V1100 STEERING ANGLE

[rossoandy]

At the risk of ruining my bikes handling and risking the wrath of those on here 101% happy with the V1100s slow steering.....

I have read, I think, of new steering races which alter the head angle slightly to quicken the steering?

If such a mod is possible I would be interested to give it a try....

Maybe jacking the rear end slightly do the same? dunnoo?

Anyone got any ideas on this?

Don't get me wrong I love the bike but sometimes wish it would alter line that bit faster..

If it spoils the bike doing this I can soon change it back I guess.

[Baldini]

Raising forks in triple clamps will speed up steering. If you do this, check all clearances esp mudguard to casing & be aware of slightly decreased ground clearance. I brought em up about half an inch on Scura (dunno if Ohlins are same lengt as yours).

What tyres are you using? There is a huge diffeence in steering characteristics between types. The fastest turning I have used are Mich Pilot Power 2CT's.

 

KB

[Paul Minnaert]

there are eccentric steeringhead bearings, they do one degree. From Ghezzi&brian.

I got my steeringhead welded on at an even steeper angle. That is the real thing. I let dynotec do it.

[rossoandy]

Raising forks in triple clamps will speed up steering. If you do this, check all clearances esp mudguard to casing & be aware of slightly decreased ground clearance. I brought em up about half an inch on Scura (dunno if Ohlins are same lengt as yours).

What tyres are you using? There is a huge diffeence in steering characteristics between types. The fastest turning I have used are Mich Pilot Power 2CT's.

 

KB

thanks baldini that easy mod to try. Tyres,yes you right. I remember one pair I bought ruined the bike,forgoten what they were now! I must look tomorow see whats on her now..perhaps i'll check the pressures too......

[Guest ratchethack]

Maybe jacking the rear end slightly do the same? dunnoo?

Anyone got any ideas on this?

Don't get me wrong I love the bike but sometimes wish it would alter line that bit faster..

If it spoils the bike doing this I can soon change it back I guess.

Andy, the 26 degree rake of the LM and most V-11 variants is a bit slow steering for some. The "short frame" 2000 Sport has a 25 degree rake, which, when introduced, relative to long-established Guzzi practice of "slow steering", therefore seemed "radically" quick steering to some somebody somewhere, -- "moto journalist(s)" no doubt -- who may or may not have had any qualifications for any kind of judgement. This unfortunately sparked off a wildfire of rumor and old wive's tales about "twichy" handling. Guzzi evidently took the negative feedback over "non-Guzzi" handling to heart, and discontinued the 25 degree rake frames, in favor of the more traditional and "stable" 26 degree rake of yore. NOTE: Despite the rumors, this does NOT imply that there was anything WRONG with the 25 degree rake frames!!!

 

Per my previously posted laments on this, after extensive research (by Y'ers Truly), it seems there has never actually been even one well-documented, well-founded case of any "geometry-induced problem" with the "short frame" Guzzi's. At least I haven't discovered any, and such would be 100% inconsistent with my own experience and that of many others I've spoken with who've owned these bikes for many years and who have ridden them over untold hundreds of thousands of combined miles over every conceivable road condition without incident or stability problem of any kind.

 

It's the moto-equivalent of the old Audi 5000 "spontaneous acceleration" fiasco that never had any basis in reality, despite all the rumor-based hysteria that erupted and set off a chain reaction of rumors across the planet, killing the sales of the car -- all from one measly disreputable and unfounded claim. I also happen to've owned one of these Audi's meself. The rumors were (& still are) 100% balderdash.

 

Lengthening the rear shock will quicken steering as you mentioned. I've both raised the fork tubes (I think I'm running 8 mm now), rasied the front end with stiffer springs and correct sags (offsetting effects), and also raised the rear end by 10 mm by installing a custom shock with a 5 mm over-stock length eye-to-eye (likewise custom spring and correct sags). Yes, this has made a bit of a difference to handling quickness, though not all that much, or at least as much as I had expected. Raising front & rear does keep hard parts that had previously dragged well free of the tarmac, and allows full edge-to-edge use of that rear tire. It's STILL very much "slow steering" by modern hyper-bike standards. The Duc Classic has a 23 degree rake. The MGS-01 has a 23.5 degree rake. As f'er me, I like 'er just the way she is now that she's fully sorted, and wouldn't change a thing.

 

If y'er intent on getting quicker steering geometry and want to experiment, you might consider Wilbers Model 629 custom-order shock and specify the option for adjustable ride height. See Todd Eagan at GuzzziTech.com.

 

http://www.guzzitech.com/WilbersSuspensions.html

[rossoandy]

Andy, the 26 degree fork of the LM and most V-11 variants is a bit slow steering for some. The "short frame" 2000 Sport has a 25 degree rake, which, when introduced, apparently because it seemed so "radically" quick steering (to some somebody somewhere, who may or may not have had any basis for any kind of judgement) unfortunately sparked off a wildfire of rumor and old wive's tales about "twichy" handling. After extensive research (by Y'ers Truly), it seems there has never actually been one well-documented, well-founded case of any "geometry-induced problem" with the "short frame" Guzzi's. At least I haven't discovered any, and such would be 100% inconsistent with my own experience and that of many others I've spoken with who've owned these bikes for many years over untold hundreds of thousands of combined miles. It's like the old Audi 5000 "spontaneous acceleration" fiasco that never existed, despite all the rumor-based hysteria that erupted and set off a chain reaction of rumors across the planet -- all from one measly disreputable and unfounded claim. <_ i also happen to owned one of these audi meself. the rumors were still are balderdash.>

 

Lengthening the rear shock will quicken steering as you mentioned. I've both raised the fork tubes (I think I'm running 8 mm now), rasied the front end with stiffer springs and correct sags (offsetting effects), and also raised the rear end by 10 mm by installing a custom shock with a 5 mm over-stock length eye-to-eye (likewise custom spring and correct sags). Yes, this has made a bit of a difference to handling quickness, though not all that much, or at least as much as I had expected. Raising front & rear does keep hard parts that had previously dragged well free of the tarmac, and allows full edge-to-edge use of that rear tire. It's STILL very much "slow steering" by modern hyper-bike standards. The Duc Classic has a 23 degree rake. The MGS-01 has a 23.5 degree rake. As f'er me, I like 'er just the way she is now that she's fully sorted, and wouldn't change a thing.

 

If y'er intent on getting quicker steering geometry and want to experiment, you might consider Wilbers Model 629 custom-order shock and specify the option for adjustable ride height. See Todd Eagan at GuzzziTech.com.

 

http://www.guzzitech.com/WilbersSuspensions.html

So my Rosso has the short frame with 25 degree angle, yes? So if I fit the adj head bearing set |i will gain another degree thus getting close to MGS setting. I gonna see if practical to make a new mtg bracket for rear shock to raise rear end too. Prob not poss but i gonna have a look at it an see. i think tyre choice will make a huge difference too and they due in about 2k miles or so. Currently running mich macadom 120/70 front and Bridgestone BT20 160/60rear. (wore the original mich rear out in Italy)! Ye i know not ideal to mix manufacturers...

[Guest ratchethack]

Andy, I b'lieve you'll find that re-mounting the forward shock anchor is "non-trivial", unless you're willing to make a fairly significant and permanent change to the frame. I'd given this brief consideration meself. Ideally, a forward mounting point would be adjustable, but working this out is more complex than I would consider for non-racing use. IMHO, it's far more practical to get a shock with a longer eye-to-eye dimension as I've done, or if you plan on setting up for different kinds of rides on a regular basis, one that offers an option for adjustable ride height, like the Wilbers.

 

As far as I know, the only "short frame" V-11's were the early red frame Sports of 2000 and I think possibly 2001. There may have been some in '99 also. My Guzzi manual for the 2000 Sport model spec's 1471 mm between wheel spindle-centers. By my measure against an '04 LM, the "short frame" bikes have a 16 mm shorter wheelbase than the "long frame" V-11's. Another quick and easy way to make the comparison, I found, assuming equivalent tires are fitted, is to measure the clearance between the front tire and alternator cover. The front tires of the "short frame" models with 25 degree rake are 16 mm closer to the alternator cover.

[rossoandy]

Andy, I b'lieve you'll find that re-mounting the forward shock anchor is "non-trivial", unless you're willing to make a fairly significant and permanent change to the frame. I'd given this brief consideration meself. Ideally, a forward mounting point would be adjustable, but working this out is more complex than I would consider for non-racing use. IMHO, it's far more practical to get a shock with a longer eye-to-eye dimension as I've done, or if you plan on setting up for different kinds of rides on a regular basis, one that offers an option for adjustable ride height, like the Wilbers.

 

As far as I know, the only "short frame" V-11's were the early red frame Sports of 2000 and I think possibly 2001. There may have been some in '99 also. My Guzzi manual for the 2000 Sport model spec's 1471 mm between wheel spindle-centers. By my measure against an '04 LM, the "short frame" bikes have a 16 mm shorter wheelbase than the "long frame" V-11's. Another quick and easy way to make the comparison, I found, assuming equivalent tires are fitted, is to measure the clearance between the front tire and alternator cover. The front tires of the "short frame" models with 25 degree rake are 16 mm closer to the alternator cover.

 

Thanks for informative reply,its great to have knowledge shared.

Yes you right about front shock mounting,sat with beer in hand and air filter et all stripped away so i could get good look at mounting.A simple extension plate would give far too much of an alteration and any other idea would involve much metalwork. Interestingly though I believe Guzzi could have very easily incorporated some sort of adjuster here to adjust rear ride height. I going to try measure wheel spindle centres tomorrow out of interest. I think I will lower the fork tubes in the clamps too by 25mm and see what sort of effect that has. A new rear shocker is just not fundable at the moment although a nice idea...

[Murray]

25mm is a fair hit I suggest you do it in 5mm steps or maybe 10 for the first one and then 5mm after that. The other thing to consider is removal of the steering dampener even on the lowest setting they have quiet an effect with relativly conservative geometry you can get away with it but I wouldn't do 25mm and remove the dampener. On my 1100 sport I've pull the forks 10mm and revmoved the dampener and it steers fairly well.

[rossoandy]

25mm is a fair hit I suggest you do it in 5mm steps or maybe 10 for the first one and then 5mm after that. The other thing to consider is removal of the steering dampener even on the lowest setting they have quiet an effect with relativly conservative geometry you can get away with it but I wouldn't do 25mm and remove the dampener. On my 1100 sport I've pull the forks 10mm and revmoved the dampener and it steers fairly well.

Hi Murray, 25mm is the amount suggested by Tony Foale (see his website) the frame guru who now resides in Australia I believe. He says that this will be the equiv of a 1degree strg angle change. I will take your suggestion though and try about 10 or 15mm as a first step. Be interesting to see if I can feel the difference to the way it steers. thanks.

[Guest ratchethack]

. . . 25mm is the amount suggested by Tony Foale (see his website) the frame guru who now resides in Australia I believe. He says that this will be the equiv of a 1degree strg angle change. I will take your suggestion though and try about 10 or 15mm as a first step. Be interesting to see if I can feel the difference to the way it steers. thanks.

Andy, I hadn't known of this "rule o' thumb" before, but if Tony Foale said it, I reckon it's accurate, and it's a handy one to know. Thanks for passing this on.

 

Doing a little conceptual geometry here, it may be deduced from this that raising the rear ride height by 25 mm would (nearly enough) also achieve a 1 degree decrease in rake. One o' the fundamental differences in approach to keep in mind here is that raising the rear adds ground clearance, while raising the fork tubes decreases it.

 

A little more applied shirtsleeve calculation, and we can safely conclude that lengthening the rear shock by 5 mm (as I've done), assuming a 1:2 shock travel to rear wheel travel ratio, amounts to +10 mm ride height change, or, by the Foale rule-o'-thumb, 10/25, or nearly half a degree of rake decrease at the steering head.

 

Sounds about right, and this would be consistent with my analysis on the road from having done it. It's significant enough to make a noticeable difference, but not a dramatic one.

 

I'm with Murray on the 25 mm raising of the fork tubes. This is a very significant change, far more than I'd take as a first swag at it. Best take Murray's suggestion of 5 mm, or at most 10 mm. But I'd certainly not drop the triple clamps on the tubes at all without any steering damping, with the understanding that for stability purposes over uneven surfaces, particularly at higher speeds, and for insurance against the risk of head shake on any bike, the steeper the rake, the more steering damping is required.

 

I may be the odd man out on this, but I happen to prefer the feel of the bike with at least a little steering damping. I use it 100% of the time, and crank it up for higher speeds. I adjust it so much that I've JB welded a little "knob" on the periphery of the adjuster knob, so's I can reach down and more accurately adjust it by feel on the fly.

 

NOTE: One aspect of improved handling that I experienced by decreasing rake per above was the improvement in fore-aft weight bias. It allows you to get further up over the front wheel, which I found contributes greatly to a more stable, neutral feel when hard over in the curvy bits, and takes away much of the tendency of the aft-heavy Guzzi to "push" or understeer.

 

NOTE #2: Am I assuming correctly that you've set y'er sags correctly and have a fairly decent match of spring rate to load? If not, all bets 'r off WRT chassis geometries!

 

I don't reckon YMMV too awfully much here. BAA, TJM.

[motoguzznix]

Rossoandy

 

first and foremost change tires.

If you are after quick steering, put bridgestone BT 010 on the bike. Good grip, excellent handling and the best high speed stability I found out to time.

Michelin Macadam and BT020 are both slow handling tires. The combination of the two might ba a disaster.

Michelin Pilot sport is considered to be the best, but I personnally have no experience. Next time....

 

When lowering the fork tubes by 25 mm you will loose a lot of ground clearence when cornering. The side stand an both exhaust cans will chafe very soon on the tarmac. So you can not make use of the better handling...

[callison]

Having come from the "truck" like slow steering of the 97 Sport 1100i, the V11 Sport feels fairly quick to me. However, after totalling the V11 Sport, I rebuilt it with a 96 Sport 1100i frame which has one more degree of rake. In concert with the reduced trail of the V11 Sport triple tree (1 cm) the bike feels - well, weird. Tolerable, but just sort of odd. But I digress. I rebuilt the V11 Sport with WP suspension and the rear shock from a Sport 1100i is 1 cm longer than the stock Sachs used on a V11 Sport. This makes the back end quite a bit higher, the steering may be quicker, but I didn't really notice it but I can tell you that it's scary relying on the sidestand when the bike leans over that far because of the additional rear height. You might want to take that into consideration. I put the stock rear shock back in mine.

[Guest ratchethack]

Having come from the "truck" like slow steering of the 97 Sport 1100i, the V11 Sport feels fairly quick to me. However, after totalling the V11 Sport, I rebuilt it with a 96 Sport 1100i frame which has one more degree of rake. In concert with the reduced trail of the V11 Sport triple tree (1 cm) the bike feels - well, weird. Tolerable, but just sort of odd. But I digress. I rebuilt the V11 Sport with WP suspension and the rear shock from a Sport 1100i is 1 cm longer than the stock Sachs used on a V11 Sport. This makes the back end quite a bit higher, the steering may be quicker, but I didn't really notice it but I can tell you that it's scary relying on the sidestand when the bike leans over that far because of the additional rear height. You might want to take that into consideration. I put the stock rear shock back in mine.

Interesting Carl. Just to emphasize wot may've already occured to you & others, but according to Tony Foale's rule (25 mm change of fork tube height = 1 degree rake change), and if we're allowed to extrapolate that to the rear ride height, when you went 1 cm longer on the shock, this translates to a +2 cm ride height change, which means a negative 20/25 of a degree of rake change. Combine this with a reduced trail of 10 mm, and this would no doubt be quite a significant change from stock.

 

As far as lean angle clearance goes, if you get used to using the side stand as a feeler as I once was (but not so much now after my latest change), well -- the angle of touch-down would change quite a bit -- of course only on left-handers. I had the same experience (1.) after cutting down the side-stand stop, (2.)after re-springing the fork ang getting the sags correct, and (3.) again after raising the rear ride height only 10 mm (half wot you did). It was quite noticeable at each stage. I can seldom touch the side-stand down now, but I find I've learned not to depend on it as an indicator and don't miss it. . . .

[rossoandy]

hi guys, just gone out to do a bit on the bike

I've measured the distance from rear of front tyre to alternator cover as 90mm as near as damn it. The distance tween front and rear wheel spindles is 1500cm give or take (bit more difficult to measure this one when missus is shouting 'time for dinner')! So..do I have the short frame here or the later longer one?

Suspension sag? Now there,s a thought ratchet....i've never have checked it!! Oh well that will have to wait until bike back together an off the ramp. Motorguzznix,thanks for advice on tyres.