Leaderboard

Yes. I would prefer to have adjustable compression damping as well, but there are so many bikes that only have rebound damping. It occurs to me that one could experiment with different grades of fork oil with the focus on compression damping, and then adjust the rebound damping to suit. My logic says that this would work, but I'm not a suspension expert. And that is a fair way down the list. The handling is ok to be going on with, and I have a few other things to sort out first. First up is getting the 2,800 r.p.m. cough and splutter sorted. Then there are a shift spring and a shift extender to install, and a soon to arrive Roper Surge Plate to install. And riding it occasionally wouldn't be bad either.

Bloody hell. All these variations...does your head in eh! Cheers

There are two different things you can be doing, one is adding preload, which doesn't make the spring stiffer and is what you referred to. But what you describe doing is cutting the springs to make them stiffer and then replacing the length of spring you cut out to keep the preload the same. That does make the spring stiffer. That is something we would do in the old days when we could not afford to buy the correct springs, or in some cases where the correct springs were not available. I really don't recommend doing that, but technically it can work. If you are going to do that I would probably do it 1 inch or less at a time. If you measure the length of the spring and then cut out, say, 5% of the total length of the spring and replace it with a spacer the length of the spring you cut out that should make the spring roughly 5% stiffer. The big drawback to cutting springs to make them stiffer is you loose the proper end to the spring that allows the end to rotate smoothly on the surface it rides on. That can be even more of an issue if the surface it is riding on is a PVC spacer. It may not slide well on that. I always thought the best way to do that would be to leave the ends and cut out a section of the spring in the middle of the spring and replace it with the matching spacer. But I never actually tried that. Doing it that way would preserve the proper ends on the spring. But it means cutting the spring twice instead of once. Before I ever got to try it I started making enough money for a living that I could buy the proper springs so I never needed to try the middle cut idea. But springs should be available for the V11 at a reasonable cost. I would go that route over cutting your springs to make them stiffer. Also, have you properly measured your sag and determined how much you have? That would be step 1. Just making your springs stiffer by cutting them without first knowing how much sag you have would be a shot in the dark. Springs are a lot cheaper then a full replacement cartridge. But knowing that you need new springs and whether they need to be softer or stiffer then what you have now would be a matter of measuring your current sag first. Instructions on how to measure sag are on here if you need. Also, it sounds like you have the one version of forks that Andreani actually makes replacement cartridge's for. Black 40mm forks with compression on one leg and rebound on the other, if I understood you correctly.

Guzzimoto has a good method to set your sags and determine if the springs are too soft. If that is the case, correct springs make a huge improvement and are not very expensive. Otherwise, you can calculate how much additional preload is needed with your existing springs (don't cut them).

this is my tail tidy, cut off the number plate lamp and fitted an led tail lamp with built in plate lamp, then trimmed the mudguard

Ok then it's Italian cross over stuff, model designation or it's been fitted with the later forks at some point. See the 2002 and 2003 bikes in Reddit parked side by side. Different forks. Phil

The journalists are currently in Spain to test the official presentation of the Moto Guzzi Stelvio;

Adding 1" of preload to the front forks is a massive change to preload, and would reduce sag by about an inch. That would probably be too much. Standard sag with the rider on the bike for a V11 Sport is around an inch to an inch and a half. So reducing sag by an inch is probably too big a change. Usually you add preload in much smaller amounts. If you wish to reduce sag by 1/4" you only need to add 1/4" of preload. If you want to reduce sag by 1/2" you would add 1/2" of preload. It should be a 1 to 1 ratio between preload and sag. As mentioned elsewhere on here, if you measure your bikes sag with you on it and measure how much it sags just under its own weight (both measured based on fully extended suspension) and compare the two values that should tell you both if your preload is right but also once preload is right it tells you whether your springs are too soft, too stiff, or just right. Once preload is to where you have around 25 - 30 percent sag with you on the bike you should have around 10 percent sag just from the weight of the bike. There is some wiggle room there for rider preference, I prefer less sag when I am on the bike, some prefer more for a softer ride. The spring rates don't change because of your sag, but the spring rates required to get sag at 25 percent vs 30 percent make the difference. But measure your sag both just the weight of the bike and with you on the bike and compare. What preload affects is ride height when you are riding down the road. It does not change spring rate, it does not make the springs stiffer or softer. It is mainly about getting the suspension in the correct operating range for proper suspension motion. As mentioned, if you do have the one version of forks that Andreani make a cartridge for that might be what you want to go with if you aren't happy with stock.

Mine are different . They are the early style. My red frame and black frame have the early style. IDK which are the larger tubes. I am away from the shop so I can't measure them

The easy way to tell the difference between them is the top of the fork cap . The silver only cap is the larger fork assy. Uhhh , better yet , can you post a pic of the top of the forks ? You want to be sure,

I went down and had a look, and checked the papers again. The tenth digit in the VIN is "2", so built in 2002 according to the collected wisdom here. The front axle is hollow, and has a fastening nut on the outboard side of the left leg. And this is not the case. The fork adjustment is as described here on page 482 according to the document viewer. The page number printed on the page is section R page 20 https://guzzitek.org/gb/ma_us_uk/1100/V11_1999-2003_Atelier(Compil-GB-D-NL).pdf

Mine doesn't ping. It has a PC. Likely the timing is a little too advanced and/or lean. I'd guess they were a little aggressive with the re-tune. And a contributor could be a little carbon build up given the age of the engine.

You may as well buy two of these hoses , one to install and one to keep around for a spare . When you install this be sure to index the hose clamps so when you do it AGAIN and AGAIN you will have less trouble with R & R . BTW , if you go with the homemade design , keep in mind this will have to be compatible with petroleum . You may spend more time with your innovation than buying an OEM part. Don't feel like the Lone Ranger , we all have a breather tube that did/does look like this .