Sport riding ground clearance

[Guest Brian Robson]

I think that the adjustability is a bit of a cop out if there is little difference in the whole range of settings, its likely more of a selling feature on a more expensive bike, which probably means, yes, they didn't get it right

I weigh 190 and have done the same in winding on the preload where now there is one and one eighth inches of thread showing. It is stiff over slow to medium bumps but I think the dampening is biased to high speed on these bikes.

[Mike Stewart]

Ratchethach,

 

To me it seems that the Guzzi likes less sag than normal. I think this is because of the lack of shock travel. I might be wrong, but with the stock Sach spring, I had to increase spring preload inorder to prevent my butt from leaving the seat on hard bumps. My theory is that the shock bottoms against the rubber bumper and spits you off the seat. Some of this is normal with the Guzzi rear suspension. It is much better with the Ohlin's and Penske rear shock. By the way, the Ohlins shock has 72mm. of travel which is about 20mm at the rear wheel.

 

The stock springrate for the Ohlin's equiped bike (03 Rosso) is aprox. 475 ft lbs. and works very well. I do not know what the stock springrate is on the Sach's shock. I had a 550 lb spring on my revalved/resprung Sach shock and also the Penske and it was way to harsh for me and made the bike go wide on bumpy sweepers (fine for riding two up fully loaded). I now have a 500 lb. spring on the Penske and it is great. I weigh 195 lbs.

 

Also, I measure rear sag at the rear wheel axle and place a piece of tape on the rear body work level to the ground. The tape measure should be 90 degrees from the floor (axle to tape). This is the most accurate way that I know of to measure sag. The rear Sach shock travel is 62 to 64 mm. and the leverage of the rear swingarm is close to a 2 to 1 ratio. So if you multiply the shock travel by 2, that should be the rear wheel travel. So 124 to 128mm. of rear wheel travel.

 

You might be right on with your sag adjustment, perhaps more rebound dampening will help out.

 

 

Mike

[Lex]

First, I have to say to ratchethack that I understand his confusion. How something as simple as a spring can be this counter intuitive is beyond my ability to understand. A stiffer spring makes it ride better? Doesn't seem right, does it? I have an idea of why this is true but it is just an idea, I can't prove any of it. Beside bottoming (soft springs) I think some of the harshness may be the shock topping. With that much pre-load the shock is still under a great deal of spring pressure when fully extended. Add the weight of the Guzzi final drive and once the axle starts its downward movement, pushed along by the spring, it will take a LOT of damping to slow it down. Add the fact that the Guzzi damping curve was described by a expert of my acquaintance as "not enough in the middle and too much at both ends" and I think we may have a possible explanation.

 

Anyway, I think the idea that multi adjustable suspension is a cop out is a going a little too far. I would whole heartedly agree with the statement that no amount of adjustability will fix badly set-up suspension. If the spring rate is wrong you are screwed, nothing will fix the problem. If the damping is way off the twidly little knobs and rotating collars may mask the problem but they will not cure them. OTOH, if the spring and damping is well set-up for an average rider a little more or less pre-load or a little more or less damping can really help you get the bike just right for your style. Those of us in the 90th percentile (upper or lower ;-) for weight might have to do some work but most of you should be able to find a setting that works. If I had to chose I'd take a bike with well sorted suspension and no adjustment but shock pre-load over a mess like my 2001 V11 Sport. OTOH, my first choice would still be a well set-up bike with as much adjustment as I can get.

 

Finally springs: For the forks the consensuses seems to be between 0.9 (light to average) and 1.1 Kg/ Cm (big 'un or very aggressive). As I said, mine are 1.05, that works well for this large, semi agressive rider. I'm not as sure about the rear. I know my 550 In/ Lb is too stiff for most, I think Mike liked a 500 In/ Lb but he is heavier than ratchethack, IIRC. As to where, I'd try locally first. If that dosn't work you can always try Race tech or LE.

 

Good luck,

 

Lex

[Guest albarnhart]

So what is the total travle on the rear end of a 2001 sport. Wife and I went for our first two up ride yesterday, seemed ok. When we got home I mesured the sag and got 3" (76mm)with both of us on it. How much preload can put in and still be able to ride by myself.

We are a total of 420lbs.

 

Thanks

[Mike Stewart]

You guys are going to think that I am crazy, but my Guzzi's ride better when riding two up. It has got to be from the short swingarm length.

 

I would set the sag for you (25 to 30mm) and than add more preload when you ride two up. Or if you are like me, I just leave the bike set up for me and where ever the sag is when riding two up is where it lies.

 

Mike

[al_roethlisberger]

Well, I don't think that modern bikes with multi-adjustable suspension is a "cop out".....

 

The difference is that in years past, the "multi adjustable" part was the rider, and his ability to get the most out of what was then relatively primitive suspension components. ...and in many respects, many riders were able to make that acclimation, but that's not optimal.

 

While just like everything, more nerd-knobs does introduce more complexity and the opportunity for error/mis-adjustment, but it also offers quite a bit of opportunity to excell conversely.

 

Todays suspension, even the most simple, is worlds better than that of the past, and the adjustments provided allow for tuning a bike's suspension to a riders needs, versus vice versa, moreso than has ever been available before.... and at that, with just some knob turning in one's garage, instead of requiring a suspension shop to rebuild the whole kit.

 

I think that's a good thing

 

al

[Ballacraine]

OK....

 

I'll buy that....

 

I just hope I won't need to fiddle with it too much!

 

Nige.

[TX REDNECK (R.I.P.)]

The side of my size 13 boots near the toe area

[Baldini]

Finally springs: For the forks the consensuses seems to be between 0.9 (light to average) and 1.1 Kg/ Cm (big 'un or very aggressive). As I said, mine are 1.05, that works well for this large, semi agressive rider. I'm not as sure about the rear. I know my 550 In/ Lb is too stiff for most, I think Mike liked a 500 In/ Lb but he is heavier than ratchethack, IIRC.

Mixing measurments adds to the confusion. Why front in metric, rear in lb?

 

Ohlins give springs in N/mm (Newtons per millimetre?), which as the numbers always appear the same, I figure is equivalent to Kg/cm (Kilograms per centimetre)...?

Rear springs: I figure a 475lb/in spring is equivalent to a 85kg/cm which is standard on the Scura also. 500lb/in would be 90kg/cm, 550lb/in = 100kg/cm (approx)... ?

 

I have 10.0 fork springs & 100kg/cm shock spring. Shock still needed quite a bit of preload to get sag. Like Mike I think the V11 will work better with quite small sag figure on rear, I'm going to try 1.05 or 1.1 (approx 600lb?) rear spring but leave forks. This on 02 Scura w/Ohlins, me at 210lb w/gear (UK lb don't know what that is US lb), set up for sports riding.

 

I figure the less damping you have to set to control movement the better.

 

KB

[Guest ratchethack]

Wow, talk about a thread that took off down a side road... But - here's a moto metaphor - Like accidentally finding that great little stretch of back country asphalt you never knew about but will certainly make good use of from now on - it was a welcome side trip. I've benefitted from a depth of knowledge & experience beyond my own. For the most part, I've reconfirmed some of my previous understanding, but also added some in areas where I found I was a little fuzzy. Many thanks again

 

All of this has put me in a philosophical mode. My overall take on the V11 rear suspension has always been that, first and foremost, like any motorcycle suspension, chasing optimum performance often becomes a quest for hitting the bullseye on a moving target based on what we think we know, and (at least for me) that changes with each new "upgrade". With stock Guzzi components, we're dealing with technology that's essentially 20 years behind what others are able to do today with their bikes with rising rate linkages, better designs around progressive springs, more sophisticated shock valving, greater available travel, etc. So we're hemmed in on all sides by what's currently possible to actually achieve with the limitations of the stock gear, and in the end, relatively speaking, there just isn't a whole lot we can do to improve things. It's all about balancing a complicated mix of interconnected, mutually-dependent tradeoffs. My take is that in the case of the V11, over and above the pile of restrictions attendant to working with chain drive motorcycles, we're dealing with the very significant added restrictions of shaft drive and the large unsprung mass of the bevel box. This quickly narrows down our ability to balance out our trade-offs even further. What we're left with is a relatively tiny window of flexibility.

 

However, within that little window, there are some fairly worthwhile, productive things that can be done to better (but nowhere near ideally) match the quality of ride we're after to our weight, the kind of riding we do, load, tires, surfaces, etc.

 

I've known Guys who ride a lot more than I ever will who never even considered changing as much as a simple rebound setting. They seem happy to "just ride it" and never worry about suspension at all. I know a Guy who rode on rear shocks with no damping left in 'em for years. Me, I appreciate the feel and nuances of a well-sorted chassis. I'm also a tinkerer, and I'm constantly plagued with the compulsion to "dial it in". Thankfully, Guzzi has provided some reasonably good adjustments to fiddle with right from the factory.

 

OK, now I'm headed back into the "Guzzi shop". Here's a few items that I invite anyone to use and/or take exception to. These are the parameters I'm currently using to set my shock preload:

 

Assumptions:

 

1. The Sachs-Boge bottom bumper will compress 50%.

2. The ratio of rear wheel vertical travel to shock travel is 2:1.

 

Measurements:

 

1. Total Sachs-Boge shock travel is 45mm (including 50% bumper compression).

2. Total rear wheel vertical travel (assuming above) is 90mm.

 

Any additional thoughts?

[Lex]

baldini :

 

Mixing measurments adds to the confusion. Why front in metric, rear in lb?

 

Sheer laziness. That is how the boxes that my parts came in were marked. Thanks for the metric cross over.

 

ratchethack

 

Yup, the design is pretty old and you can't make it modern. But, for some reason, it is a huge amount of fun.

 

I know some of those guys that never change anything myself. It doesn't really bother except the ones who can also out ride me.

 

Seriously, part of the reason I have had bikes for thirty-five years is that I like working on them. So far the Goose has been a real pleasure to work on. I look at and work on my K1200LT and I end up thinking seriously about paying someone to do the work or just selling the stupid thing. With my V11 I enjoy the time I spend on the bike. I also like going for a ride and feeling a real improvement. I can't give myself more riding talent and my fear threshold gets lower every year but I can make the bike work better and slow my descent into cruiser riding old age, I hope.

 

Good luck with your experiments,

 

Lex

[Guest ratchethack]

I can make the bike work better and slow my descent into cruiser riding old age, I hope.

Roger that. As Rumpole of the Old Bailey would say, "Heaven forefend!"

[Guest GGuzzi]

In my previous life BFC (Before Ferraci Cans) I did scrape a kickstand on the left and front part of the stock muffler on the right.

 

Then i started to hang off a little and stopped scraping altogether.

 

Now in my AFC period I did not scrape anything on the starboard side so cannot tell for sure. It would be a footpeg I guess since Ferraci cans are so much smaller.

Recently joined the living FBF cans.