a 620 x 8 from Megacycle for example.) but you start running into all sorts of problems, not just with reliability but also with simple clearances. Nobody seems to think about the engine architecture and the fact that as the camshaft spins the cam lobes approach the rods. This is one of the main limiting factors. Clearance! The reason why Guzzi rods were changed with the advent of the V11 was that the longer stroke and larger cam meant that if the old, dimensionally identical, rods were fitted the cam lobes biffed the tops of the rod bolts! you don't have to be a Mensa member to realize that this wouldn't be a good thing .

 

Yes, you can drag over 100BHP out of a V11 engine. BUT it will be a touchy, cantankerous pig with virtually no enjoyment to be had anywhere but on a race track. If you ride on the track? Fine, but expect race track sized maintenance bills too!!!!

 

The old saw of valve sizes is also one of the crustiest chestnuts in the book. Guzzi downszed the valves in the V11 motor from those in the 'Big Valve' LeMans for two main reasons. 1.) they could reduce the weight of the pistons a motza and b.) it gave a much cleaner combustion chamber shape allowing a better flame path and less places for end gas to get trapped. While any 'High Compression' piston will probably be a lot lighter than stock, (the FBF items are Wisecos, a good piston but I can get similar items forged here that weigh less.) a larger dome will, once again, compromise the combustion chamber shape and offer a greater chance fo the retention of detonation inducing end gasses to remain to contaminate the new charge. Cylinder fill, where it matters, in the midrange, is greatly assisted by smaller valves. That's the reason why with Phil's Mk IV LeMans based racebike we are going to be running mid-valve heads, not the big valvers it came with! Big valve are a pox on a slow reving 2 valve hemi like a Guzzi!

 

Also, look at the fuel you're burning! It's crap, and it ain't gunna get any better! As for the bloke who gets his missus to follow him around in a van with special petrol???? Sorry, but I just don't know what to say. Are you bonkers? buying a really goo shock for the back and getting your suspension set up by an aknowledged expert will give you far more performance AND pleasure than running race fuel and you won't have a significant other who doubts your sanity into the bargain!

 

No I'm not saying that keeping it standard is *best*, (Although it's certainly the easiest way of going about things.) but be sensible or expect to pay huge dollars in upkeep. I'll certainly be modifying my Griso but I'll also be realistic about what i can achieve and what I think that is is more to do with freeing up what it already has rather than chasing some Quixotic fantasy!

FWIW, in paragraph #7 above, Pete is referring to the other of the 2 aforementioned local former Guzzi Sport owners in my county, whose experience I had recounted in that thread. He was the one who never posted here, whose Sport had been modded into literal unrideability, and who eventually dumped it after a year of frustration and heartache, in favor of a bike he could actually ride and enjoy. He's no slouch, and ironically enough is STILL pretty well-connected with some of the premier Guzzi expertise on the planet, having been the Pres of a moto riding club with several hundred members for over 10 years. He'd often remarked to me how he envied me and my Guzzi, because unlike his (again, same bike from the factory as his), mine produces reliable, tractable power, and I can ride mine comfortably anywhere I want on pump gas -- none of which was possible with his highly modded Sport.

 

In comparison to the V11, it's quite common to buy a used UJM 4 600, and fairly quickly and inexpensively bump the output on the dyno to achieve 150% of the PERCENTAGE IMPROVEMENT in tractable road-going dyno output that anyone has EVER achieved with a V11.

 

Now, perhaps you're referring to chassis performance mods in your claim above, GMoto? If so, can you cite any well documented accounts of any modified V11 chassis that "unlocks the high un-realized potential of the bike" to back up your baseless statement above? How about just one?

 

Enquiring minds. . . (well, you know). . .

[Paul Minnaert]

well, I have some experience. But not all mods work seperate. When changing the head angle, you also best have shorther triple clamps. Now you have 40mm, I have 30. 35 would do I think.

My steeringhead was 64 degrees, is now 66. The frontwheel is real close to the alternator.

I extended the v11 swingarm 60 to the front, and the swingarm pivot is moved 70mm forward. So at the back the bike is 10mm shorther. And swingarm is from 400 to 460mm. Since then the rear suspension works as it should.

Wheelbase 1430mm, suspension from ohlins front & rear.

 

I have a 1225cc engine with 115hp at the wheel, but from the mods, I think the frame things make the most difference, and give most fun.

[Guest ratchethack]

I hadn't forgotten your Daytona, Paul. Are you aware of any such chassis mods known to be successful on a V11?

[GuzziMoto]

Good lord you are thick, Hack. How is it in a thread about chassis and suspension setup you go off on a pointless rant about engine performance? WTF? And to answer your question (I think there was a question in all that drival), you can BUY the parts to alter your late model V11 to mimic the early V11 steering geometry. It is not a secret and it is not voodoo. It works. Whether you want your V11 to steer like a early V11 or not is a personal preference thing. It is not a case of better or worse as much as it is different. I'm sure someone who thinks if Guzzis were meant to have better brakes then they have they would have come with them from the factory would not do such a thing, but for the rest of us it is a viable choice.

If you choose to try offset bearings, and/or lengthen the swingarm in an attempt to achieve better weight distribution, reduce the amount of weight it has with lighter wheels or other parts, move the weight the bike does have around in an attempt to improve on the way it came stock, or even put a narrower tire on the rear then what it came with, then more power to you as long as it's what you want. The fact that Hack does not seem to think the V11 needs to be improved upon (or can be improved upon) is meaningless and unimportant. I am sure it is fair to say that most of the owners here have moddified their V11s in some way from stock and feel that that mod has made their V11 a more enjoyable bike to ride, even Hack has altered his V11 from stock.

I'm not going to touch the whole motor mod thing as you've posted that same quote before and I said what I think then (I believe that thread was actually about motor mods).