motoguzznix
-
Posts
282 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Community Map
Posts posted by motoguzznix
-
-
As for running at .20/.25mm I have had a few veterans warn me that it is too loose and will increase wear.
If a bike has been mapped to the factory setting of .10/.15 will using .20/.25mm mess up the mapping?
My measurement of the V11 cam attached below shows very clear that there is no increased wear on the valve train when using 20/25 valve gap. As you can see, the flat ramp at the start and the end of the cam lobe is approx. 0,5 mm. So a valve clearence of 0,25 mm creates the same forces in the valve train than any smaller clearence. Above 0,7 mm valve clearence the ramp angle gets steeper creating higher forces in the valve train.
The advantages of the bigger clearence are evident: if going from ,015 to 0,25 on the intake the actual opening angle decreases from 389° to 363°, from 378 to 352 on the exhaust.
This diminishes the losses of charge and give the exhaust valve much more time to cool down on its seat. The compression ratio and the time to make use of the burn increase too. Al this contribute to a more stable idle.
-
What spec did you use for the valve adjustment? As a general rule, looser valves provide higher idle.
Sorry Dave, I must correct this!
Tighter valves provide a higer idle, looser valves provide a more stable idle. If you lower the idle speed with the tighter valves to the same amount that occurs with the loose valves, the idle will get much more unstable.
AlDad
adjust your valves to the 20/25 spec at cold engine and retry the TPS setting. Close the bypass screw on both butterflys completely. Unhook the connecting rod and make sure you really get clearence on the right butterfly linkage to the adjusting screw. Me too got it wrong once and had to go through the whole procedure twice.
Then adjust the 150 mV again and turn the right adjustment screws in to get 500 mV.
Then reconnect the rod and synch the TBs first at idle speed, then at ~3000. If the idle is too low, you can open the bypass srews to 1/2 to 1 1/2 turns. More turns out should not be necessary.
I'm sure there was a fault in your procedure that makes such a big difference in the idle setting.
-
Pete
I once posted a scetch with the V11 combustion chamber shape here The discussion then was very similar to the actual thread including Daves piston comparison.
The MR Piston is ideal to cope with this combustion chamber.
To make the best of the stock pistons, you have to rework both cylinder and head to get a working squish area.
The LM4 combustion chamber has no chamfer in it but the V11 and 1100 Sport do have.
-
From the Mike ritch cam charts I would opt for the following:
A) # 800-620x9 - Street Grind. 258° Duration, . 400" Lift
# 800-620x10 - Biggest Street Cam Avail. 264° Duration, . 426" Lift The standard V11 cam has a duration of 270° at 1 mm lift and 0.415 lift.
I remember my flow bench measurements on a V11 head here that show no flow increase above 8 mm valve lift.
If your heads flow alike, I would use the cam with the shortest timing and good avcceleration off the seat to make good mid range power. A cam like this might eliminate th power flat spot at 4000 rpm. A higher lifting cam only contributes to higher valve train forces instaed of a better charge.
If your heads flowed better, cam B could also increase the power wt high rpms.
Brono Scolas OSS could be a good choice too. Lift is the same like Mike Ritchs B cam, but shorter duration.
Every cam with more duration and lift would not show its benefits in the badly flowing standard V11 heads. No power advantage and less on bottom end with an even more pronounced torque dip at 4000.
How did you deck the heads? By milling off the chamfer in the combustion chamber?
Then you have the chance to get a real squish area. Shortening the cylinder barrels is the next step to bring the pistons on top. If all this is done, the valve to piston clearece has to be checked.
-
To get a squish area in the V11 combustion chamber, you have to mill off 1 mm from the heads gasket surface to get rid of the chamfer on the outside of the hemispheric chamber.
Furhtermore I had to shorten the cylinder barrels by 0,45 mm on the base gasket surface to bring the pistons on top of the cylinder. In this area every engine might be different.
Then you get the head gasket thickness (1,2 mm) as squish area.
Valve to piston clearence has to be checked after these mods have been done!
My KR pinged at 3000 under full throttle due to a very lean condition (A/F ~ 17). This almost disapperared when the mixture was richer in that area. I use 95 Eurosuper.
-
I would not go for a B10 cam as I think the V11 cam is better in almost every respect. The V11 cam is very similar to the tuning cams available since the 80s like Dynotec 7906, raceco has an equivalent and HMB too. A fine cam but a street sports cam.
I would go for a cam with shorter timing and slightly more lift to increase the low end torque.
I think the comment in guzziology about the B10 relates to the early carburator 1100 sports that had a very different cam.
HMB has also a range of tuning cams and sell it as a kit with springs and followers. This is the way to go for more torque. Dynotec has too. Scola OSS is also an option. A Dyno run with scola OSS ist stored in the dyno thread.
-
Generally retarding the timing has a similar result to enrichening the AFR.
You can get more power by retarding for more reasons than a pre-existing lean condition.
For Motoguzznix, retarding ignition could have helped because it was too lean to begin with, or it could have helped because the timing was simply wrong.
I got the impression that Motoguzznix optimized fuel before determining that retarding would produce more power. I am not sure if he re-optimized fuel after retarding timing, but it would have made sense to do so, if he could afford enough dyno time.
Unfortunately my efforts in remapping were stopped last year and will hopfully continue this year when my house with workshop is ready to live in it.
Yes, I first optimized the fuel as it was a lot too lean in most areas except above 7000 rpm. Then I did retard the ignition by 3° and got gains of 1-2 HP in most areas.
In the meantime I reoptimized the fuel again but I neither have dyno nor A/F measurements done since then.
One thing to consider is that I raised the CR by ~0,5 points and that means the fuel burns faster. Thats why retarding the ignition was to be tried. But I really think that the max advance of 44° is too much for Guzzis. The old Lemans never had more than 34° advance from 5000 rpm onwards. I suppose that much advance was applied to make the engine burn completely the lean mixture combined with the restrictive exhaust to meet the emission standards.
If you enrichen the fuel and apply an open exhaust the volumetric efficiency climbs and the engine can burn this better mixture faster thus requiering again less advance.
first on the plan for my V11 is to increase the intake flow above 8 mm valve lift to get it flat at 11 mm.
next is to raise the CR further 0.5 to 0.7 points by milling the chamfer completely off the gasket surface to get a real squish.
and eventually remapping of fuel and ignition is necessary
If that does not satisfy me torquewise a camshaft with shorter timing and more lift (maybe Scola OSS) will be applied.
-
The Verlicchi have the look of the originals. Certainly elegant. Has anyone actually fitted these to a V11 Sport?
The Convertibars have the downward angle that (I think) I'm trying to get rid of.
I mounted the verlicchis onto my 2000 KR.
Riding position has changed very slightly: the bars are approx. 2-3 cm higher which gives me a more comfortable ride, but character of the stock V11 (which I like) did not change too much. They are adjustable in all directions and available in 3 heights. I choosed the lowest bars and could retain the stock brake line at the front. The accelerator cable comes from the Centauro.
-
Measuring EGT may be interesting, but one have to be careful with the data:
Coolant or cylinder head temp p.ex. are easy to measure as they do not change in a fast rate. If You take a measurement every 10 s you are exact enough.
EGT is a different thing: this temperature can change within a fraction of a second. 10 Hz may be not enough to make the changes visible. So you should measure with 100 Hz at least to get things into perspective. To take into account is also the delay of the EGT measurement compared to the engines actual rpm. This must be measured at the same time. Lambda too to get a useful correlation between these figures. Lambda may have an other delay than EGT, so this must be taken into account too. And without comparing all this data with the relevant power graphs the effort is only worth 50 %.
Measuring all of this data needs a professional measurement equipment to handle the data in a correct way. I'm not sure if that makes sense without getting things in the right perspective.
-
It's hand-typed from his post. I just double-checked it and I find no difference. Note that the top map above are from the (pre-V11) Sport 1100 and the lower is stock V11, the latter should be the same as the top one of dlaings
Sorry
I overlooked the figures in the next line.
-
Do these bikes have different TP-sensors?
The map Dave shows is the one spread by Wayne as basic V11. And why not, the V11 was sold from 1999 (the parts may be even older) to 2005 or 2006. That's a lot of time, making possible lots of different genuine standard maps.
Now an interesting question: a standard V11 compared to a standard 1100 Sport i.e. Does someone know something about any values? How about EPA requirements or what we call it here Euro1 - Euro2 - Euro3?
Hubert
hubert
The older KR/KS V11s meet the Euro1 figures
The Catalysed V11 meets Euro 2
Only the engines Breva/Griso 1100 with Twinspark meet Euro 3
1100 Sport i I'm not sure if they meet Euro 1. My guess i no.
-
Raz
The stock V11 map is not similar to the maps dlaing posted at the first side of the thread. Look at the 85.56 line where the stock V11 has much more advance. From where did you get the info?
-
When the battery is ok and the relays are replaced, the starter motor itself is suspect. It is well known the stator magnetos can come loose thus preventing the starter to crank over.
If the magnetos are not distroyed too much they can be reglued with a special adhesive for metals. Do it the right way as the magnetos need to be located in the same position than before.
-
Unfortunately, or fortunately if you prefer, the dressed up crankpin didn't work and the galled up pin F@cked the new shells on one rod so I decided to strip the motor. Some of the stuff I found canbe seen on the So-Cal board. It ain't pretty.
Yup, it's a pain, but it'll be fixed. Just a matter of rounding up the bits.
Pete
I'm not sure if grinding paper is the right solution for a crankpin rework.
The grinding particles maybe remain in the pin material and ruin the next shell runníng on it.
The engine repair shop next to mine polishes the crank pins if there are bearing shell deposits. Worked always fine for me.
-
Gray
My suggestion is the Tonti frame will not have enough volume to breathe a 1100cc race engine.
Dynotec has a good solution:
They install a breather box into the frame by welding some sheet metal behind the steering head. Thus reinforcing the frame and building a brether box. The return line must always lead to well below the oil level, otherwise the crank case pressure also occurs in your breather box.
-
Yes, indeed. Thank you, Ernst. That was one of the more interesting graphs, also for me.
It seems that UltiMap is also not the programm I would go for. What is the problem to read the map of any Weber ecu and present its values in a readable or at least comparable form? When I got you right, then Ultimate also can not show what values your neighbour is using, right?
Hubert
Right, Hubert
Ultimap is fine for professional tuners as it has a lot of maps worked out on the Dyno for the WM equipped motorcycles. Handling for diagnosis is a lot easyer than axone.
When I were a software expert, I would investigate to get access to the ECUs. I suppose it gets more difficult to crack the system with every generation of ECUs. Ultimap p.ex. can not provide to reflash the WM5.9 computers, their solution is to offer an exchange computer U59 that can be flashed with the software. This is a fully open system. Furthermore they cannot provide a base map for the V11 bikes with catalyst.
-
Hubert, here are my experiences with the Ultimap system:
I had also some problems with it.
There is a dongle to be connected to the serial bus on the computer. This dongle is connected to the ECU. My first dongle did not work perfect, I did some flashloads, but eventially I could neither do flashloads nor get access to any ECU for diagnose purpose.
The second dongle now works perfect.
The system can make diagnose of the P7, P8, 1.5, 1.6, 5.9 ECUs.
The fuel pump, ignition, injectors can be actuated. Fuel trim can be adjusted. Every sensor figure is visible.
For the 1.5 ECU flashloads can be done. You have a base mapping file for your type of bike stored in the system, you can add or subtract a percentage of fuel from the base and offset map and you can add and subtract deg from the ignition map. So you cannot see the absolute values stored in your map, but only the differences you apply to.
Further you can adjust the max rpm.
There are a lot of flashloads for different bikes available in the system for open mufflers etc.
For flashloading a new file into your ECU a code must be entered. Two codes came with the system, every further code costs 90
-
Well, sorta. Per Dave Richardson [of Guzziology fame], all post '01 [Aprilia era] Guzzis are 50-state bikes. In other words, any '01-'05 V11 originally imported for U.S. sale is CA-legal and identical to other v11 models of that year whether sold in CA or the other 49 states. Which would also explain why the info for "front x-over models" doesn't work for the ones sold in the U.S., since the Euro-spec front x-over models would have been tuned for the new Euro 3 spec while no specs for U.S. bikes were required to be changed until the '06 model year [new EPA specs went into effect for '06 bikes, which is why almost all 600cc+ streetbikes in the U.S. went to FI from carbs the previous year if they weren't already FI, in case you hadn't noticed...
]As Greg Field has posted, no U.S. Guzzi so far has the cats [altho' I had read otherwise in moto rags, but that could just be blind transcription of Italian "press release" copy targeting the EU market & not intended for U.S. consumption. "Journalism" being a loosely-defined word in these modern times.]
Ride on!
Just to make things clearer:
The older KR/KS V11s meet the Euro1 figures
The Catalysed V11 meet Euro 2
Only the engines Breva/Griso 1100 with Twinspark meet Euro 3
-
QUOTE(dlaing @ Jan 20 2006, 08:20 AM)
...
I would think a better spark would make it ping even more.
I thought of going with colder spark plugs, but never tried as I figure that may increase the risk of burning valves....
What I meant, is that the better spark of the iridium would have a very small advancing effect on the flame front that might make it ping more.
Rather than using iridium, I thought a colder plug would slow down the advance of the flame front, and thus reduce the chance of pinging.
But from what I understand, switching to a cold plug is like changing a thermostat, potentially allowing the engine to run too hot.
Since I can adjust the mixture, that is the better approach.
But now since I can adjust the mixture and timing, I suppose I could go with the iridium.
But I prefer the idea of cheap disposible plugs to expensive plugs since any plug is going to out last the plug washers. Every time I pull the plugs for a valve adjustment, I like the idea of having a new plug washer, and the only way I know how to have a new washer is to have a new plug.
Iridiums every 3000 miles is out of my budget.
David
some comments to your statements above:
An iridium plug makes no better spark. Spark position might be located more exactly and this can be of some advantage. But in a large combustion chamber like the Guzzis I doubt this very much. The better iridium material is necessary to retain the lifetime of a conventional plug with the smaller plug electrode.
A colder plug does not slow down the advance of the flame front. If the mixture can be ignited by the spark, the flame front burns independent from the spark plug. The only thing that changes with a cooler plug is the temperature of the plug. A too hot plug can cause the mixture to be ignited prior to the spark coming on.
A cooler spark plug is more likely to decrease the risk of a burnt valve than vice versa. I think a BPR7ES is worth a try and cost is the same like the BP6s. You should observe the colour of the plug, if too dark Guzzi did the right choice. There is no risk with it. Going to BP5 would be more risk.
It is unnecessary to adjust valves and replace plugs every 3000 miles. Adjust the valves to 0.20/0.25 mm and drive it for the next 6-7000 miles. The increased valve clearence has also the advantage to decrease the risk of pinging.
Believe it or not.
-
From another thread Greg posted the following that got me thinking...
QUOTE (Greg Field @ Sep 27 2007, 07:16 AM)
I was just reading the instructions included with the Guzzi Ti pipes. They specify different tuning for the bikes with the front crossover and the bikes without the crossover. Fr the non-crossover bikes, it says set the TPS to 3.8 degrees +/- 0.1 degree, which it says corresponds to 550 mV +/- 5mV. For the crossover bikes it says set the TPS to 2.9 degrees +/- 0.1 degree, which it says corresponds to 465 mV +/- 5mV.
Perhaps this difference is meaningful and needs to be taken into account in the procedure set forth in this thread?
I installed MG ti -kit 1 month ago, and since then I have adjusted the TPS 3 or 4 times trying to find an optimal value.Instructions coming with the TI kit say 2.9 for bikes with front crossover, but this value doesn"t work, at least for my bike.
Bike starts to work almost perfect, when I get close to 3.6-3.8, but still doesn"t have the smooth sense it had before Ti kit.
Maybe Tuneboy, Direct Link, PCIII, allow a better degree of fine tuning, ..........although some time ago I was thinking
"who needs them....???????"
In Europe, the bikes with front crossover are equipped with a catalytic converter.
In the US this seems not to be the case.
I'm sure the catalysed bikes are mapped completely different and I suppose the 2.9
-
Hello
This is the first time i am posting outside the technical topics.
A very good friend of mine will travel from April20 2008 3 to 4 weeks through the USA. His starting point is Atlanta/Georgia. He wants to rent a motocycle for his round trip and the prefered bike would be a Guzzi as he rides one at home in Austria since 15 years. Why riding a minor bike during the holidays than the rest of the year?
So, can anyone give an advice if there is a Guzzi dealer or a bike rent company that can provide a Guzzi to rent near Atlanta?
-
So it's not unreasonable to suggest then, that Hailwood's speed through a given corner with the RC-166 250 six may've been on a par with, or even better than Rossi's capable of today with state-of-the-art open-class gear??
Ernst, (or anyone else), this is important.
please respond ASAP. Need fresh fuel for "inspired" bar talk this evening. 
Ratchet
The only figure that influences the possible steady cornering speed of any 2 wheeled vehicle is the friction between road and tire. Theoretically.
This friction figure determines the centrifugal forces that can be applied to the tire. The centrifugal force is determined by the cornering speed and the vehicle weight. The resulting vector shows the lean angle necessary for the given speed. Every other figure like tire width or wheel diameter do not influence the formula.
There might be some person with better english capabilitys to explain this.
So - has the friction figure road to tire raised since the days of Mike the bike?
Maybe a bit.
If a todays bike allows the lean angle necessary to reach the cornering speed of a historic small tired race bike, it could also do slightly better. If you applied the same sticky rubber compund to the small tire, the match would be on a par. But the small tire with that soft rubber would not last very long.
-
Steve
The newer front subframe fits perfect!
The older design was invented for the 4V engines to allow some clearence for the timing belt covers. This styling was kept for the V11, but they are not interchangeable with those of the Centauro/Daytonas. These subframes will not fit the V11s because the engine on these bikes is displaced to the right. This was necessary to accomodate a 160 rear tire together with the old 5 speeders.
You will need this subframe in case you want to install a 4V engine into the V11.
-
Do you mean lower tire friction or less rolling resistance?
I originally said if you made the dyno outputs equal. If that was the case it would depend on the road. If we are discussing cornering speed, I still insist that the modern bike will go around the turn faster. Yes there may be some open radius turns where acceleration through the turn could make a difference, but very few turns.
Rolling resistance is the correct term.
But rolling resistance and tire friction depend on each other.
My suggestion was the same dyno output at the rear wheel.
You always insist that the cornering speeds of a large tired bike are much higher than those of a small tired bike. I do not agree in this! The large tired bike will need a much tighter lean angle than a small tired to drive the same cornering speed. so you need more cornering clearance to drive a mdern bike as fast as an ancient oneat the same power level. The real difference is the rubber compound of the actual tires. If this was comparable, the difference would be zero. And I'm sure in fact it is very small!
The large tire has the advantage to allow more acceleration out of the corner, this is the real difference in the lap times and in the driving style it requieres. But this will get less important when the engine power is low.
If you look at some trck days, a tonti guzzi with comparable engine power is more than a match for any V11.
HI Idle
in Technical Topics
Posted
Comparing the V11 cam with the Scola cams quoted at 0,5 mm lift you get the following figures:
in ex
V11 305 301
OOS 276 274
RS 307 306
KS 283 283
ROS 306 ? here are the OOS figures quoted the chart, supposedly an error.
As you can see, the stock cam is one of the most opening cams, other companies make race cams with timing figures like this. For a street bike not favorable and the tuners get more power with shorter duration cams. The only disadvantage with the shorter cams is the higher valve accelerations contributing to more wear in the valve train. This is partly outweighed by the better lifetime of the exhaust valve with a shorter cam due to the better cooling. Shorter cams can also contribute to cleaner burning and thus less polluted exhaust gasses.
But the V11 cam is very good compared to the cams used in the LM123T345 etc from the mid 70s on. This cam opened at 0,22 mm up to 390 - 400°. Exhaust valve failures were very common, especially when the lead was reduced in the fuel in the 80s.