jbuzbee Posted October 4, 2005 Posted October 4, 2005 We have company: AdvRider.com Everyone behave . . .
belfastguzzi Posted October 4, 2005 Posted October 4, 2005 Those guys need help. Do you think a raid is in order? They probably don't even know what sort of oil to use.
Steve G. Posted October 5, 2005 Posted October 5, 2005 I've been tuning into this forum for a couple years. Thousands of entries by hundreds of people. Mostly great entries from passionate riders, with only the odd wacho, just like this forum. The theme here is full dirt or duel purpose bikes, which is cool also. Ciao, Steve G.
pete roper Posted October 5, 2005 Posted October 5, 2005 Registered on that forum just so I could upset somebody by stating that the *problem* with early V11's was down to the 'Short Head' frame having been specifically designed to make them quicker steering, then all the poofters in the mags started wingeing that they didn't handle like a T3 I'll try to compound the offence by pointing out that with virtually ANY V11 the trick is to go THINNER on the tyres if you can, sorry, but even a heavy 80BHP motorbike doesn't need absurdly fat rubber. It just costs more money and makes the bike handle like an overweight opera diva with a vibrator up her chuff. OK, I've got the flame-proof suit on, go for it. Bill Hagan took my advice and went down a size on the tyres on his Billy-bob and found that I'm not talking *complete* bullshit! Pete
jrt Posted October 5, 2005 Posted October 5, 2005 Registered on that forum just so I could upset somebody by stating that the *problem* with early V11's was down to the 'Short Head' frame having been specifically designed to make them quicker steering, then all the poofters in the mags started wingeing that they didn't handle like a T3 I'll try to compound the offence by pointing out that with virtually ANY V11 the trick is to go THINNER on the tyres if you can 62120[/snapback] I completly agree- Actually, I rather LIKE the quick steering of the '01.
Guest ratchethack Posted October 5, 2005 Posted October 5, 2005 Yeah, what Pete and Jason said. Mass lemming behavior in human beings is a frightening thing. It's amazing enough when observed in rodents... By all means, let's just jump on the next anynomyous fool's bandwagon without engaging our brains...there's always some group somewhere that seems to be crying out for a nice, solid group smack upside the head... Seems to me the "quicker-steering" Sport frames are actually not nearly as steep, nor as "quick steering" as the current crop of Sport/Super bikes. It's a relative thing, for God's sake. Yet I still hear guys bloviating about "nervous handling" and tank slappers on the "short frame" Guzzi's - never mind they never rode one themselves. I question whether anyone ever actually had any kind of a qualified complaint about this?! I haven't heard of anyone myself, and I have no personal complaints in that direction whatsoever. FWIW, I just got a "round tuit" and installed my considerably beefier .7-1 kg/cm Wilbers progressive fork springs in my '00 Sport. (Yeah, I know - there's a contingent of "conventional wisdom" that runs against progressive springs...another group...don't get me started...) I'm still playing with it, but the immediate impression was that the "new" steering was actually too "lazy" for me, at least relative to what I was used to with the stock springs, due to considerably reduced sag achieved with the new springs. I pulled the forks up 1 cm, and it's still not as quick as before. The jury's still out on this until I get 'er fully dialed in, but I should also note that the relative lack of dive compared to stock is considerable. FWIW #2, I also achieved significant improvement in handling, feel and stability of the chassis when I went from the stock 170 rear tire to a 160.
big J Posted October 5, 2005 Posted October 5, 2005 Is that the thrum of the uberpanzer brigade over the horizon? Noticed a lot of 1150GS's about recently. Designer adventurers, whatever next?
dlaing Posted October 5, 2005 Posted October 5, 2005 I'm not sure anyone ever actually complained about this?! I haven't heard anyone myself, and I have no complaints in that direction personally. 62153[/snapback] We have had a few complaints about it on our forum...one guy sold his bike partially because of it, although his classified ad said that their was nothing wrong with it. I was getting warning signs of head shakes from using a Continental on the rear....probably a lemon of a tire as others have no problems with Contis. The early geometry is not a problem, just a slightly greater challenge, with benefits to be reaped.
Guest ratchethack Posted October 5, 2005 Posted October 5, 2005 Dave, I remember the one you're referring to. Frankly, after following the discussion on that one with interest, I had tossed it out on lack of credibility. Come to think of it, as I remember, he couldn't say it was a tank slapper. He didn't mention a thing about any oscillation in the fork, and for the most part couldn't remember what happened. Irascible Curmudgeon
dlaing Posted October 5, 2005 Posted October 5, 2005 Yah, his credibility was made questionable by his classified ad. I don't doubt that he thought it was too unstable. He just was not motivated to fix it. Just like I am no motivate to get to work...gotta go...
callison Posted October 5, 2005 Posted October 5, 2005 I have (had) a 2001 Sport. At speeds over the ton it wavered a bit rather than tracking straight and true. Same bike, same speed but with the Tekno bags on it (no luggage inside) was dead stable at speeds up to 134 mph. I don't remember whether that was with different tires or not but the following year I had it up to 131 fully loaded with camping gear and it was still stable. At that point I know I was riding on Metzelers - a tire I find very compatible with my riding style. Since then, the bike (FrankenSport) has a different frame (96 Sport) with the V11 triple tree (1 cm less trail) and I haven't noticed any real weirdness with it but I've only ridding a little of 100 miles on it. Even when the original frame was twisted, buckled under and bent, the engine mounts and transmission mounts were cracked and a set of LeMans forks were installed on it (flush to top of fork crown so they were too tall) the bike was still fairly stable and didn't exhibit any really malevolent behavior. It didn't feel right though. I'm still waiting to see how the 96 Sport frame will work. It has 1˚ more rake than the V11 Sport and 1 cm less trail with the V11 Sport triple tree on it. DasMototec sells triple trees for the early Sports with even less trail than that so I suspect that it will be okay. I'm just waiting now to see if I can get that bike legally back on the road.
badmotogoozer Posted October 5, 2005 Posted October 5, 2005 The only time I experienced anything was doing 120mph on the I5 passing a tractor trailer. When I hit his headwind I had one hell of a tank slapper! Other than that, I've had no handling issues with my '01. It is somewhat unstable in the corners if you don't have the revs up - can be unsettling... but keep the revs over 5k (where they should be!) and she corners on rails. Just switched to a 160 rear but until I get the pig sorted I can provide no feedback. Rj
staedtler Posted October 5, 2005 Posted October 5, 2005 handle like an overweight opera diva with a vibrator up her chuff. 62120[/snapback] .... good one!
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now