Skeeve

It's what you get when you click on a pic anywhere in v11LM since the last "upgrade" using a browser that's actually enjoyable to use instead of Internet Exploder. Since the results are somewhat less than gratifying, I've pretty much stopped clicking on thumbnails when cruising v11LM. Since the same bug that causes this gibberish to wash up on my monitor also seems to spontaneously crash Netscape 7.2 when I try to post a reply, I also have cut way back on my thread participation: I find that unless I really, really want to reply to a thread, it's just not worth my time booting up IE & cutting/pasting the thread url, etc. etc. etc. Have I mentioned how much distaste I have for MicroSuck products? Dang, it's amazing how bad they can be despite being the "standard app!"

Well, it's regrettable, but Guzzi doesn't make any "sport model" Tonti frame models anymore: the last was back in 1990? '91? called the v1000S, which was in itself a tribute/product improved model to the original V7 Sport [which was the production version of the v7 Telaio Rosso.] You weren't alone in not knowing about the V7S at the time; it seems like news of it was pretty well swallowed up by the huge sales success of Honda's original '69 CB750 K0 & K1, followed by Kawasaki's Z1 i4 & H1/H3 2-smoke triples. [Guzzi has been a "niche" manufacturer for virtually my whole life! ] Several Guzzisti out there have endeavored to make a modern V7S: you have to start with one of Guzzi's cruiser models, all still built on the Tonti frame. Of course, if you *really* want to be correct, you'd have to use a pre-'84? round-head, but I'd be more interested in making a modern equivalent to the '91 V1000S, with all the benefits of modern technology I can muster, rather than trying to make a faux-but-good-enough-to-fool-the-non-expert V7 Telaio Rosso. Best starting point would be the California Special Sport [which came with dual front discs, unlike the Jackal & the Aluminum or Titanium specials...] Then you'd have to go thru, remove all the shiny chrome gewgaws, replace the [frankly, to me, hideous] bulbous cruiser tank with a custom build-up or one of the increasingly rare tanks from an original V7 or V1000 Sports [$$] I'd just do it 100% custom, but I have neither the money nor time to engage in such diversions. But you're right, the old Sports (& the new ones, too) sure look good!

The straight scoop is: you can't, economically. The v11 LeMans came out after Guzzi "stretched" the frame a tad longer than the original 2000 v11 Sport; iirc, the '00 & '01 Sports have the short frames; after that everything got a little bigger. I'm certain that elsewhere on this site is a thread w/ the specifics. The upshot is that the LM parts are sized to fit the long frame, and can't be retrofitted to the short frames. All of which leads to today's Tech Question: are the frame sizes for the Daytona, Daytona RS, 1100 Spot & Sporti, & Centauro all the same, & if so, are they long, short or some other length from any of the v11 spineys? [shout out to Greg Field: Can you make sure this is in next ed. of Guzziology, if not already? TIA! ] Murray mentioned one option. Unforatunately, Callison's suggestion won't work either, since the "radioactive green" of the Sport is molded into the plastic tank, & the short frame tanks won't fit on a long-frame LM! Personally, I'd rather do a Coppa'd Mans than a rehash of Guzzi's rehash of the Telaio Rosso; it just wasn't meant to have a modern fairing; it's a "dolphin" or nothin', baybee!

Sounds great! But... You don't have your Tenni # in your .sig! Keep up the posts; everyone loves to hear it when a mod goes well!

An interesting end run around BMW's patent on tubeless spoked rims. Dunno how thrilled I am about them only being cross-2 lacing [0], but I guess by the [very visibly!] stout spokes they're using, that it should be enough. The advantage that spokers have always had has been their significantly lighter weight vs. cast/forged "mag" [1] wheels. From the looks of it, the spokes amount to some really looong grade 8 allen head bolts! Still, it seems that they still need to seal the "nipple" where it meets the rim, so in that regard, I'm not too certain it compares all that favorably in comparison to taking a standard spoker & sealing the nipples w/ gorilla snot before mounting the tire. [2] Despite what may come across as negativity, I must admit that they sure look sweet! Ride on! [0] Which is only pertinent in comparison to a traditional spoker with x3 or even x4 lacing; in all, the ability to run tubeless tires is worth giving up some of the greater resistance to "chipping" that the extra crosses provide. At least it's better than the x0 widow-makers that some Harley sparkley-bit manufacturer was turning out a few years ago! [1] Which are only very rarely made of magnesium anymore! Such are the vagaries of this language we call "English" [2] Which if you're running a CA, Stone, or other Tonti w/ spokes & tube-tires, you should do anyway as cheap insurance in event of a blowout; it's an old trick to make the failure mode less catastrophic...

(edited for brevity) All very cool! I'm curious tho'; what with all the various comparisons of the Guzzi V2 being a lot like a Chevy small block over the years, is there any way to fit some roller lifters to the v11 mill? Seems like this guy Steve would be a good bet as far as reprofiling a cam to a roller config.; but is the idea practical at all? Ah well, something for those performance maven out there in v11LM-land to contemplate, I'm outta my league here!

I'm coming late to this party, so some background, please: Pierre: are you saying the TBs from the 90's bikes are larger than the v11 series motors? If so, I'm kinda surprised [but not entirely, given the 4v vs. 2v differences.][1] Dlaing: (You probably already know this, but just for the record...) The nature of FI negates the need for small intake diameters (somewhat.) Back in the day, if you wanted decent mileage & tractability, you usually had some small dia. carbs on the engine, as the high (local) velocity thru the carb improved atomization & mixing of the fuel. For a race engine, that was basically run WFO all the time, the speed "trick" was to jump the carb size significantly: thus, you had the factory moto-xers running 36 or 38mm carbs on their 125cc single, where the "same motor" for mass-consumption was sold with a 26 or 28mm mixer. There are limits, however. If there is a significant, sharp change to the diameter of the intake tract when Pierre bolts up the Centauro TB to his 2v motor, it's not going to run for cr@p, fuel injection or no: the step will upset the flow. OTOH, if there isn't a sharp change, then he should be able to just bolt on the larger dia. pieces and get some easier breathing at WFO throttle w/o compromising the low rpm tractability too much. And w/ the 2v motors, and decrease in restriction = an increase in power. But as Pete Roper likes to say, WFO is not what the 2v motor is best at... Ride on! [1] Surprised only because over time, bike intakes seem to grow, not shrink. In the 60s, a 125cc 4stroke single would have probably averaged an 18 or 20mm carb throat; in the 70s, 22mm; in the 80s, 26mm; 90s-28mm; post-millenium, 32mm. So, w/o really giving it much thought, I would have guessed that the Daytona/Centauros, w/ an engine designed in the early 90s would have had a FI throttle body of comparitively HUGE (by carb standards of the time) dia of around 44mm, and the later evolved v11 motors to have a similar or slightly larger size, because only being 2-valvers. This is why you really shouldn't make assumptions based upon inadequate information!

Ahahahahaha! Your post made me laugh so hard I'm crying! Thanks!

??? I don't understand how it's "sad." When you say he has "left the fold to concentrate on Vincents" does that mean he no longer rides Guzzi but does a Vincent, or that he's solely concentrating on taking Vincent pix? Hey, I don't fault the guy if he's trying to put together a coffee-table book on Vincents; his skill w/ a camera is apparent from Greg's cover, so if he's focusing [pardon the pun!] on Vincents, that'd be like money in the bank! Way more people out there who'll spend money on a Vincent book than a Guzzi title, as regrettable as that may be. & if you mean that he's only riding Vincents, well, that's an expensive habit: I can hardly fault the guy for doing it, if that's what floats his boat!

^H^H^H^H^H^H BFG

What's the FIAT car model that has the same filter# as v11 Guzzi's? No, I'm not considering getting a K&N, but the local Pep Boys has Lee air filters on sale periodically, & I figure if I'm stocked up on the ones for the cages, I could always pick up a spare for the bike. At the usual price for

Several thoughts, actually! 1) The "old ditch pump" as Pyotr the seasick sisal manipulator likes to call it is notoriously strangled as delivered from the factory, due to certification problems from such countries as Switzerland & the U.S.of A. The Quat-Ds are famed for beefing up the mid-range (just where we like to run'em when racking up highway miles); that extra power comes from decreased restriction & hence, increased efficiency. 2) The opened up airbox would decrease intake restrictions, & again, free up power that was spent dragging air into the chamber to be used to push you down the road. Increased efficiency when at steady throttle; every little bit adds up! 3) There is no 3. 4) You've discovered the big beauty of EFI: automagical correction for altitude! Up at 7000' ASL, you'd be running at a smaller jet size if on a carb'd. bike: less pressure means less air, less air means less oxygen, means you need less fuel for the same volume of air, means you get higher mileage [but less power], ceteris parabus, running at altitude. EFI makes this correction via the air pressure sensor, which then determines where the bike runs on the fuel map. Conversely, on a carb'd. bike tuned for sea level, you get worse mileage because it's running too rich [CV carbs are less susceptible to this, due to their design, but still need optimizing if constantly running at higher alt.s] and thus making less power, leading to greater wrist action, which in turn exacerbates the already too-rich running & leading to a decreasing spiral of trading fuel for power. 5) You gassed up at the top of the hill, & ran slightly downhill all the way on the rest of your trip, & then gassed up at the bottom to determine your mileage. You crafty devil! Ride on,

Your bike carbuerated? See my next post below...

Have you ever met Erik? Something to keep in mind; he's not a large man. Ex-racer, & built like one: medium ht. & wiry build. That might have something to do with his design choices, hmm...

Higher compression yields higher combustion temps = more NOx. Less CO, so that's good, and now that there're 2-way cats, the reducer stage converts the NOx, so that's all good. And the manufacturers are choosing to install them to start with; why do you think all the sportbikes are up in the 12:1 range, if not higher, now? The problem is is heat, so they're all water-cooled too; the limit to air-cooled motors is about 11:1 with good combustion chamber shape & small diameter pistons; you go to big buckets like Guzzi, Harley & a/c Ducati engines, & you have to back it down to 10:1 or less. (Remember, these are all just rough numbers for comparison's sake...) Back in the 60s, when Harley-Davidson owned Ducati [yes, Virginia: Ducati owes their existence, in a roundabout way, to H-D's custodianship...] or rather, the company that was to become Ducati, they ran these little 250 & 350cc lay-down single 4strokes & won a bunch of races. I forget who the author was, Gordon Jennings or who, but it mentioned how back then, they'd cranked the compression up as high as they could, but due to the oddball combustion chamber design [oddball now; quite normal back then], the piston wound up looking like a camel's back: two high humps, which forced the mixture into the valve pockets, and then they had to cut a channel thru all this to connect the spark plug to the fuel! There's a theoretical limit (15:1 for gas engines, iirc, before you start verging into the diesel realm) and a practical limit (about 11:1, I think he said it was in the old Aermacchis...) to everything.

Not to miss out on my share of the feeding frenzy I submit the following: I believe Mike Rich's porting efforts are the only such that have been specifically mentioned, & he's developed (from what I've seen; I'm too poor to be one of his customers... yet!) a gentle hand toward his porting. In other words, he's not into "hogging out" but rather seems focused on actual porting, ie - improving flow velocity. There's a limit to enlarging the valves imposed by having to bury'em deeper in the head. Why do the HiCams make more power? It's not because of a 500rpm higher redline (on the Centauro), but differences in valve area & combustion chamber design; the 4v heads don't have the valves buried in deep pockets at opposite ends of the combustion chamber. Prezackly! But the nature of the product that Guzzi seems to have been pushing out the doors [the infamous "Luigi effect" ] and of course *any* manufacturer producing in volume, is that the rough castings see the *least possible* machine- and/or human-intervention. Well, if you've never gone to the Eurospares site, you should take the time now. Altho' the article there is specific to small-block heads, it reveals just how cr@ppy the stock porting & flow numbers are. With the way things have been going at Guzzi the last couple or three decades, I seriously doubt that this situation has improved significantly. Go to the Edelbrock website & look at their aftermarket heads for the Guzzi counterpart, Harley Davidson, for what *real* ports look like. Hell, look at H-D's own *stock* TC88 heads for what Guzzi should have done to the combustion chamber on the big block heads before the 1st frickin' V7 was ever built! The technology is only 70 years old; admittedly, nobody much bothered with it til the 70s, & even hoary old H-D didn't start making their first teetering steps in that direction until 1984 (over 2 frickin' decades ago!) Dual-plugging? Bah! Added complexity... I think the point Dave was making is that Guzzi needs to incorporate some of this stuff right now into what their pushing; it will stretch "the old ditch-pump" [Roperism] right up to the limit of its capabilities, w/o threatening the long term reliability. (There's some sign that Guzzi is trying; after all, that's what the changes to the Breva mill to increase the rod-ratio are about...) It would very likely push the output (at the piston crown ) right up to that magical double-ought marketing number, & maybe earn them enough street cred to actually sell some of the lovely things! And hey, if they sold enough of them to raise awareness to the point that all the 1000s of road geezs out there who don't own one started to just consider them the next time they went Bike shopping, well, wouldn't that be a wonderful thing? Meanwhile, Guzzi can be working on their NBT, since the handwriting is on the wall for our favorite habit. (& don't think Harley doesn't know their number is up, too; why do you think they're making the VRod? They know that it will be 10 years uphill slogging before The Faithful will accept the water-pumper - that's why they brought it out 5 years ago! Meanwhile, they're teaching the old a/c dog as many new tricks as they can, in order to stretch out it's lifespan. Guzzi needs to follow suit. Actually, Guzzi could do worse than look at everything Harley does & copy it on a much smaller scale. After all, look where H-D was 25 years ago, & where they are now. Guzzi should be so lucky! Not that I'm advocating another brand of biker boutiques. So what's the magic bullet? Will Porting be my ticket to the promised land? No. It'll help with decreasing pinging, by maintaining high intake velocity & improved combustion tho'. Will Hi Compression Pistons be my holy grail? No; but they'll help with improving the fuel efficiency & (everyone @ v11LM's favorite tool - Arr arr arr!) torque. Will Tuneboy take me to the limit? No; but it or a PC3usb (hopefully, someday, with the long-awaited timing module!) can resolve the fueling issues & one is necessary to really take full advantage of any of the foregoing mods. I'm one of the least likely to spend money on high-ticket upgrades of anyone here, but I do believe that a wholistic approach to upgrades will have synergistic f/x, w/o necessarily dooming the motor to a shorter span. In an ideal world, Guzzi would realize it's in their own best interest to provide same straight from the factory; until then, we Guzzisti have to work it out on our own, & by sharing knowledge & perspective, determine just what is the best route forward. Obviously, for some it's better not to mess with it [and believe me, I'm a STRONG proponent of the "If it's not broke, don't fix it!" philosophical school!] & for others, their sense of what's doable, or proper, constrains them to take the standard parts closer to their ideal state. And that's what keeps v11LM such an interesting space! Ride on...

Lovely! I'd like to take it for a spin...

Just so long as you realize that neither the Overgrown Tabby nor the Gaseous Effulgence are suited to trail use; they're really just intended for graded dirt roads & the occasional washed out section. They sure do make for comfy sport-tourers tho'. Go w/ the V-strom; I have yet to find someone who's unhappy with their's. The Triumph is a fine bike, but I can't recall if it is the current or previous iteration that develops hydraulic lock if you drop it on its left side...

I think that I asked a similar question sometime in the past & got the word that there really isn't any more lightening that can be done to the v11 Sport series steel flywheels w/o going to aluminum; they're pretty much at the "holey relic" stage as delivered. But I could be wrong. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Great news on sorting out the ignition/fueling issue! You do realize that photos of the entire process will be expected of you? Excellent...

The Cyclone was Buell's bid at a bargain version of the Firebolt, wasn't it? One of the old trellis-frame designs with budget suspension bits? It was basically the genesis of the Blast: there wasn't any way they could offer the Cyclone cheap enough to bring in entry-level rider w/o cutting into their margins on the full-line product, let alone all the QC problems & recalls & stuff they wound up having w/ that whole product generation. As v50 said, totally different kettle o' fish from today's offerings... As an aside, if you ever get the chance to meet Erik Buell, ask him about producing another sports-tourer like the S3T... step back, & enjoy hearing the rant! [i think that there's a bit of a sore spot for him, since of the trellis-frame bikes, only the S3T has anyone asking for another, but the sales just weren't there in the first place.]

Sorry for the delayed response! Edelbrock carbs Can't tell you who sell's 'em outside the States, but over here, well, just about any hot rod shop that sells Edelbrock parts could special order them for you. Dunno how things work across the pond, but you might be better off just paying for the shipping & buying them direct... Ride on!

From Google's translation, I think they'll make stuff out of just about whatever you'll pay them to: mention of Ti, Be, Ergal [6061 T6 Al?], & "elektron" [which I seem to have forgotten just what it is, altho' I used to know, I swear! ] is made, along with manufacturing to their customers' expectation? Anyway, to counterbalance the weight of the shaft drive[1], they really should make the swingarm out of titanium. Besides, that way it'll match the MG race cans! Ride on! [1] Say, they make race car driveshafts out of CF, don't they? What about reducing some of the unsprung wt. on our v11s by *that* expedient?

Hey, I resemble that remark! Well, inasmuch as I'd like to twiddle & see if more could be reliably coaxed from it by making some changes. Of course, I have no *money* for any of that, but in an ideal world I'd have a workshop and time enough to do some Burt Munro impressions... Hey now, Pete, don't sell the folks w/ the propeller beanie fetish short; after all, if you take the reading at the piston crown, the very special edition HP2 [iIRC, the R1200 doesn't make 120; it's the HP2 that is quoted as churning out those numbers] quite likely *does* produce that much. Don't forget, the advances in computer modeling & production casting & etc. etc. etc. in the decade between when the HiCams were being developed at a tiny little Italian factory and the Type 203? motor being designed by a subsection of a midsize luxury/performance automotive manufacturer could account for a LOT. And don't you think that if you took the #'s for the HiCam at the underside of the piston, that you could reliably see 100hp [translating to about 88rwhp by the time it works it's way down thru the big ends to the crank, thru the clutch, thru the gearbox & down the shaft, making a 90deg bend at the rear axle & out the tire to the ground?] Doncha?

Design feature. The supers [sorry, what's the Brit equivalent: Tesco's? Supermarkets, you know, a corner grocery that's the size of a city block when you include the parking lot...] are required by the manufacturer [yes kiddies, that's how the supers get such killer unit pricing] to put the stuff at eye&arm level for the toddler sitting in the shopping cart ["market trolley?" What's Brit-speak for those wire baskets on wheels?] seat to grab it & throw it in the cart while Mom's distracted looking for the Vegimite...