GuzziMoto

Bingo. The shock length certainly affects ride height. So does the spring rate and corresponding preload of the spring, which sets sag. There is not one single factor that determines seat height. All the various factors contribute. You can change one factor, like a shorter or longer shock, and if everything else stays the same the change in ride height should be predictable. But often changes like a new shock that is longer or shorter accompany other changes like a new spring that is stiffer or softer and different preload to get a different sag amount. It is possible to run a longer shock (5mm longer) and simply have 10mm more sag because you are running a different spring and preload combination resulting in the same seat height you had with the shorter shock. That said, the generally positive improvements of running a longer shock, quicker steering, won't really be delivered if you don't also have a corresponding increase in rear ride height with the longer shock combination you switch to.Running a longer shock without the small increase in rear ride height it tends to deliver won't deliver the improvements in steering that a longer shock can. But you can get similar improvements without a longer shock simply by running a spring / preload combination that increase rear ride height by 10mm or so. It is a more complete improvement if you run the longer shock with the correct spring / preload combination. But a similar improvement can be achieved by swapping out the spring and setting preload to get the desired increase in rear ride height.

Yes, it would be close to double. If shock travel is 2" and rear suspension travel is 4" that would be a two to one ratio, and that would mean a 5mm increase in shock length would equal a 10mm increase in rear ride height. The only fly in the ointment is that it is not consistent throughout travel. The ratio changes as the rear swingarm goes through its travel. The ratio should start lower and increase as the rear swingarm goes through its travel (raising rate). The one factor not shown in your diagram that is important is the shock itself. The angle the shock runs at also plays a part in how the ratio changes through travel. But rounding it to double, or "doubleish" as Phil said, would be safe. The other thing that would cause the actual results to deviate is that the seat is not all the way at the back of the back over the rear axle. So an increase of 10mm of rear ride height would not mean the seat is 10mm higher, it would probably be something like 9mm higher. Most of my experience with Ohlins is with the higher end Ohlins stuff. I have never had a bike that came with Ohlins out of the box. But I get that the OEM Ohlins stuff is not as nice as the custom Ohlins stuff. It kinda seems like it could be no other way. No doubt the OEM Ohlins stiff is better then the standard OEM stuff, but that gap does seem to be closing. All the Ohlins stuff I have used has been custom. Some of it has been more custom then others, but it was all high end stuff. The forks on one of our race Ducati's came off a Kawasaki superbike. It is a sweet piece of kit, it worked amazingly well. As Phil mentioned, the Penske stuff is also high end. And it is built to be fully serviceable. Having a fixed length shock that is longer then stock is fine. But better is having a shock with an adjustable length that allows you to adjust from stock Sachs length to longer, or even shorter then stock length if you are on the short side. It is better to be able to adjust the length of the shock then to use preload to set seat height. Preload should be set based on weight, not based on height.

I don't think it is a one to one ratio between the shock and the rear wheels travel. I believe the rear wheel travels farther for every unit of travel at the shock. So increasing shock length 5mm should increase rear ride height by more then 5mm. How much more? I don't recall exactly. But if the ratio between shock and rear wheel is two to one that would mean an extra 5mm of shock length would lead to an increase in rear ride height of 10mm, with the corresponding increase in seat height being just slightly less then that (a guess would be 9mm). Somewhere on this forum is a thread where we dug deep into the ratio between shock travel and rear wheel travel. The design of the rear suspension is such that the ratio between the two is not fixed, it is a varying ratio. But I don't remember the starting ratio or how much exactly it changed as the suspension went through its travel. For that I defer to someone like docc to dig up. To my knowledge the V11 sport only came with one of two shocks, the Sachs shock or the Ohlins shock. The difference between the two is just length, with the Ohlins being a little longer as mentioned. The two shocks can be interchanged, running the Sacs shock (or a shock of the same length) would mean a slightly lower seat height and a shallower steering angle of the front forks, along with slightly less ground clearance. That would lead to slightly slower steering. Running the Ohlins shock means slightly higher seat height along with a steeper steering angle and the more aggressive steering that goes with it, as well as slightly more ground clearance. I think most around here would go with the longer shock option as it is generally accepted that the longer shock improves steering. But perhaps the best option is an adjustable length shock that allows you to fine tune the shocks length to where you are happy with it. One that starts at the length of the Sachs shock but can be adjusted to as long or longer then the Olins shock would be my choice. For those in the USA I highly recommend you consider a Penske shock. They are really high quality and they can make the shock to your specs. That is what the wife's V11 has, as well as the wife's Ducati Monster. For the Monster they made a shock that was shorter then stock to lower the seat height for her. It is shorter then stock, but can adjust to stock length.

Makes sense. I have met some top level racers who were nice, and others that weren't. Some were capable of being nice to fans, but at the same time were also not nice when just being themselves. Whenever approached by fans my race team and I always tried to go out of our way to be nice and approachable. Even though we were not a factory team or anything, we still understood that racing is an entertainment sport, and as such we wanted to do our best to make the experience of going to see a race a fun experience. Our team was run by a man who really understood that. I have not met many musicians, but my sister and her husband have. Based on talking to them I suspect another factor in the equation is how long they have been doing it. Musicians that have been around a longer time seem to be better at dealing with their fans. And I suspect some are genuinely nice people to begin with.

It is cool when you met someone of such fame and they actually turn out to be nice. So often they aren't. Another famous person I met, at least famous in certain circles, was John Britten. What an amazing guy he was. And a good guy to boot. Incredibly nice.

Jack Brabham, Stirling Moss, and my best, John Surtees. Briefly meeting him was a highlight of my life.

No doubt tech will continue to progress, and I suspect in 10 or 20 years the current tech will seem primitive. Hydrogen needs a breakthrough to make it viable for anything as small as a family car. The space required to store hydrogen is much greater then other options, like a way to make it stay a liquid without being super cold, then there is the danger of compressed hydrogen. I have no desire to give up our ICE vehicles. But then, no one is asking us to. But when we needed a daily driver car after looking at the options we went with an EV as it was the best option from a financial point. And it also works really well from a practical point. We do have ICE vehicles for longer trips where the EV is less practical. But for days where we are driving less then 300 or so miles the EV is generally the option we go with. We don't need to drive more then that in a single day too often.

There is so much mis-information about EVs. People make up stats showing their environmental impact that use lots of assumptions. But then when they compare the EV to the ICE vehicle they somehow don't use similar assumptions about the ICE vehicle. The reality is EVs are cleaner when you look at the entire life cycle of the vehicle. If you want to make a pro-ICE vehicle argument you might want to use a different angle then being environmentally friendly. That is a comparison that, if made honestly, the ICE vehicle will loose.

Riding motorcycles always was dangerous. That is a given. But this new tech and its apparent inability to recognize motorcycles is increasing that danger. That is a concern to me. I realize that the final destination of this tech will hopefully be safer. But it seems there is still a ways to go, and in the meantime this has increased the danger to motorcyclists (and pedestrians / cyclists). I am all for the tech to improve safety, but my personal observations tell me that a major problem is that this tech in some vehicles lacks the necessary safety interlocks to safely deploy on public roads. The core of those safety interlocks would be things that force drivers to stay at least somewhat involved in the operation of the motor vehicle they are operating. self driving automobiles are not really here yet, despite what some would have you believe. Even if you are using a feature like "Auto-Pilot" you are still operating the vehicle and it is still on you to operate it safely. But if the vehicle doesn't force you to be involved in the operation of the vehicle that would be, in my opinion, a design defect of the vehicle. Thus, in the event of an accident where a vehicle let a driver pawn off 100% of the driving to a system that was not capable of 100% of the driving blame should be shared by both the driver of the vehicle and the manufacturer that built a vehicle that would operate in an unsafe manner like that. It is clearly possible to roll out safety improvements like this in a manner that does not decrease safety for some of us. But it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to do so. And failure to do so should result in financial penalties. In the end, that has always been a major driver of vehicle safety. Financial penalties for safety issues have dramatically improved vehicle safety over the years. In the end money drives progress.

Ducati allocates its bikes based first on the team. Clearly the factory team gets the current year factory bikes. Pramac also gets current year factory bikes. It is in their contract with the factory. The other two teams, Gresini and VR46, have contracts that give them last years factory bikes. As mentioned, VR46 tried to upgrade their deal to get a current year factory bike, but failed. Ducati said they don't have the capacity to produce a fifth pair of bikes, they can only build four pairs of factory bikes a year. Each rider needs two bikes, so to give a rider a current year bike requires them to build two bikes and the spares required to run two bikes. As mentioned, the four factory 2024 bikes (four pairs of bikes) will go to the factory team and the Pramac team. The contract Pramac has guarantees them two current factory bikes. This past years two factory team bikes and two Pramac bikes will go to the Gresini team and the VR46 team. As I understand it, they are specifically giving Marc Marquez Zarco's bikes from this past year. Zarco rode for Pramac, and as such was on a 2023 factory bike for that team. I do think it is interesting that they are specific as to which rider gets which set of bikes, with Zarco's set of bikes being given to Marc Marquez. https://www.crash.net/motogp/news/1042742/1/ducati-confirm-marquez-will-ride-zarco-s-gp23-not-bagnaia-s-or-martin-s

No. Marc Marquez is on the Gresini Ducati team, and they run last years bikes. The four factory bikes will be the same four bikes as this past year, the two factory bikes (Bagnia and Bastiani) and the two Pramac bikes (Martin and Morbidelli). The VR46 team and the Gresini team get last years four factory bikes. Gresini seems to get the two Pramac bikes (hence Marc getting Zarco's bike) and VR46 gets the two factory team ducati's. Rossi did try to get an extra factory bike for next year. But that was flat out denied. That said, it doesn't seem to matter whether you are on this years Ducati or last years Ducati. Both seem capable. For sure, Marc Marquez is on a bike that could win the title. And it is possible he will win the title. But I doubt he will dominate like he used to. I could be wrong, but I don't see Marc being the dominating force he was back in the day.

Also, while Luca Marini may have been hoping Brivio was going to the factory Honda team, I don't really think what Rossi thought played a large factor in Luca's decision. If anything, Luca seemed to be trying to get out from the shadow of Rossi. Hence the move. It is still speculation that Brivio is going to Honda. It may not happen. And him going to Honda is not what will solve their problems. Perhaps the biggest factor in solving Honda's woes will be all that money they aren't using to pay Marc Marquez's massive salary. Having that money to spend on development instead of giving it to Marc seems to already be paying off. Brivio is nowhere near joining Honda yet Mir is already saying that things are starting to go in the right direction, the latest bike they brought to the test is actually better then the previous bikes. It would be funny to see Mir fighting with Marc next season....

Luckily I know better. I think it is likely that Marc will win a race or two, but I don't even see him as the favorite, much less a sure thing. While it is good that Marc is on a better bike, I think the days of domination, and even the days of a small number of "aliens" who are head and shoulders above everyone else, are gone. There was a time when guys like Marc were at a different level then everyone else. I don't see a return to that.

Everyone seems to think he is headed to Honda and Puig is out. Could be. I imagine Mir would be happy to see that. Yamaha could also use the help. And Yamaha might be a better place for him, more like Suzuki was. It seems he left early after being pushed out of his original role with the F1 team.

Yeah, And he is one of the top track designers for some reason. He was part of the team that designed COTA, wasn't he? I am not sure the tracks he designs race well, though.

So it isn't "dinosaur juice"?

Clearly we will never agree. And that is fine. It doesn't really matter as the odds of MotoGP coming to Barber are pretty slim and have nothing to do with what you or I think. But here is a basic comparison, the longest straight at Barber is 1600 feet, a bit over a 1/4 mile. The rinky-dink track by me, Summit point, has a better then half mile long front straight (2900 feet). Back in the old days the original Road Atlanta had a roughly mile long back straight (it is slightly shorter now). COTA back straight is 3326 feet long. The front straight at Road America is 4400 feet, and you come onto it fast. Barber is flowing, but fast? As I said, it doesn't matter. I don't think MotoGP would pick Barber as a second track to run a race at along side COTA. It is a better facility then most tracks in this country, I would agree with that. And having the museum on site like Indy has helps. But it lacks any decent length straights for bikes that are made to run 200+ mph. I agree Road America is not getting the race. But the track itself would be spectacular for a MotoGP race. I would go to see that. But it isn't likely to happen. It sounds like they would want a track in the north, and I don't think Putnam Park will be it, nor would Grattan or even Mid_Ohio. We really only have two tracks currently that could do it, and one is already hosting a race. Maybe someone will build a new track, that seems to be a popular way to go. Just please don't get Herman Tilke to design the track.....

I read that as well. Not sure if it is true or not, but it is not surprising if it is. The part I am not sure I believe is the part about someone signing Alex Marquez to ride their bike because they wanted him. I can believe Yamaha said no Marquez on their bikes, but it is hard to believe that someone wanted Alex Marquez on their bike. Especially at that time when Alex was horrible. What Gresini did makes sense, get Alex on their bike with the hope that Marc would follow. And it worked. Brilliant. But for RNF/ Tech3 / Petronas to sign Alex just for his talent, not for the hope of getting Marc? That seems hard to believe.

Barber was built to a high standard at the time it was built. But the layout is not suitable for MotoGP bikes. It is way to slow and tight. MotoAmerica Superbikes are really too big and fast for that track. Barber is a great track to ride on a motorcycle. Doing a track day there would be fun. But it doesn't race well. It is a hard track to pass on, and it is already hard to pass in MotoGP. It is a very pretty track, lots of money was spent on it. But as a race track, I don't agree that it is the best track we have. Watch a MotoAmerica superbike race there and watch one from Road America and tell me which one is more exciting to watch. And the issue with the location is what is around it, as well as how close it is to the already existing round at COTA. Having a second round there would not really expand accessibility of MotoGP races in this country that well. A race that is closer to people who aren't close to COTA would be better. Also, the track has to be able to hold enough people, I don't think Barber would hold enough fans (not that you could get enough fans to go there). Indy was doing well until they added the COTA race, the attendance at Indy was higher then COTA. But over 100,000 people in a track that holds 300,000 people is going to look thin. By motorcycle racing standards the attendance at Indy was huge, but by Indy standards it was light. In the end, Indy lost interest after they added COTA. I don't know if they would be interested in trying again. In fact, I am skeptical that we will get a second race. But if we do, there aren't a lot of options for where to hold it.

Yeah, Barbers is way to tight for MotoGP. Road America is probably the fastest track in this country. It's problem would be safety at the sort of speeds MotoGP bikes would run there. But it would be epic. Indy has a good mix of speed and safety for bikes, and it has a few options on how to run. It's main shortcoming is how flat it is. There is near zero elevation changes there. Both PittRace and NJMP would be interesting options, but would need serious money spent to get them up to spec. PittRace has a very nice flow to it with great elevation changes. And it is a nicer track then many US tracks. NJMP is in NJ, so it is flat and boring in that respect. Then there is VIR, they could run the full course, that would be pretty wild. But not really likely.

I don't know if they will have a second race in the US, but if they did, my favorite track would be Road America. It would take a lot of money to get it up to FIM standards, but the race would be epic. Realistically, Indianapolis is the only track that is close to standards and capable of hosting enough fans to make it worth while. The races they had in Indy were well attended and it was an enjoyable race to go to. It was also well located for people to get to. Barber could be possible, but it would be a bad location and a boring race. Plenty of decent tracks here, like NJMP and PittRace, but I don't see them as being up to MotoGP standards. Saying we will have a second race and actually having a second race are two different things.

If I need a motorcycle and there is an electric one that fits the bill, I would certainly consider it. If my experience with electric cars is anything to go by it could be serious fun. There is a basic attraction to motorcycles with internal combustion engines. But electric motors do have their advantages. They tend to be fast and very responsive without all the noise.

1/4 mile is still the standard. The two top fuel classes have switched to 1,000 feet, but all the other 1/4 mile classes still run a 1/4 mile. There are a number of 1/8 mile tracks out there, but around me it is still 1/4 mile is the standard. 0.035 is a nice reaction time. Good job @fotoguzzi

The Mike Rich pistons are designed to be the same weight as the original pistons, despite a higher dome. Since they are the same weight, they are drop in with no rebalancing required.

I don't know how many miles the OP's engine has on it, but the valves and valve guides seem to be made of some sort of hard cheese, maybe Parmesan. If you are replacing the pistons I would also makes sure the valves and valve guides are good. It would be a good time to have the port work cleaned up as well. You don't need the ports hogged out or anything, but cleaned up and matched well would be nice. The heads have to come off to do the pistons, so you might as well have the heads done.