GuzziMoto

I have used two different brand Lithium batteries, Shorai and Anti-Gravity. I am sure they are both nice batteries, but the Anti-Gravity one seems better than the Shorai for my uses. But both of them, and all Lithium batteries in general, have certain drawbacks that can be an issue for some applications including mine. The main two issues I have are the way they act when cold and the lack of serious amps to start a hard to start bike. You can quote all kinds of specs on paper, but the harsh reality is they don't have as much ASS when it comes to CCA. The Shorai batteries worked well enough on my DRZ (since sold) but did not work on my Griso for shit (yes, I had the largest one they made at the time for my Griso, not the same one I used for my DRZ). The A-G battery seems to work better but it is not great. The weight savings sounds great but when you figure what kind of percentage it is of the total weight you realize it is not really making a difference. If it works well enough than great, they are cool. But it is not always nothing but roses.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. When the rear bevel drive box is try to accelerate the rear wheel that principle says that the opposing force is trying to rotate the bevel box in the other direction equal to the torque being applied to the wheel to rotate it forward. The whole deal about the pinion climbing the ring gear is a separate force and that force is not as much a factor as it is not a rotational force. When Guzzi added the floating bevel drive with the second U-joint it mostly took that force out of the equation. That force causes the rear to extend under acceleration when you do not have the floating rear drive and second u-joint as the swing arm sorta acts as a lever. It does not do that when the drive shat has the second u-joint.

Grade 2 is the "weight" of the Lithium grease as I understand it. I doubt it is that critical. I don't use any special grease, it is a pair of U-joints. There is nothing special about the application.

PCV is Power Commander 5, the current (I think) version of the Power Commander. PCV A/T is Power Commander 5 with their AutoTune module added. I agree about FI, Guzzi is not doing it themselves, they are subbing it out. But so did Buell, to the same people. And the Buell was less $$$ then a Guzzi. But the main point of that is that it could be done better. I ended up paying money after the sale to make my Griso work better, but my Buell came that way from the factory using a system from the same supplier as the lower grade version my Griso came with. And, mind you, me Buell was from 1999 and my Griso is an '07. You would think the newer one would be MORE advanced, not less.

Well, as mentioned, my Griso has a PCV and A/T (from Todd) and it works well. The wifes V11 has a PC3 with a custom map that I have since modified (as I found the custom map a little lacking in certain drivability situations). I had a really good custom map for it but when I got the heads done I took it to a different tuner (the first guy was gone) and forgot to pull the first map out and save it before the next guy took a stab at it. He did not do as good a job as the first guy (perhaps part of the reason he was gone, he spent way to much time on the wifes bike, great for me but bad for his bottom line) so I had to adjust it. A PCV with A/T would have taken care of that for me but they did not make them back then. But while I love the PCV and A/T idea (especially the A/T) I would not say it is the only way to get a well running Guzzi. I don't think the Guzzi lump is that finicky of a beast and a custom map could work just as well, perhaps with a ittle more effort then the A/T. But the A/T method is not without its fine tuning. You need to tell it the correct target air/fuel ratios to get the best out of it. WHile someone like Todd can get you very close, there is still room for fine tuning. The Buell was great as far as FI goes. Personally I think that the map they loaded in after the first one did not work well was not EPA legal. I think it was not lean enough. But it did work well and watching/feeling it correct the fueling was great. I wish other makes would work that well. The funny thing was I believe it was Weber/Marelli FI. Clearly they know how to make it work, why can't they make the one on my Guzzi work that well?

Running FI open loop (without an O2 sensor) is not the end of the world and should work well enough as long as the map is right. The cool thing about closed loop is the way it can correct a map that is not quite right. And, as I mentioned, watching my Buell correct the mapping after changing out the exhaust system was awesome. And that was with the stock narrow band O2 sensor. If only my Guzzi FI were that smart (actually, it is now, but that was only after I spent a large chunk of money on adding the PCV and A/T). I am a carb guy at heart. But I do see that FI has the potential to work much better then carbs and I do my best to embrace FI. To butcher a marine corp expression, you have to adapt, learn, and sometimes improvise.

While I agree that when coupled with some sort of wide band sensor and fuel modification based on that wide band sensor is a good thing, the stock set up with the narrow band sensor and fixed adjustment tables is somewhat lacking and probably does not actually help the motor run better. I had a Buell a while back with the OEM MM fuel injection set up. It was one of the best stock EFI systems I have used. The original map was a bit off but they quickly loaded a new map and the bike ran perfect. It also was a very smart system and you could feel it learning, say when you did something like swap exhausts. It would, at first, run a little rough but you could feel it smooth out and improve as you ran it through the gears a few times. The Guzzi system, even on the latest Guzzi's, is no where near as good. I do have a PCV with AutoTune on my Griso and it works well enough. But the system on my Buell did all that stock. The PCV/AutoTune set up is $$$. Running a fixed map set up with the stock narrow band sensor taken out of the loop (so to speak) could be a viable option for proper running for a lot less money. The main thing the narrow band set up brings to the table as used by Guzzi is reduced emissions. It does not really make it run better, smoother, or make more power.

Is this like PBS? Is this a fundraiser? Thanks for guilting me in to it, Docc. I didn't check what the exchange rate is, I hope 20 euros isn't something like $100.....

Jeez, I clicked on that link and looked at the ChronoClassic line before reading the next two posts. The price tag nearly gave me a heart attack. I am sure there stuff is really nice, they are certainly very proud of there stuff based on those prices. The SpeedHut stuff may or may not be as high end but they allow so many custom options I am surprised custom builders would pick MotoGadget over them. I reckon many of those custom builders don't know about SpeedHut or other automotive based suppliers that can do the custom work. Seems odd, but it is what it is.

Yea, the speedo sensor got wet and failed. It is usually a temporary failure and upon drying out it will come back. The failed speedo sensor trip the service light. There is much info about sealing the speedo sensor, making it water proof, on the internet. A good place to start is GuzziTech. But it is mostly just drying it out completely and sealing it with silicone.or some other such waterproofing agent.

WHY????? Somethings, like mirrors, I could see going with junk. But your brakes are not one of them.

A nods as good as a wink to a blind bat.

For the front brake M/C, perhaps one from a single disc V7. Not sure of the reservoir set up on that. There are also plenty of Ducati's, mainly entry level ones, that have a single front disc.

Maybe for someone in the UK / EU SpeedHut is not as good an option, but if the OP (or anyone else) types SpeedHut into the search bar on this site you will find that a few people have replaced their crappy stock speedo and / or tach with units from SpeedHut. They do custom graphics as well as a variety of color combinations. And they are well priced.

If you do that make sure you can remove your parts from the jig you welded. I know that seems obvious but I also know that with some pipe layouts you could end up unable to take it back apart. You might run into that with the bottom crossover section if your head pipes turn inward before they connect to the crossover. If so, then you would need to make it partially unbolt. If you dis-connect the electrics, especially the grounds, you should be able to weld with them in place. But it is obviously safer to remove any valuable electrical parts. In the past we have always had our custom exhaust fabricated directly on the bike. No jig used. But it is a viable way to go if it will work for the section you are building. Being able to remove is key.

A crossover is not a collector. A crossover simply allows for sharing, a collector merges the two (or more) flows together. You could then split the merged flows back apart after the collector, but if you don't have a collector and the flows never actually merge into one then it is not a two into one or two into one into two set up. X pipes and crossovers are in a different catgory from collectors. Within collectors there are many styles and types. More complex ones that do a better job of merging the flows result in better performance but tend to be more difficult to make and thus more expensive. The ones you see on production OEM and aftermarket systems are generally oriented more towards cheaper to build than working better.

The MGS-01 has asymmetrical headers but the Dr John is equal length. I think he was referring to the design, the way they are run, referring to the way they run down one side and not the other. Much like the way a swingarm can be asymetrical.

Other options would be either a set of flat bars or clubman bars. One of the great aspects of bars vs clip-ons is you CAN easily change to a different bend with a different riding position to go along with it. For the "Fat Bar" style bars the BillyBob and other modern bikes use there are a few good sources for bars. LSL/Spiegler, Renthal, and some others I can't think of at the moment. You can get adapters that allow you to fit a 7/8" bar in the 1 1/8" clamps, as well. That opens the door for more options but I prefer the fat bars. And I would not use Chinese built clip-ons or handle bars with a brand name watching them for quality control. Failure of a clip-on or handle bar while in use would be bad

See, if your bike was lighter it would not have fell so hard and may not have broken as much. Sorry to hear. I am only partially joking about the weight vs. falling thing. I can remember racing two strokes, both roadrace and dirt, and when you crashed them they did less damage to themselves because they had less inertia. My four stroke dirt bike would always bend the handle bars when I wrecked it seemed. My two stroke 440 still has the original stock bars.

I was not trying to insult or other wise beat on AndyH or anyone else. Apologies from me as well. I was simply pointing out how I find it funny that people who do not feel the need to do something to their bikes often feel the need to mock or otherwise question those who do. The worst offender in that catagory was HatchetWacker. I am not saying Andy, or anyone else is anywhere near as bad as RH, just commenting on the behavior. Also, as I mentioned, I do like pie as well. When I was racing seriously I did not allow myself to eat pie. Nor did I drink beer during the racing season (still drank it in the off-season, I am not completely crazy). I do not race seriously any more so I do eat pie(s).

The main reason to go with a two into one into two is noise. You can run larger, more open, mufflers when you run two of them and still be under the noise/db limit. The power side of it is in the two into one side. The splitting back to two mufflers is more for noise reduction. I have never seen a real two into one into two system for a Guzzi, but sure you could build one. It will weigh more than a two into one and likely will not make any more power than the two into one system, but it should be quieter. In the end it depends on what you want. I do not claim to be a pipe builder, nor do I claim to know all there is to know about building exhaust pipes. I have worked with a real pipe builder in the past and he taught me a lot, including changing some of what I thought I knew. Feel free to google exhaust flow theory or whatever, more knowledge is always a good thing. One thing I can tell you is many people told us our two into one exhaust pipe was hurting power on our Ducati race bikes. But none of those guys ever went by us down the straight. Does a two into one pipe work the same on a 90 degree twin as it does on other engine configurations? No. But it do know it can work very well from personal experience along with working with a real pipe builder. The stock and aftermarket systems I have seen for Guzzi's, and V11s in particular, are two into two with a crossover or X pipe. That results in some of the benefits of a two into one into two system but the main aspect there is, again, noise reduction. In my opinion power gains are mainly in how you merge the two flows together (along with lengths and diameters of the head pipes). Splitting them up later does not really add power unless your muffler flow was not going to be enough with just one muffler, but it can hurt power if you don't do it well. One last thing, I have yet to see an aftermarket pipe built to the same standards as a custom pipe. I am trying to decide which two into one pipe to buy for my Aprilia RXV race bike I am building, as yet I have not seen one as nice as a custom pipe. I also have a pipe that a guy in Ca. has built for Griso's that is pretty nice, but it is no where near as nice as the custom pipes we have had built for our race bikes. For a street bike you likely do not need something that nice, but I totally understand WANTING something that nice. I want something that nice for my Aprilia AND for my Daytona. We will see which, if either, gets it.

"Clear on the 2-1 muffler volume As for the second part, Sounds like you know one or two things about exhaust-systems. I understand the part about the exhaust-pulses of the engine not happening at the same time. However the ''peaks & waves'' are still kind of hard to get my head round. If the 2-1 set-up does not result in a loss of ride-ability or lots of power i guess im a happy camper " The effect from the negative pressure wave getting back to the exhaust port is not a yes or no deal. The exhaust valve opens, then closes. If the negative pressure wave arrives at anytime during that event you will see some positive effect. Heck, even if it gets there slightly early you would see a small effect. Peak effect is when the negative pressure wave arrives right when the valve is opening. But on either side of that is still an improvement in scavaging the exhaust gases out of the cylinder. So, the effect is not a yes or no sort of thing but rather a wave with the peak of the wave at the point where the timing is perfect. But there is still a positive effect even when the timing is off one side or the other a little. Plus, as mentioned, with a two into one pipe there are two pulses, two negative pressure waves that are going back up the pipe. With a true two into two system would only have one. The two into two pipes with a cross over like Guzzi's have are somewhere in between. In my experience a properly designed and built two into one pipe will have better power, better "ride-ability" then a two into two pipe. What a two into two pipe is often best at is making maximum power at a given rev range. But less power everywhere else. So, if you are running the salt flats for maximum speed a two into two pipe would probably work the best. But for street running or roadracing a two into two pipe can work better. But a poorly designed and built pipe, whether a two into one or two into two, will not make as much power as a well designed and built pipe, regardless of type. You can make power with a good pipe and you can loose power with a poor pipe. My favorite collector style is a Merge collector. they are a cool design and you can buy one to use in your pipe. I am not expert, I only know enough to be dangerous.

For anyone truly trying to go faster you would be at least partially correct. But serious racers who are trying to go faster already don't eat much, if any, pie. No one here is likely in that category, although once upon a time I was. But that was some 50 lbs ago. And much pie. Sometimes people want to make their motorcycle better than it was when it rolled out of the factory. There is nothing wrong with that in my opinion. I do not think that everyone should do that but I do not understand why some people who choose not to do that feel compelled to express their opinions and mindset to those that do. I hate red motorcycles but I do not say anything negative to those with red motorcycles. Even in jest.....

I did not say the two into one muffler should be the same size as a two into two muffler. I said the two into one muffler does not need to be much larger than the two into two mufflers are. By that I was implying that it will be larger, just not twice as larger. Sorry, I could have been clearer. A common mistake is to think you are flowing twice the exhaust out of a two into one muffler then you are out of a two into two muffler. That logic assumes that the exhaust gas flow is constant and even. It is not, the exhaust flows in pulses. The pulses from one cylinder are happening when the other cylinder is not exhausting. Think of it as two dotted lines that you are merging together. If the dots don't overlap each other than they can be merged into one line. In reality, the size of the collector pipe should determine the size of the muffler. The muffler should be as big as the collector pipe in inside diameter. It can be bigger (more noise) but it should not be smaller. As two the idea that you can't make a two into one pipe act as a "true extracter (sp) exhaust system", I used to think that until a real exhaust guy showed me that it does work. I now know it can and does work if the pipe is made correctly. I have seen it with my own eyes. And there are at least two peaks of the return pressure wave helping the exhaust get out of the cylinder on a two into one system, while a two into two system may only have one. And it is not only at a specific rpm where it works but peak effect is centered at certain rpms. But the effect is more of a wave form with the peak of the wave at a certain rpm. And obviously, having two waves (as a two into one system does) allows for better coverage of the rpm range as a whole. And I think 68C meant with a 360 degree crank parallel twin you get an even pulse between both cylinders and thus is easier to make any kind of exhaust extractor pipe work. A 180 degree twin does not evenly fire its cylinders. In fact, it is more offset on the firing than a 90 degree twin with a single crank pin like Ducati's or our Guzzi's.

The collector itself is hard to build yourself and get right. I would suggest you buy that part. And a two into one pipe should not need a muffler with an inner pipe/baffle much larger then a two into two pipe. They are both flowing the same amount of exhaust at any one time.