Is it just me?

[Baldini]

...I'll bet that frame design will be the bassis of the new bikes.

 

To me, the frame design was by far the most interesting thing about those bikes - it looked like a clean, fresh, functional, non decorative take on framing the V motor. Dunno about styling of it - didn't look too well thought thru, too vague, esp the curves behind the rocker covers which don't relate to the shape of the motor. Dunno how feasible it is.

 

I'm a sucker for good looking tube frames - like the frame on Millepercento's Alba, shame they swathed it in plastic.

 

KB

[68C]

I am so glad to see this thread. I don't much like the look of the newer (post V11) Guzzis either.

 

I have always liked honesty in design, it should be designed to DO a job, not LOOK like it does. Function really should determine form, I cannot believe those tubes running along the side of the Grisso are truly efficient, I suspect they are just shiny bits.

 

I also have an early Hinkley Triumph with it's version of a spine frame which sadly has an adverse effect on the breathing of the centre cylinder, however it is more honest than the T595. At first I fell in love with those lovely swooping alloy tubes - similar to handbuilt Spondon alloy frames - until I put my hand behind one and found it was only half a tube and cast at that! It was just lies.

 

The V11 Dr John inspired frame may not be pretty but it works - albeit by weighing a ton.

 

Why put covers over ugly bits of a bike, why not make the part attractive in the first place - it really does'nt cost that much more. I am talking to you late model Tonti California with all your little fake plastic chrome bits. Surely a starter motor can be made to look OK without the need for a cover, even if it is in Carbon Fibre - hardly a weight saving if it is an unneccesary extra.

 

I like 'sanitary' bikes, if you can take a part off and the bike still runs and is legal - you did'nt need it.

[GuzziMoto]

I am so glad to see this thread. I don't much like the look of the newer (post V11) Guzzis either.

 

I have always liked honesty in design, it should be designed to DO a job, not LOOK like it does. Function really should determine form, I cannot believe those tubes running along the side of the Grisso are truly efficient, I suspect they are just shiny bits.

 

I also have an early Hinkley Triumph with it's version of a spine frame which sadly has an adverse effect on the breathing of the centre cylinder, however it is more honest than the T595. At first I fell in love with those lovely swooping alloy tubes - similar to handbuilt Spondon alloy frames - until I put my hand behind one and found it was only half a tube and cast at that! It was just lies.

 

The V11 Dr John inspired frame may not be pretty but it works - albeit by weighing a ton.

 

Why put covers over ugly bits of a bike, why not make the part attractive in the first place - it really does'nt cost that much more. I am talking to you late model Tonti California with all your little fake plastic chrome bits. Surely a starter motor can be made to look OK without the need for a cover, even if it is in Carbon Fibre - hardly a weight saving if it is an unneccesary extra.

 

I like 'sanitary' bikes, if you can take a part off and the bike still runs and is legal - you did'nt need it.

While I agree with your general statement (the whole "Less is more" premise) I would disagree with some of you other points. The Griso frame is actually a pretty good example of visually pleasing functionality. The high arcing frame tubes allow for a more rigid structure then if they just went straight back plus it makes room between the rails for the gas tank and alternator. Where it comes up short is in the swingarm pivot area and its extreme length. But all in all it is a pretty good design.

The V11 frame works well not because it is heavy (it is not) but because it is light. What hurts it is its lack of rigidity, it is rigid by 1980's standards not current standards.

The opinions on the modern Triumph frame are not ones I share. If you take issue with a cast frame looking like it is tubes, well that is up to you. There are many other good frames out there doing the same thing. It does not bother me. I would prefer an honest tube frame like the Griso frame, but apparently that is not good enough for some either. You can't please everyone.

 

I am not found of Guzzi's current line up, but they are selling more bikes now then they have in most of their past. That has to be a good thing.

[68C]

Ain't that the truth, they are certainly richer than I am.

 

As with all rants it is important to stir plenty of egg into the mixture.

[Baldini]

...I have always liked honesty in design, it should be designed to DO a job, not LOOK like it does....

 

...high arcing frame tubes allow for a more rigid structure...

How so?

 

..... I would prefer an honest tube frame like the Griso frame, but apparently that is not good enough for some either...

A bit disingenuous - doesn't 68C's post suggest Griso frame is not an honest design? The high run of the tubes looks to me like a styling gimmick. IMV The big-block Tonti frame is an example of an honest design. IMO the spine frame is at heart an honest design thoin it's V11 guise (I don't know about earlier versions) I think you're right about the rigidity.

 

KB

[GuzziMoto]

On the Griso (and the other CARC bikes) the motor is a stressed part of the frame. Think of where the frame connects to the front motor mounts and then where the frame connects to the motor at the back. That is one part of the frame. Now you have the actual frame tubes in question. If they ran as close to the motor as possible the sum total of rigidity between the two would not be that high. But running the tubes up high in something of a mirror image of the lower connection between the steering head and swingarm pivot thru the motor/trans acts as a triangulation and creates a more rigid structure. The larger the load bearing cross section is the greater the rigidity. While the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, that is seldom the most rigid route. Is it perfect, no. There are some allowances made to make it fit the Guzzi Layout. If the heads were not in the way the tubes would likely not be so high. But if the choice was to either keep the tubes out wide and run them up over the cylinder heads or keep them in closer and run them more directly down from the steering head to the S/A pivot I think they made the right choice. It is as close as Guzzi has yet made to a modern perimeter frame. It's biggest shortcoming in my opinion (besides the length, not all blamed on the frame design) is the spindly swing arm pivot tie in.

As for the V11 frame. It is much better from a sport/rigidity aspect then the Tonti frame. The Tonti frame is like the Featherbed frame, an awesome design for it's time, but compared to modern frames it is less then awesome. The spine frame was an improvement from a sporting perspective but by the time of the V11 it was already being left behind by the perimeter frame. For a street bike any one of them can make for an enjoyable ride, in fact it is often said it is more fun to ride a slow bike fast then a fast bike slow.

But don't confuse that with good design.

And I was only poking fun at the duality of 68C's post where on the one hand has was condemning Triumph for a dishonest frame (cast to look like a tube frame) but yet the Griso which is an honest tube frame design he also finds fault with, condemning the arc of the tubes be cause it does not look "right" to him. Now he is entitled to his opinion, all I was doing was eluding to the fact that some people you just can't please. Guzzi people seem to be worse then most sometimes. No harm meant.

[belfastguzzi]

The high arcing frame tubes allow for a more rigid structure then if they just went straight back plus it makes room between the rails for the gas tank and alternator.

 

I too quite like the Griso frame and am not distressed by the high arc of the design. For me it's the big oil cooler box that does the visual damage.

Just as a comment on the room between the frames though: I think that you will have more room in there with your motor, than there is with the 8V 1200. Yes, the space between the wide, high tubes is needed for the tank and the high alternator, but it is all very tight in the 8V, which of course is the current version. I have not seen under the tank of the previous models, but I think that the 8V sits higher. I have previously posted photos of the problems that I found because the tank sits right against the 8V motor. There is rubbing in various places, I found an alternator wire rubbed through to the live cable, I found rubber hoses crushed; and there is no room for manoeuvre with the tight fuel lines and the very tight tank drain lines. The drains exit from the rear of the 8V tank, different to the earlier model and I surmise that is because the 8V motor is too high to have the drain outlets where they were originally designed, so they had to be moved back to the rear end of the tank, where there still isn't room for them.

 

The whole thing is very long of course and my biggest complaint about the design would be its immense weight. From some angles it's beautiful in the way that a bike should be. From other angles it's odd and awkward. Overall, it is the best looking modern Guzzi and the one I chose to buy. It was bought on looks, as no test ride was possible.

[GuzziMoto]

Remember too that the original motor in that frame was the old 4 valve motor from the Daytona.

So yes, a 2 valve motor might have what seems like extra room between the heads and frame (really there is not a lot) but the 4 valve and the 8 valve motors would have very little.

 

If you don't like it that is your choice, But I think it is a great looking bike. I do like the V11 a lot, but not because of its looks. I think the V11 was a sportier bike (especially the red frame versions) with a raw exciting feel. The Griso is a bit of a couch in comparison. And it is very heavy with too much weight on the rear. But it looks great.

[Guzzirider]

I have ridden most of the newer CARC Guzzis (never ridden a Norge or Bellagio) and the bike with the best handling and sportiest feel was the Stelvio which somehow manages to feel a lot lighter on the move than it really is.

 

My Daytona RS still has a sticker from its last race meeting weighing in at 216kgs- thats with lights and stand removed, and oil catch tray added. Assuming it would be a bit heavier than that in stock trim I still reckon it will weigh much less than the newer bikes, even though its no Kate Moss.

 

She will be running race bodywork, Dymags and minimalist lights when I get her back on the road so I wonder how close I can get her to 200kgs?

[Guzzirider]

 

 

I am not found of Guzzi's current line up, but they are selling more bikes now then they have in most of their past. That has to be a good thing.

 

The UK is an exception- I understand that Guzzi sales plummeted last year. Maybe due to a combination of poor dealers, high prices, recession and the fact that performance seems more of a factor when choosing a bike over here.

 

I guess the question is will the current line up of bikes keep sales at a healthy level worldwide for the future?

[68C]

As is becoming obvious I am not a frame designer.

 

I am trying to get my head round why those Grisso tubes are considered more rigid as the arch over the heads, I accept the large diameter advantage but still don't get a curve being stronger than a straight tube. Perhaps a frame can be too rigid - was'nt this a problem with early carbon frames on race bikes? I understood perimeter frames fitted to inline fours evolved as a way of allowing almost vertical carb/throttle bodies to access a large airbox - nothing to do with handling, they are made of a thin wall large cross section construction partly to give the extra strength needed to accept the extra stress of being curved. Modern manufacturing made their use possible, perhaps it was'nt in the mid '70s.

 

My first Guzzi, a T3 new in '79 felt like a Brit bike always should have, torquey - good fuel consumption - leak free - reliable - excellent handling and brakes, something my Norton Commando was'nt.

 

I got the 750 Combat engined Commando new in '72, picked it up in London and drove it the seventy miles home. My Dad asked why the rear indicator was hanging off - the bracket had snapped. The following week the center stand snapped. 2000 miles later the disc brake pad suddenly flew out of the front of the caliper requiring frantic pumping to move the piston to contact the disc. Excellent design, the pads are not pinned in, the thickness of the backing material is the same as the gap between the caliper and the disc, when the friction lining wears out the pad moves. I was lucky it flew out, a mate had his jam the disc! At 3000 miles the main bearings failed, upping the traditional Brit bike rev limit of 6000 to a heady 7000 meant the crank flexed causing the edge of the the roller bearings to dig in - cured by fitting barrel shaped rollers. As for legendary Norton Handling - the rubber mounted swinging arm ensured you always had a story to tell. Having said all that I still have the bike, now halfway through the Great British Winter Rebuild of '98. OK, not a Guzzi story but it is mine.

 

No, the T3 was a relevation although over the years it became clear Guzzi had spent all the money on the engine, gearbox and running parts. Not much left for the seat, electrics, switchgear etc.

 

The new Guzzis are far better bikes than their predecessors, but then they should be, perhaps they have changed the focus on where they spend the money now. I just hope they are not wandering off down a path of cosmetics and follow my leader and lose their soul.

[Baldini]

On the Griso ...

Guzzimoto, whilst I think I understand the point you are making I think it is only one consideration amongst many. Most motorcycles use the engine as a stressed component of the frame, the CARC bikes are not unusual in that. Given the architecture of the Guzzi motor I don't see how a perimeter frame could ever be the optimal solution. IMO a more appropriate & elegant solution with less obtrusive top tubes could have been engineered. I suspect that the Griso design was motivated primarily by styling considerations rather than functional & I think that is symptomatic of a changed focus at Guzzi. Perhaps we could agree to disagree.

 

As for the V11 frame. It is much better from a sport/rigidity aspect then the Tonti frame.....it is more fun to ride a slow bike fast then a fast bike slow.But don't confuse that with good design...

Not really sure what you’re saying here. The Spine frame is a little more sprightly than the Tonti but it looks & feels no more rigid to me. What do you base that idea on? Not sure how such things could be measured esp given different inputs into the chassis from more/less power, tyre grip, forks/shox etc. etc. Both use the motor as a stressed member & rely on bracing at various points for rigidity. I believe the spine frame is inadequately braced (as evidently Guzzi themselves did when they added bracing under trans & strengthened front frame triangulation 02 onwards) & would benefit from some triangulation of the s/a mounts/spine & a decent mount at trans top/frame. I also wonder if the s/a plates in the later iterations are as strong as envisaged originally. Both the Spine & the Tonti suffer from short, relatively weak swinging arms & a heavy drivebox hanging off the back. The Tonti at least has some excuse in the age of it’s design, & the Spine has the advantage of a floating box. With the advent of the short 6 speed box, some of this could have been addressed in the Spine but it wasn’t & it was left with the short s/a etc. I believe Tonti & Spine are both good design. I feel the Spine particularly was let down in part by poor attention to detail, financial & production considerations & a lack of a clear focus & vision for the future.

 

...on the one hand has was condemning Triumph for a dishonest frame (cast to look like a tube frame) but yet the Griso which is (my underline)an honest tube frame design he also finds fault with...

When the Griso is described as a "dishonest" design it is opinion. When you say it's an "honest" design, it's still only an opinion - that you hold it doesn't make it fact!

 

Guzzimoto, no offence is intended to you by any of this & I hope none is taken - it's just opinion. I do think Guzzi have lost there way a bit. It's also interesting what Guzzirider says about sales in UK as against the rest of the world. We may be getting different pictures.

 

KB

[Baldini]

As is becoming obvious I am not a frame designer..

Don't worry, you're not the only one. I've doodled plenty but never built a bike frame in my life! Doesn't stop me spouting tho .

 

I am trying to get my head round why those Grisso tubes are considered more rigid as the arch over the heads, I accept the large diameter advantage but still don't get a curve being stronger than a straight tube.

Strength in a structure is relative to the force acting on it & that force's direction. An upward curve may better resist a downward compressive force than a straight line laid horizontal. But a straight line will be more able to resist compression applied at it's ends along it's length. It's about what is appropriate in any given situation. But there are thousands of factors & really I know very little about it.

 

...I just hope they are not wandering off down a path of cosmetics and follow my leader and lose their soul

Me too.

 

KB

[68C]

Hi Warren, did not mean to steal your thread. As stated I think I agree with you.

 

Incidently, the company I work for set up an operation in Australia some ten years ago - they have proven the stronger section. We have just had a bunch of Aussie senior managers come over and restructure the original UK section. Are all Aussie managers so tough and brutal? - make the Americans seem positively benign.

[belfastguzzi]

If you don't like it that is your choice,

No, my post was saying the opposite. I bought it because it looks good (mostly good but not completely great from all viewpoints).

 

The UK is an exception- I understand that Guzzi sales plummeted last year. Maybe due to a combination of poor dealers, high prices, recession and the fact that performance seems more of a factor when choosing a bike over here.

I guess the question is will the current line up of bikes keep sales at a healthy level worldwide for the future?

 

I understand the UK performance was 357 units sold when the target was 650.