TLM Guzzi

[knumbnutz]

ok, im not sure this is a V11... but I had to share with someone!!! so beautiful..

What do you guys think?

 

[mcgregor168]

Who stole the wings?



Sent from my SM-A530F using Tapatalk
 

[Lucky Phil]

Love the engineering but totally irrational at just about every level. Where's the fuel supposed to go, the tank is about the size the airbox needs to be. The exhausts will burn your legs off and it's a twin with the frontal area of a barn door. All this at just a glance. As I said lovely engineering but totally flawed as a motorcycle.

Ciao  

[KINDOY2]

Saw that on FaceBook last night..I appreciate all the hard work that went into this..the paint idea and workmanship looks awesome too....sometimes things dont have to be practical to still be awesome imo.

 

[Lucky Phil]

7 hours ago, KINDOY2 said:

Saw that on FaceBook last night..I appreciate all the hard work that went into this..the paint idea and workmanship looks awesome too....sometimes things dont have to be practical to still be awesome imo.

 

It's not about practical it's about useable. None of my bikes are what I would call practical but this thing is virtually unusable. Dont get me wrong I think it's a great engineering exercise and look toughs but it's in the realms of a designer bike for mine or one of those specials with a car engine in it.  Still rideable......but not in the real world rideable. Not even race track rideable at any sort of serious pace either.

The real genius as a designer and engineer is making something that's not only engineeringly superior but fulfils the criterion of a usable package be it a cruiser, sports bike, tourer or race bike. That's where the genius lies. Anyone with a bit of engineering nouse, the money, time and equipment can come up with something like this but at the end of the day it's just a bit of engineering masturbation if it's not seriously competent at anything.        

Ciao 

[footgoose]

4 hours ago, Lucky Phil said:

It's not about practical it's about useable. None of my bikes are what I would call practical but this thing is virtually unusable. Dont get me wrong I think it's a great engineering exercise and look toughs but it's in the realms of a designer bike for mine or one of those specials with a car engine in it.  Still rideable......but not in the real world rideable. Not even race track rideable at any sort of serious pace either.

The real genius as a designer and engineer is making something that's not only engineeringly superior but fulfils the criterion of a usable package be it a cruiser, sports bike, tourer or race bike. That's where the genius lies. Anyone with a bit of engineering nouse, the money, time and equipment can come up with something like this but at the end of the day it's just a bit of engineering masturbation if it's not seriously competent at anything.        

Ciao 

I hear you. I wouldn't/couldn't build it. Wouldn't/couldn't buy it. Would repaint it, ride it and sell it if someone gave it to me. As far as genius goes, Einstein's early works likely weren't the best of his career. I find it refreshing and encouraging that talented engineering types are even in to motorcycling, instead of coffee bean grinders or hover boards. This is 'hot rodding'.This is art. It doesn't physically fit into my definition of 'cool', but what does fit cool is the bastard used his talent's and vision to create it. That is where I find practical and use.

Masturbation is not a good word for this exercise in creativity. Practice is maybe a better one. He want's approval. He has mine, but I'll bet after seeing my credentials, he could care less.

So many things come to mind that are useless and marvelous at the same time. This level of devotion is easy to defend.

 

[po18guy]

12 hours ago, KINDOY2 said:

Saw that on FaceBook last night..I appreciate all the hard work that went into this..the paint idea and workmanship looks awesome too....sometimes things dont have to be practical to still be awesome imo.

 

Clearly a closed-circuit bike. Whole lotta work, but this thing must be 25-35 years old(?) Heads with intakes on top and 2-1 port on the exhaust side. Out there where it will cool. A round fin 5 speed probably to stay with a 1 liter limit(?).  The chain drive, for all of its anachronistic charm, would be far less hassle than the shaft. Consider: you can get gold Stealth alloy/steel sprockets with matching RK chain. And, no grease gun or Italian curses needed to lube it. 

I wish the guy lived close by and got tired of hassling with it...

Actually, I wonder how or why Guzzi did not simply make a 4-valve pushrod engine? The rockers are wide enough to cover two smaller valves on either side. Remember when Krauser made 4-valve units for the Beemer airheads? Something like that. 

[Lucky Phil]

You have to laugh I guess. Look at that frontal area/width. I can tell you from years of Ducati track bikes open belts aren't the best idea in the world and Ducati belts are relatively protected compared to these, however if you made nice carbon covers for them then you you'd protect the belts and lose virtually all your cooling. I'd like it in my lounge room on display though.

It's a tool room engine looking for a sensible home.

Ciao 

[po18guy]

14 hours ago, Lucky Phil said:

You have to laugh I guess. Look at that frontal area/width. I can tell you from years of Ducati track bikes open belts aren't the best idea in the world and Ducati belts are relatively protected compared to these, however if you made nice carbon covers for them then you you'd protect the belts and lose virtually all your cooling. I'd like it in my lounge room on display though.

It's a tool room engine looking for a sensible home.

Ciao 

The Japanese would figure a way to run those belts off the rear of the crank, or via jackshaft instead of the front. Still, a 4-valve pushrod engine would be sane, as the revs are limited from the get-go. No need for an 11k valvetrain. Remember the Guzzi (slightly modified) that gave John Britten's bike a headache until Italian reliability took it out of the race?

[Nihontochicken]

 On 8/3/2020 at 9:36 PM, po18guy said:

Actually, I wonder how or why Guzzi did not simply make a 4-valve pushrod engine?

22 hours ago, po18guy said:

Still, a 4-valve pushrod engine would be sane, as the revs are limited from the get-go. No need for an 11k valvetrain. 

What these guys said.  Pushrods are all that's needed for a 500cc+ piston that will never see five digit RPM.  Then again, a bevel drive shaft overhead cam system like the '70s Ducatis would be super spiff, especially with a "gear gazer" window at the top bevel, not to mention the ability to adjust the valves on the bench.  Big manufacturing bucks, though. 

 

 

[Lucky Phil]

4 hours ago, Nihontochicken said:

What these guys said.  Pushrods are all that's needed for a 500cc+ piston that will never see five digit RPM.  Then again, a bevel drive shaft overhead cam system like the '70s Ducatis would be super spiff, especially with a "gear gazer" window at the top bevel, not to mention the ability to adjust the valves on the bench.  Big manufacturing bucks, though. 

 

 

There's a reason the Daytona engine is a High cam and not an OHC engine. It by and large keeps the cam drive out of the way of the cooling air flow and still allows it to be protected by covers. Pushrod engines have their place but OHC is more efficient with less complexity and wearing parts. Pushrod engines are generally more compact. There's a hundred years worth of discussion on this but there's also a reason the for the most part pushrod engines are gradually dyeing out in the motorcycle/automotive world.

Ciao  

[po18guy]

Ah, when you are building rolling anachronisms, why complicate things? F.I. was mandatory. But pushrods and 4 valves would be as easy to adjust and far simpler.

[Lucky Phil]

1 hour ago, po18guy said:

Ah, when you are building rolling anachronisms, why complicate things? F.I. was mandatory. But pushrods and 4 valves would be as easy to adjust and far simpler.

Have you seen the modern engine valve adjustment requirements? My Focus RS, 2.3 litre twin cam DOHC Turbo 350HP stock, no valve adjustment intervals at all. No routine adjustment ever required. Modern 4 cylinder Superbike engines are out to 40,000 klm plus adjustment intervals from memory, probably more.

Pushrod engines are more complicated. A basic modern twin cam engine has a cam chain and runner and a tensioner and 2 cams over adjustable buckets. A basic modern pushrod engine these days has a camchain (sometimes a tensioner) pushrods, cam, lifters, rocker arms, rocker arm pins or studs, valve clearance adjustment screws and locknuts, and we won't even go into the interior of the hydraulic lifters themselves with the closest tolerance components in the whole engine and highly sensitive to oil contamination.

I read the development history of the Gen111 series of Chevrolet engines and wondered why when they were starting with a brand new design they retained pushrods. The 2 principle reasons were, they wanted an engine for all applications from delivery trucks to a Corvette and so being compact dimensionally was a factor esp for delivery van type applications and the designers at Chev were to scared to go down the OHC route because they had no OHC experience to speak of and knew pushrod engines inside out. Lucky the Gen 111 family turned out to be a great engine albeit pretty poor in the hp to capacity stakes. 

  

Ciao 

[LowRyter]

9 hours ago, Lucky Phil said:

Have you seen the modern engine valve adjustment requirements? My Focus RS, 2.3 litre twin cam DOHC Turbo 350HP stock, no valve adjustment intervals at all. No routine adjustment ever required. Modern 4 cylinder Superbike engines are out to 40,000 klm plus adjustment intervals from memory, probably more.

Pushrod engines are more complicated. A basic modern twin cam engine has a cam chain and runner and a tensioner and 2 cams over adjustable buckets. A basic modern pushrod engine these days has a camchain (sometimes a tensioner) pushrods, cam, lifters, rocker arms, rocker arm pins or studs, valve clearance adjustment screws and locknuts, and we won't even go into the interior of the hydraulic lifters themselves with the closest tolerance components in the whole engine and highly sensitive to oil contamination.

I read the development history of the Gen111 series of Chevrolet engines and wondered why when they were starting with a brand new design they retained pushrods. The 2 principle reasons were, they wanted an engine for all applications from delivery trucks to a Corvette and so being compact dimensionally was a factor esp for delivery van type applications and the designers at Chev were to scared to go down the OHC route because they had no OHC experience to speak of and knew pushrod engines inside out. Lucky the Gen 111 family turned out to be a great engine albeit pretty poor in the hp to capacity stakes. 

  

Ciao 

Phil, as a Corvette owner with an LS-3 engine, I have to say it's one of the great ones.  In fact, on just about every high end hot rod build TV show, the "go to" engine is the LS-3.  Chevy has updated to the LT series engine with the same basic design but with direct fuel injection.  The older engine is still most popular with hot rod builders in Chevy's catalog.

For sure, based on power to engine displacement the push rod engine losses out to DOHC.  But wait, there's more ways to look at this.  Compare the 6.2 liter Chevy to the 5.0 DOHC Mustang GT and both of them make close to the same power but the Chevy engine is physically smaller, carries weight lower in the car, weighs less (all aluminum), has more torque, gets similar power, better gas mileage, easier to maintain, cheaper to build and much simpler design.   It also hauls ass like an American V8.  But "only" revs to about 6500.  Head to head, the Chevy wins most of the performance contests.  Certainly Ford builds some higher performance versions that are faster like the Shelby version but Chevy has a supercharged version too.  

I'll say in the real world that 435 HP is adequate with a 6 speed manual.  If I turn off all the traction nannies it's real handful and I've nearly binned at time or two.  OTOH, I rode shotgun on 600+ HP supercharged 'vette on a road course  and with launch control, the 80 year old driver had me screaming like a baby.

Being a Chevy guy, my youngest son had to get a Focus ST.  That kid can break a rock, so lots of the Ford ticky tac is breaking.  It has some strange repair stuff like axle bearings and the like.   It eats tires, shakes unexpectedly and has the most non intuitive ergos of anything I've ever driven- even to the point of adjusting the seats, plus annoying chimes and sounds.  But it's a total hoot to drive.  And zooming through traffic, it's size and agility make it a fast ride that I'd have hard time matching with my Corvette.  I've always liked hot hatches and nearly bought one before I found a low mileage 'vette.  There are plenty of pampered used ones at bargain prices.

[po18guy]

Technology is a marvelous thing. When certain southern Europeans - those known much more for passion than precision try it, well, not so much. Guzzi is perpetually cash-strapped. A simple revised head on the existing block and cylinders might well have been a go. But look at the high cam debacle. Certainly there are many that run well. The rest, we hear about here and elsewhere.

In motorbikes, the 1983-1985 Honda CB650SC was about perfect. Air-cooled 4 in-line, DOHC/24 valves, but with hydraulic lash adjustment. Shaft drive. Maintenance was basically filters and oil. Occasional plugs. Could Piaggio/Guzzi do that? "Technically", yes. The very thought however is somewhat troubling.  

Technology is a two-edged sword. We bought a 2001 Lexus IS300 (Toyota Altezza) with the intention of driving it into the ground over the decades. We have in fact nearly done that. Nice straight six, DOHC, VVT all of the swag. But cam belts are a $1,000 proposition when on special! Engineering, at some point, becomes only a motivator to purchase the next generation of product, as the last gen is bankrupting one.