Lex

Sorry to hear that. I've found a position I like very much with mine.

Steve, A couple of things: First, I'm glad to hear (no pun) somebody else worry about noise. My bike is louder than stock (see below) but I went to quite a bit of effort to find a compromise between stock and pissing off my neighbors and other innocent bystanders. I like riding and the number roads being closed to motorcycles is getting frightening. I was at Furnace Creak in Death Valley recently, unfortunately the high Db/ low IQ crowd (a Harley group) was there at the same time. Gosh, nothing like sitting around the 'ol campfire listening to the sound of revving engines A MILE AWAY! I wonder what the people at the cabin/ camp next door were thinking. If you are talking about noise from the riders POV, put the lid back on the air box. I was amazed at how much louder my bike was when I took the air box lid off. Standing next to the bike you can't really tell but from the seat it is a lot louder. I ran the X-pipe with stock pipes, it actual worked pretty well. I don't have access to a dyno but seat of the pants the bike is a fair bit stronger in the mid range with the X-pipe, open air box and after market mufflers but it isn't a huge deal. Just changing the mufflers (the last thing I did) didn't make a noticeable difference. You might try is running the stock cross-over with the after market cans. That will knock a few Db off and still give you a nice tone. For what it is worth I join Rj in giving the raspberry to carbon fiber mufflers. I think this is another example of good ideas on the track not translating well to the street. Finally, for you and anybody else interested in a little nicer tone without a lot more noise, I now have a few thousand miles and one short tour on the Stainintunes and I have to say I am very happy with them. With the "touring restrictors" in place the bike has a very nice tone and I haven't had a dirty look riding by people yet. Good luck with whatever you do, Lex

This seems to have become a pick on bureaucrats (nice to know the Aussie type are as dumb and arrogant as the red white and blue types ) and how to ride thread but I just have to ask Fonzi if he really believes: "Some loading" is an interesting term, I guess there is some loading with at least one valve open, 360 degrees after the combustion event but I find it hard to believe it would be any more than with the throttle closed when the engine is running, abet only at idle. I have to wonder if this "stress on the engine by using engine braking" thing is based on two-cycles, they don't have a the high tensile loading of the rod, crank and piston like four-cycles since they don't have an idle trip past top dead center. Well, mine did but only until I learned how to jet them. In that case I can see some basis but in our engines I can't see any extra stress unless the rider is a moron, down shifting so early the engine is pulled out of its safe operating range. Lex

Fonzi, As far a I know you have all your physics correct but I think what you are forgetting is that the piston takes the incredible stress of being yanked from TDC every other cycle regardless of the position of the throttle. These are four strokes, the piston comes to TDC against very little resistance on the breathing cycle. Closing the throttle may increase the number of times the piston comes to TDC with little/ no load but it doesn't increase the peak stress. Cheers, Lex

Ah, guys, I think you have that backwards. The slipper clutch pretty much eliminates engine braking (not for reasons' wear, I have to agree with Pete and Steve, that is "piffle") but for a couple of reasons. They need to keep some link between the rear wheel and the engine (so you can down shift again) but I understand it is absolutely the minimum they can arrange. The first reason, and I think most important, is that under heavy braking most racing motorcycles are carrying about 99.9% of their weight on the front wheel. Any resistance to rolling would lock the rear wheel. This takes away one of the two "gyroscopes" that make motorcycles work. Also, when the rider starts to ease off the front brake and lean the bike into a corner (generally still braking harder that we do on the street at any time) it would not be good to have the real wheel stopped. The second is that the rider is VERY heavily task loaded in the braking zone. By not having to think about engine braking he can downshift early without either locking the rear wheel or sending the revs out of sight. That leaves him free to think about traction, brake markers, other riders, corner lines, etc. Based on some things I pulled out of one of Kevin Cameron's articles I think the MotoGP bike are so sophisticated they have gone past just slipper clutches. Valentino Rossi said something like "we would need a different setting (amount of slip, I assume) in each gear, you can't do that with just a slipper clutch". The MotoGP bike are bringing the FI into the picture, adding just enough fuel and air to counter the friction in the engine (i.e. engine braking) at a given RPM. Cameron calls it a "throttle kicker". Groeten, Lex

If this is true I'm liking this guy Beggio more and more. I hate to see anybody lose their jobs but these guys (and gals, if appropriate) surely deserved what they got. Lex

No but I can take a guess. As I posted earlier on this thread, the closer the tire sizes are to matching front and back the more smoothly and easily the bike will roll into or out of a lean. My guess is the small change in profile in being over ridden by the more similar size. It could also be magic, I'm far from a tire engineer. It may be that I don't ride hard enough to notice the difference but I've been very happy with the 160/70 BT 020 on my '01 Sport. If it is a matter of force I'd say I would have noticed it, between my weight (260 #/ 120 Kg) and my habit of leaving corners fairly hard I think I work the rear tire more than most. I went with the "70" to speed up the steering slightly (about as much as dropping the triple clamps 10 MM) and to keep the speedo/ odometer a little closer to accurate. Right, like you can use accurate and Veglia in the same sentence. FWIW, I'd be pretty impressed by a rider who could tell the difference between the 70 and 60% aspect ratio in a blind test. I guess the bottom line is personal taste and most folks seem the be happy with the 60% tire. I just wouldn't want anybody to rule out the 70%, it also has a few advantages. Pay your money, take your choices, Lex

Two comments: First, I've gotten the rubber parts in a few times. I trick I used was a combination of lubricant (as suggested above) and twisting them in past the threads. Just try to make them into a big, rubber bolt. The twisting is not a matter of strength, just patience. A set of carefully used vice grips helps for the last bit, you can't get a grip on the small amount of rubber outside the bar. That said, I'd recommend using the mounting Mike suggested, which I call the Al R. system since he is the first person I know of to post about it. Whatever, you will be happy to get the stock mirrors off the bike. It doesn't sound logical but they really do make the bars vibrate more. One of the advantages of the Al R. mount is that you can keep the end weights or, even better, put on some larger ones to reduce the vibration even more. I have the Napoleons and the "heavy" Throttlemister on my Convetibars and I can actually use the mirrors at almost any RPM/ throttle combination and my hands no longer tingle after a long ride. Cheers, Lex

Well, you can do almost anything but there are two things to think about: 1. All things being equal, the smaller the tire the quicker the handling. 2. The closer the profile of the rear tire is to the profile of the front the more easily and smoothly the bike will roll into and out of a lean. Back in the old days (before the mid-seventies) bikes ran the same size or nearly the same size front and rear. Fortunately for us bikes have improved so much in every way that we need a lot more rubber on the ground than a 3.25" (~82 MM) front and a 3.5" (~90 mm) rear. Unfortunately, the experts have decided that anything any wider than a 120 in front causes more problems than it solves. That means we are stuck with mismatched profiles. The smaller the mismatch the better your bike will feel. OK, three things... 3. If you don't know this, your tires are a litmus test that will be read by people who know bikes. A wide, smooth tire with wide chicken strips sends a loud, clear message to anybody who knows how to read a tire: "I am either a newbie who knows nothing about bikes or a poser more concerned with looks than performance or both". In either case it suggest riding near you might be a bad idea. If anybody is wondering, my bike has a 4.5" rim and a 160 tire with decent sized chicken strips. The tire also has those little lines on the outer part of the tread from pushing the bike a bit. The message is: "I enjoy riding fairly quickly but I've been to the hospital and didn't like it." You can do anything you want (unless you live in a country where these things are regulated) but paying more money for a tire that will not work as well and makes you look either ignorant or like a poser seems like a poor idea to me. To add a personal opinion, if your tires are saying you are riding much faster than mine you should really think about some track time. Yes, I rode like an idiot on the street for years and got away with it, you might be as lucky. OTOH, riding fast on a track is much more fun and safer. I learned on the track how fast really fast is (I've been passed by three time world champion Freddy Spencer, that is FAST) and how dumb I was for what I had been doing on the street. Just a personal editorial. YMMV, Lex

My new Westco battery finally arrived. My Goose is no longer cooked. (large sigh of contentment). Thanks for the advice. BTW, it looks like Odyssey doesn't make a battery for our bikes but Westco does. Now, if will stop raining I can go for a ride. Mike, Sorry I missed your question the first time I read your post. Yup, I should be at the central coast gathering. It is only about 10 miles from my house so I don't have much of an excuse to miss it. I hope to see you and the rest of the fine Guzzi folks Cheers, Lex

It looks like Mike was right, the bike only started 5-6 times on the "charged" battery. If Al is right I understand why the battery is dead, sitting for two years would defiantly give any battery a short useful life. That would be really dumb on Moto Guzzi's part. Steve, can you point me towards any more information about the Odyssey batteries? I found the correct battery (WP 13-12) on the web for $83.75 including shipping at Motorcycle Batteries USA does that sound like fair price? Any feedback about the Odyssey or other batteries in the rough world of Moto Guzzis? Given the high starting loads, vibration and poor alternator I'd guess Guzzis are pretty rough on batteries. I'd love to hear good or bad feedback from people who have used the Odyssey or another brand of battery in a Goose. Thanks for the help, Lex

Having come from the wacky world of BMW (where they have the most advanced peripheral stuff but seem to miss the more basic advancements) the sealed battery in my Goose is a new experience for me. When I went out to my bike after work Friday night it wouldn't start. The bike tried a few times but then the dreaded "click-click-click" sound came from the starter. I was so glad I worked a little late and the Harley crowd had already left. I assumed this was from too many short rides and all the testing I've done recently making a few changes. I push started the bike (years of riding beaters pays off) and put it on my "smart" charger when I got home. It looked like it was charging and the next day it started fine but after a few tries the started got slower and slower and finally got back to "Click...". I reconnected the charger and it acted very strangely, swinging from high output to zero and back very quickly. I pulled the battery, checked the obvious stuff and put the battery on my old, "dumb" charger. It seems to have taken a charge but I have to wonder. Since I can't use a hydrometer and I can't look into the cells I don't have any idea how to test the battery. Can somebody with more time with sealed batters tell me how to find out if my battery is no good before I find out late one night far from home? I didn't see any relevant stuff when I did a search on this site. The bike (and I assume the battery) is only 14 months old. BTW, if my battery is past its prime any good sources for batteries for those of us who's who live in the boonies? TIA for any help, Lex

John, I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one with Staintunes on my V11. I don't have enough time with them to give a real report but looks and first ride impression are very good. I think they fit the bike well, you might think they were stock except for the slightly louder and "fruitier" exhaust note. I plan to keep the touring restrictors in place, I love the improved sounds but I also like the reasonable noise level with the touring parts in place. I wish I had access to a dyno, for what (little) seat of the pants is worth the bike runs much better. The combination of a properly mapped PCIII (I still haven't been to see Todd, maybe this spring) open air box, a Stucchi X-pipe and freer flowing mufflers has really made the bike seem faster in the mid-range and on top end. More important, it seems "happier". It is smoother, runs up the tach faster, the 2.5 to 3K stutter seems to be gone, the flat spot at 4.5K is gone and is generally an even more enjoyable ride. I doubt this specific to the Staintunes, I'd bet any good quality after market mufflers would have the same effect. One interesting point, the mufflers seem to be designed for the newer (wider) V11s. My right muffler mounts to the inside of the foot peg hanger like the stock part but the left one mounts to the outside, about the one inch wider. That sounds like the offset Al R. talks about. Other than that the parts went on just about perfectly, they appear to be very well made. In short, I'd recommend the Staintunes for folks looking for a more finished product than the usual race can. The option of running the touring restrictor Vs. the more open configuration is also, to me, a plus. Mine were US $700. Cheers, Lex

I'm sorry but there is no truth to the myth. ALL engines of a given type and size allow you to move the power around the RPM range. The difference is that with a four-valve engine you just have more to move. The designer can choose to give you a little more everywhere, more on the bottom, in the middle or on top. More complexity, yes that is certainly a trade off. Not just the valves but two cam drives, two cams, etc. Another point is the all that "stuff" is up high and can raise the center of gravity. I would recommend you be VERY careful in comparing dyno runs from different dynos. I picked the example I used in my post because the engines are similar and they were run on the same dyno by the same operator and at the same time. Also, I know MCN uses a Super Flow dyno. Super Flows are know to be both more accurate and more consistent than the much more common Dynojet. Based on the much higher numbers from Sport Rider I'd guess they use a Dynojet I apologize for not including the peak numbers for both bikes in my post. The Beemer made 76.9 HP and 70.9 Lb/ Ft of Torque Vs. 75.4 HP and 60.8 Ft/ Lb for the V11. As an example of why you should never compare separate dynos look at the number from Sport Rider: 79.3 HP and 63.5 Lb/Ft. Now remember the Guzzi in MCN had nearly open pipes and wich we all know that is worth a couple of HP on top. Your curmudgeon, Lex

I couldn't agree more with the sentiment about not ruining the V11's wonderful drivability but I have to say I have grown tired of people repeating the demonstrably incorrect statement that a 4-valve engine will be weak in the bottom end. Four small valves simply flow better then two big ones, not just at high RPM but at any RPM. If designer sizes the valves and ports for low end and selects appropriate cam timing the engine will be strong at the low end. As an example, I pulled out a road test in Motorcycle Consumer News comparing the Bavarian Murder Weapon R1150R with the V11 Sport TT. I should note that Guzzi cheated in this test, the Sport has accessory mufflers. That should even out the German bike's 66 CC displacement advantage. The peak power in pretty close, with the droopy jugs bike winning by only 1.5 HP. OTOH, torque isn't even close. The German bike is 10.1 F/Lb stronger than the Guzzi at peak. The Goose peaks, in a spike, with 60.8 at 5500 RPM, the Beemer makes more than 60 Ft/Lb from 2750 to 6500 RPM. As a result, the Beemer is 5 HP stronger at 3K RPM, 8 HP stronger at 4K, more than 10 at 5K before thing return to be nearly equal from 6K up. Which bike has stronger low and mid-range power? I love the engine in my V11, I've owned three R259 Beemers and don't care for them. Whatever its strengths the R1100/ 1150 flat twins sound like a lawn tractor, are as charismatic as a refrigerator, are not fun to work on and have some serious design problems. OTOH, if I could have a version of my much loved Guzzi engine with more power everywhere, as a well designed four valve version should, I'd be willing to put up with adjusting a few more valves. Add the fact that the four-valve can be bored to more than 1200 CC (there is no replacement for displacement) and I'm very interested. I'm willing to trust Paul's experience and believe his post above is the truth about the four-valve Guzzi engine. In short, bring it on! Your curmudgeon, Lex

I'm guessing a few of the very early (like pilot production) bikes may have had left over WPs. Just so we know a V11 Sport with a WP shock is not in mechanical Snipe, I think the bike Cycle World had pictures of the first ride article had a WP shock. It is hard to tell from the pictures but it doesn't look like my Sachs. This could be devious (make the pre-product bike the journalists ride better than production bikes) or it could be typical Italian lackadaisical approach to life. Cheers, Lex

I'd be very interested to hear more about whether or not having grease come past the seals is a problem or not. Any experienced (like professional) folks have a comment? Please? Al, I gave up on getting the super slim grease fitting to get to the front nipple. The first time I decided to grease the swing arm I already had the wheel removed so it only took a couple of minutes to loosen the big, chrome nuts that lock the swing arm pins in place, remove the pins and remove the rear shock mount bolt. Once you do that any old grease gun will fit on the nipple without problem. As long as you have the swing arm semi-off you can also check the swing arm bearings and since the rear wheel is off you can check the wheel bearings. I guess I'm saying I started to think of the project as "inspect and grease the bearings, etc. in the rear of the bike" rather than just "grease the swing arm". You don't need to do it that often (I've been told ever time you change the rear tire) so you might as well make one big project out of it and check the rear wheel bearings and swing arm bearings at the same time. JMO, Lex

It sounds like the problem may be fixed but I'd like to add a bit to Carl's excellent advice. When you follow Carl's suggestion finish the job by putting a coating of dielectric grease to the contacts in the connectors. This will prevent water from getting in the contacts and will eliminate or at least reduce then need to clean the connectors. This is good advice for any European electrical system. I don't know why but Japanese stuff doesn't seem to have many problems of this type. Cheers, Lex

Callithrix/ Motowfo, Thanks for the info. I should be getting my Convertibars* late next week or early the following week. You answered the big questions, Callithix has mounted them is just the position I was hoping for and Motowfo's comments on vibration (I've also ordered the heavy Throttlemister) answered my worries about vibration. THANKS GUYS, Lex * Yeah, I know, I have been one of the few Americans who liked the stock bars but after getting a better seat I'm starting to think this bike may wind up on some American style (long) rides. With my butt in the good part of the seat my knees fit into the tank cut outs but the reach to the bars is just a little too long on the straight and boring stuff. Add the funny angle (even at the max adjustment the bars are about 60 degrees from the wheelbase, I'd like more like 75) was enough to make my spend my money. Like Chris Issak says, I'm just an American boy.

Looks like Jaap demoted me to guest! That last post was from me. Now I can't even edit it to fix my typos. This is what I was trying to say: I'm not sure I can tell you what would be right but I think Mike and I can confirm a 550 In/ Lb spring would be too stiff. I'm a lard ass (260#) and the 550 is what I am running. Mike is a fairly good sized guy and the 550 was too stiff. He is going to try a 500, if that works for him it might be a good place for Ian to start. Not much but I hope this helps, Lex

The Automatic Transmission parts beats me but the rest of it sounds like a normal recall. If we can assume this is a real recall, it would not be that unusual for Moto Guzzi to get a bad batch of parts. The problem that happened to Cycle World's 2000 V11 Sport's gearbox was attributed to badly heat treated parts. Luigi may have been fighting with his wife (and/ or mistress ) for a few days and been too distracted to properly heat-treat some of the parts. Once they kissed and made up he went back to work so only a few bikes are effected. The joys of hand made (pre-Aprilia) Moto Guzzi motorcycles. Still happy to have my 2001, Lex

I think Pete's point is that light parts tend to have a shorter service life than heavier parts. Your rod bearings may last longer but your new, lighter pistons may not. This often true but sometimes not. I've seen cases where OEM parts were heavy (and cheap to make) and aftermarket parts were lighter (and much more expensive) because of extra work and/ or better materials, not because they just removed most of the piston's skirt. I know this is often true with older (airhead) BMWs, I wouldn't be surprised if it is also true with Guzzis but I lack the experience to know for sure. Again, this points to the advantages of having someone who knows what parts work well and last on your side. For better or worse, most Japanese parts are very hard to improve on, the stock pistons in late model Japanese super-sports look like the super high end racing parts I dreamed about as a kid, they are even forging some of the OEM pistons these days! Cheers, Lex

Just a note to ask people to read what Pete has said carefully. You'll note it isn't saying such modifications are a bad thing, just that they are not (or should not be) "drop in", the parts can be garbage if you aren't careful and it may cost you in other areas (e.g. engine life). I have no experience building up Guzzi motors but from working on other bikes I have to say a well built, mild engine can be a huge amount of fun and no less reliable than a stocker. However, it will not be cheap and, like the guy with the hopped up Harley in a following post on this subject, it could be a huge disappointment. Listen to experts regarding what would make a good motor for your needs. Poorly designed or made parts, lots of compression and radical cams sound good but will make you unhappy in the long run. People with the skills to select the right parts and build a strong, reliable engine (I'd guess an example in the US Moto Guzzi world would be Mike Rich) will charge you a lot of money. They aren't getting rich, good parts are expensive and it takes a lot of skilled labor to do this stuff correctly. Cheers, Lex, Thinking he might have a talk with Mr. Rich next winter...

Randy, I'll start by saying my opinions are my own and may not agree with anybody else. If you do a search you'll find lots of discussion on the V11's suspension on this site. What I've posted is a result of reading work by experts, talking to experts and a little work on my own over the last thirty years. Given that I am not an expert I think it makes a lot of sense to follow the guidelines of people who are. I'll also add your bike may have been in the hands of a bone head who thinks you "go real fast" with everything set as stiffly as possible. Once you get the bike back to stock (if it is not) try the stock settings, if the problem is still there read on. Remember that suspension is often very counter intuitive, a soft spring can allow bottoming and feel like a "rigid frame pan-head", so can an overly stiff spring, too much rebound (by not letting the suspension extend after a bump) or compression damping. I'll add that V11 suspension can be improved a lot, enough for most folks to be happy, for a small investment but if you want to work really well you are looking at a re-valve (expensive) or replacing the suspension parts (really expensive). I'll start by disagreeing with Vkerrigan and say these bike are set up for a rider under 150 pounds range, not 165-170. The numbers I've seen on preload are why I think the set-up rider was under 150 pounds, everybody seem to be on or over the maximum pre-load, if the bike is set-up for your weight you should be right in the middle of the range. Then I'll show my odd point of view by stating you need to get the springs right before you can do much with the "clickers". There are two reasons for this, first, the bike rides on the springs, not the dampers. The dampers simply modify (damp) the movement of the springs. Second, the clickers only control the low speed damping circuits anyway. Pensky has a very good page on shocks (Pensky page) take a look at the 8100, it is much like the shock on your bike, if you aren't familiar with shock design. The first thing to do is to set the rear preload properly. You can try my uncompleted web page for a "How To" Lex's set-up page. The odds are you'll find you have need more pre-load than is acceptable to get the correct sag, i.e. the spring will be less than 152 MM, proving it is too soft. Keep in mind that you only have, by Guzzi's specs, 5 MM of preload adjustment. If you are 2 MM outside the specified range that is 40%, not a minor amount. Springs are a fairly cheap and easy change, if you need too much pre-load change the spring. I know this is counter intuitive but it is not at all unusual to have a slightly stiffer spring give a better ride than a soft spring with too much pre-load. Keep in mind that the front is as far off as the rear, the standard fix is 0.95 Kg/ Cm spring and changing spacers to set the sag. Any good suspension shop or your local dealer (if he is any good) can set you up with a better fork and/ or shock spring(s). Once you get the springs worked out you can start on the damping. Kiwi Dave's setting might be a good place to start. Damping is much more complex and subjective than springs, I'll say don't fall into the "more is better" trap and leave the rest to experts. Try the Pensky page above, Ractech articles, Guzzi Tech also has some things that might be useful. If hope this is helpful, Lex

Our friend Jaap seems to be having some fun with us. The letters B...M...W are now printed as "Guzzi with hanging tits". I wish he'd at least changing it to "Guzzi with droopy jugs", I think that's a bit more accurate. Lex, multi-time owner of dropping jugged bikes now a happy Guzzi guy.