guzzijack

Er, since when is a 16M the same as a 15M? And I make 2.1degrees a bit different from 3.6degrees and their respective mV conversions. I never mentioned the basic setup procedure as being different but the idle mV readings, (apart from the 150mV base setting), are way different. GJ

It's not 10mv that it's out - it's 160mV Phil, that TPS is screwed and you need to get another one. BTW whatever TPS values you have been given or have measured on your Sport1100i they don't really apply to this thread as the V11Sport with the WM15M is totally different from the WM16M setup - idle is 2.1degrees Sport1100i v 3.6degrees V11Sport - quite a difference. If you want the PF3C TPS and not the PF4C Harley one and don't want to shell out megabucks at a Guzzi dealer, then locate a Webcon dealer or order direct from Webcon (Weber) themselves in the UK - should run at about £78 inc vat. GJ

Have a look at the postings above and maybe on the related rear brake caliper/disc threads - as I've said on numerous occasions, I've had the seal kit mentioned in my hands and it will NOT fit the rear caliper of the V11Sport/V10 Centauro/Daytona RS. It comprises 2 x piston seals that nearly fit, 2 x external type dust seals that don't and the O ring for sealing the port between the two caliper halves plus a couple of bolts. It looks to be for a V50 rear caliper. Is there an emoticon for banging my head against the wall? GJ

I don't think that the fact that Mr Bean didn't set the throttle closed voltage will directly influence the disparity between 485 and 524 in the way you have described it. The ECU and whatever brand of software used to access it are only responding to the TPS output in millivolts and converting that to degrees of throttle opening. I initially thought that the lack of a 150mV baseline would jumble the figures but it shouldn't have any influence at all on the outcome - in essence the two methods of setting up (degrees versus mV) are two completely different ways of looking at the same thing but there should be a constant relationship between the two. The fact that Mr Bean's software sees 3.6 degrees as equating to 485mV and Dave's software gives 524mV the same value is where the conundrum arises - throw into the mix the different methods of setting up that each have followed might provide an answer (maybe not!). Also when trying to equate degrees to mV you might want to consider that the output from the TPS is not a straight linear progression. It is possible that it has an advancing (or retarding) curve to it. I believe I have seen the spec. for the PF3C kicking around the web somewhere but this appears to be confirmed by the FIM website. Here's the relevant quote; "The computer measures the butterfly position using the Throttle Position Sensor (TPS). This sensor is precisely aligned on the butterfly shaft and afftects not only fuel delivery but ignition advance as well. Many owners are tempted to move this sensor on the shaft, as you can get more fuel delivery from the ECU in this way. But there are several goods reasons not to do this: The Weber TPS sensors are NOT LINEAR. If you change the position from the factory setting, not only do you change the fuel delivery but you change the ignition advance. This means that the bike will have too much advance at partial throttle, leading to detonation (pinging) problems which were not there before. The factory used a specific setting for it's mapping, and we use the same setting for our mapping. So if you want to achieve optimum results with our chips, then you should set the TPS to the factory settings. Then your engine will operate as close as possible to the engine we used for testing." GJ

I've been thinking about this after posting yesterday and realised a glaring error in what I was thinking. Of course the ECU doesn't 'see' degrees of throttle opening, it merely responds to the TPS signal in mVs and converts that to degrees of opening as observed via the software programme(s). Why there should be a measurable difference (485 v 525) between the two methods discussed at an indicated 3.6 degrees is indeed a strange one . Looking at the previously available information on how to adjust/setup the EFI it starts with the EFI manual for the P7/P8/16M bikes. The method of TPS adjustment in that was laughable - twist it and allow it to return under it's own spring pressure'!!! Then came the baseline method of 150mV with throttle fully closed and the 'target' voltages at idle for the different bikes. Following that, and presumably coinciding with the more widespread availability of tuning software, came the specifications for setting at degrees of throttle opening at idle rpm with no mention of baseline or target mV readings - why would there be, the literature is aimed at those (dealers in the main) with the tuning software. I'm guessing, but it could be that the difference between the two methods of setting up (degrees v mV) has arisen because of that changeover. It would be interesting is someone (Mr Bean maybe?) could measure TPS output with the throttle butterfly fully closed and disconnected after setting at idle using the MI method. After all, there will still be many riders who can only use the mV method. GJ

By 'zero start setting' I was surmising that Mr Bean hadn't set his TPS to 150mV with the butterfly closed i.e. he had 0mV at that point - from his message above it seems that I guessed correctly. Without the start setting of 150mV his TPS would of course read lower than the expected 525mV at a rotation of 3.6 degrees. The fact that his reading was 485mV would suggest to me that something is indeed amiss (maybe the TPS itself) as he should be getting 525 - 150 = 375mV. That's probably why the 'normal' method has never worked for him before. Of course I defer to the guys at MI as they see far more bikes than I do so maybe their method is something they have refined to deal with a problem they are aware of and I'm not . Why are we getting so wound up about the relationship between degrees of throttle opening and millivolts read at the TPS? Well, I guess that we need to establish the link because the factory literature, which is in the main aimed at dealers, assumes that some form of software will be used to set the bike up and therefore all references are to degrees of throttle opening. Many (most?) home mechanics will only be armed with a multimeter so datum points in mV such as those we have discussed are much more important to them. IMHO in the majority of cases on any of the bikes with EFI the most important one is the 150mV baseline setting - okay so there is sometimes a need to even play with that on some bikes - followed by the 'recommended' at idle point to aim for i.e. 525mV on 15M ECU bikes. As we know that figure is not set in stone and it doesn't work for all bikes but it is a good starting point. GJ

So, are we finally in agreement then? If there is a need for a reference point to start setting up a 15M ecu equipped bike, including the V11Sport, and you don't have access to whatever brand of software, then 525mV @ 1060 +/- 50 rpm idle is a good point to aim for. Higher or lower readings may be be reached as a final tweaking but if you start at 485mV and then apply your +/- .5 degree (approx 100mV) then it could drop way too low. Maybe Mr Bean has read the 485mV TPS @ 3.6 degrees but from a zero start setting and without the 150mV pre-dialled in? GJ

Not that page - although it is relevant - look at the figures on This page. All of the 15M ECU bikes, (apart from the Quota of course), including the V11Sport, Bassa and California Jackal should have the same setting of 3.6 degrees of throttle opening @ 1060 +/- 50 rpm when viewed via the factory or other software. This is the factory standard setting which of course can be played around with but nevertheless it is the 'target' if you wish to have some kind of datum point to refer to. I see you're at it again in your message quoted above. Where does your, "considered idle target of 485mV", come from? Is it factory published data? Do you seriously think that the 2002 California Stone with it's identical 15M ECU, PF3C TPS and a 'baseline' setting of 150mV, (yes, that's the same configuration as the three models mentioned above!), has some other weirdo method of measuring the TPS output at a given throttle opening? If the butterfly 'totally closed' setting is 150mV then 3.6 degrees of opening will give you 524mV from a PF3C TPS no matter which model of bike you have, (with maybe small allowances for manufacturing tolerances of course), even my '97 Cali EV will give the same figure although the P8 ECU and different TBs require a smaller butterfly opening to achieve the 'factory standard' setting. Small wonder that Todd Egan, Docc et al have better running bikes with a TPS reading at idle of "higher than 500mV" as that's where it's supposed to be! GJ

Where did this 'target' of 485mV come from? Is it just a repetition of the erroneous quote of WOT being ".485V"? If you look at the MPH website for a conversion of the software target of 3.6 degrees of butterfly opening at 1060+/-50 rpm it actually equates to 524mV. GJ

Not an option on the V11Sport as it uses the 15M ECU - manual adjustment of the idle mixture potentiometer is only applicable to bikes with the P7/P8 or 16M ECUs - 15M idle mixture adjust is only possible via factory or aftermarket software. GJ

No, no I don't think you understood that bit of it! 150mv is the reading that the TPS should give with the throttle butterfly FULLY closed i.e. with idle screw backed out and all linkages/cables disconnected. At 1100/1200 rpm idle you should then find that the TPS reading will be in the low 500mv range. GJ

I believe that the stock airbox on the Daytona through to the V11Sport is an underated piece of kit. Dr John Wittner is quoted as saying that they just kept finding more power the bigger the volume of the box. Okay, so maybe it had to be toned down a bit to achieve noise emmissions standards what with the 90 degree intake elbows but do a little bit of work on opening up the intake side to decent bellmouths and drill and shape the lid as per Phil A's pattern and it makes a noticable difference. GJ

I wouldn't be tempted to use any form of Gorilla Snot on the gasket. Just wipe it over with some oil and it should last many oil filter changes. Same goes for the rocker cover gaskets - I've got about three pairs of the things hanging on the workshop wall and the only time I use them is on a new (to us) bike where someone has used plastic gasket on it! GJ

Errr.............. As I stated in the previous message, that was posted to the COG list - the Centauro and Daytona use the PF09 NOT the PF3C. GJ

Ha! that's an easy one - pick any date from inception to the present . What's the company's strapline? "Moto Guzzi, proudly going out of business since 1923" GJ

I'll go with scenario B The sensor is a standard MM item and has been used across the automotive and auto racing sectors. No doubt the holder is an off the peg item as well. I'm surmising here but........ as the main volume market for the sensor is within the four wheeled automotive world, is it possible it was designed to be fitted into a liquid cooled environment? (EDIT: Yes it is, as it is listed as a fluid temp sensor!). Maybe the Moto Guzzi application is the ONLY air-cooled one it is used in? Could explain why they perform better with the cavity filled - and no I don't mean to suggest that the holder would have been liquid filled in other applications, just that the temperature parameters may have been different/lower. EDIT AGAIN: I think I've cracked it! The sensor is designed as a FLUID temp sensor. Placing it in the holder is an O/E bodge of the first order by Moto Guzzi. By filling the holder we, the second line bodgers, have merely reverted the sensor to reading as it should do!!!!! Here's a cut and paste from the COG forum with info I found out about some of the sensors/suppliers etc. QUOTE David Wye from this forum alerted me to the fact that the Demon Tweeks Motorsports catalogue http://www.demon-tweeks.co.uk/ listed a correctly sized 58.5mm preload adjustment spanner for the rear shock - item C101 £5.52. This is in the car catalogue and not the bike one! Also in the catalogue are a range of sensors from MM Competition Systems Limited http://www.mmcompsys.com/aftermarkethomecommonparts.html These include the following items: TPS PF09 (item PF09) £65 Phase/cam sensor (item SEN8K-3) £28 MAP air pressure (item PRT 03/04) £45 Oil temp (blue) sensor (item WTS05) £28 There are also injectors, connectors and coils listed and they look to be equivilent to MG O/E ones but I haven't got a cross-reference on them yet. All are plus VAT and postage and I'm not sure how the other items compare to O/E prices but the TPS is the best I've seen yet. END QUOTE GJ

Okay then, try something a bit more complicated.............. ........... like (pause for breath) TIMING GEARS GJ

Here it is Toby's Oil Filter Mayhem Have a look at what he says about Fram before you decide to save a few pennies by going down that road UFI comes out pretty well though. GJ

I've just come off of the 'phone after speaking directly with Ian E of IanE Racing He has many years of dealing directly with Brembo and categorically states that there are NO - REPEAT NO - specific seal/refurb kits available for the Brembo P32B or other P32 Goldline series 'racing' style calipers from Brembo themselves. That is not to say that individual items from other seal kits 'may' fit and someone with an intimate knowledge of Brembo calipers and components might be able to pick and choose the correct items. The reason he gives for this is that 1) the cost of the calipers themselves, including a set of pads!, are comparatively low e.g. £40 or so here in the UK and; 2) there could be adverse publicity for Brembo if someone services a caliper incorrectly and subsequently screws up - therefore remove the ability to foul up and you don't have a problem, (for Brembo that is!). I'm glad that the poster a few messages back hasn't had a problem with his brakes but it's no reason for smugness. Others, myself included as has been documented on the linked threads, have experienced failures for a number of unrelated reasons - some not down to our own endevours even - so trying to get the correct information 'out there' is, I would suggest, a reasonable goal. GJ

Nope, that doesn't do it. Look at the size of the 'dust seals' they might fit the V50 FO5 caliper but there is no way it is the correct seal kit for the F32B Brembo Goldline caliper on the spine frames. Maybe this is where the erroneous claims that there is a correct seal kit available comes from? GJ

Gotta disagree with that one BIG time. When or if you are unfortunate enough to have a throttle jam wide open while overtaking a line of other vehicles with the prospect of a bend in the road coming up, you do NOT have the time to react quickly enough, nor the inclination to remove your hand from the other controls, (such as the front brake!), to get over to the key and switch it off - guess how I know this . By the time you realise something has gone wrong at nearly 9000 rpm you need to be able to respond very, very fast. There was a thread running last year where some people were considering removal of the kill switch to get rid of intermittent starting problems and at the time I advised strongly against doing it for the reason given above. Needless to say that after my own near death and trouser changing experience I haven't changed my mind. What's that aviation related saying about there being, "old pilots, bold pilots but no old, bold pilots" ? Could be just as applicable here! GJ

Oh dear Because my throttle butterflies are totally gummed up and have jammed in the WOT position I have become accustomed to using the kill switch in lieu of the twistgrip - okay progress may be a bit on the jerky side but gearshifts are very positive Does this mean I qualify for double BODGE POINTS GJ

As a further update to things rear brakery: David Wye over on the COG list has informed me that he has obtained some upgraded rear brake pads and is very pleased with the results - he does a lot of fully loaded two-up travelling on his Centauro and wanted some extra bite. The guy he dealt with was mentioned in the previous threads and is also doing rock-bottom price deals on Brembo at the moment IanERacing. Price for the Brembo rear caliper from him was less than 50% of the best price elsewhere! Ratch, can you check the replacement P/N for the Brembo caliper - IanE shows it as 20.5185.11 - only one digit out but it might make a difference Cheers GJ

Some info on these threads: Brembo Rear Caliper Thread Hot Brake Caliper Thread and a useful modification while your in the mood Brake mod If you find a seal kit let us know the outcome GJ

Not a problem. I'm doing it with a V11Sport engine at the moment - with Mikuni Flatslides. It's in the LM1000 Tonti framed Dr John replica coming together on the workshop floor as we speak. The engine was supplied without the injection system anyway so the only problem was how to run the sparks as there is obviously no distributor nor even an unmachined boss which could be played with. Cliff Jefferies' MyEcu will translate the signal from the V11Sport cam/phase sensor and provide output to the coils, so problem solved. My understanding is that Dr John and the Guzzi engineering team wanted to use Mikuni flatslides on the 1100Sport carb anyway but existing ties with Dellorto, plus the lack of a Mikuni European R&D facility, plus the price hike bringing the cost of the complete bike to very near that of the shortly to be released 1100Sporti, killed that idea. Anyhow, I considered putting Lectrons on it but a lack of interest from that quarter, John Wittner's recommendation to go with Mikunis and the availability of jets etc. has steered me in that direction. GJ