GuzziMoto

If you look closely at the TB design, it appears to be a cast twin spar design. I have not seen detailed photos of it but in the photo you posted you can see the webbing on the back of the far side spar. Maybe the two spars connect in the v along the bottom, I can't tell. That design is certainly innovative, but clearly it is not designed by someone who understands structural engineering as much as it is designed by a stylist (TB). I hope they have buried that design but if they evolve it to where it is a well thought out design then great. But as it stands it is more a statement about creative thinking then it is a good design. But improve the structural rigidity of it and get rid of all the Foo Foo crap and it could be a good thing. Or not.

I'm with you. While I know the Griso frame is more rigid then a V11 frame I would love to have seen how much further the spine frame concept could have gone. Buell did the same thing to me, I had a tube frame X-1 and they stopped building those. They switched to an aluminum perimeter frame (with fuel in the frame) that was undoubtably more rigid then the tube frame. But for a street bike I preferred the dynamics of the tube frame bike. An aluminum spine frame with a large cross section is a project I dream of on a regular basis. Incorporate the fuel into the main section and the airbox into the rear cross piece. Just need to figure out how to shorten the package. I definitely would prefer that to a Breva or Stelvio or even Griso.

I am going to resist trying to explain what I know of frame design (which may be more then some but clearly not as much as others) but let me try to shed a little light on it. A motorcycle frames primary loads are not compressive. They are torsional and lateral. A straight line is more resistant to compression, but not to torsional or lateral loads. A diamond would be a good shape for a motorcycle frame, especially if it is a 3D diamond. That is not too far from the shape that a Griso frame has when you factor in the engine/trans as a stressed member. I am not saying that a Griso frame is perfect, state of the art, or that you could not improve on it. But it is a more rigid frame the previous Guzzi's including the Tonti and Spine frame. The shape of it is not dictated by rigidity needs alone but also to fit around the engine and allow for other components like the gas tank and alternator. A spine frame concept is nice but in order to get the rigidity of the Griso frame the cross section of the spine would need to be dramatically increased. With a spine frame that large you would not have room for the fuel tank (maybe you could put the fuel in the frame ala' Buell) and alternator (the alternator would likely not fit even without the increase in spine cross section). The Griso frame works well for what it is. The weak area appears to be the swing arm pivot area which is no where near as stout as the same area on the V11 and everyone seems to think that is the weak area for that frame. It may be but I am not so sure.

No, my post was saying the opposite. I bought it because it looks good (mostly good but not completely great from all viewpoints). That comment was not directed at you (or anyone else in particular), it was directed at the premise of this thread (as I understand it) which was that current Guzzis are not as desirable as the older ones.

Remember too that the original motor in that frame was the old 4 valve motor from the Daytona. So yes, a 2 valve motor might have what seems like extra room between the heads and frame (really there is not a lot) but the 4 valve and the 8 valve motors would have very little. If you don't like it that is your choice, But I think it is a great looking bike. I do like the V11 a lot, but not because of its looks. I think the V11 was a sportier bike (especially the red frame versions) with a raw exciting feel. The Griso is a bit of a couch in comparison. And it is very heavy with too much weight on the rear. But it looks great.

On the Griso (and the other CARC bikes) the motor is a stressed part of the frame. Think of where the frame connects to the front motor mounts and then where the frame connects to the motor at the back. That is one part of the frame. Now you have the actual frame tubes in question. If they ran as close to the motor as possible the sum total of rigidity between the two would not be that high. But running the tubes up high in something of a mirror image of the lower connection between the steering head and swingarm pivot thru the motor/trans acts as a triangulation and creates a more rigid structure. The larger the load bearing cross section is the greater the rigidity. While the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, that is seldom the most rigid route. Is it perfect, no. There are some allowances made to make it fit the Guzzi Layout. If the heads were not in the way the tubes would likely not be so high. But if the choice was to either keep the tubes out wide and run them up over the cylinder heads or keep them in closer and run them more directly down from the steering head to the S/A pivot I think they made the right choice. It is as close as Guzzi has yet made to a modern perimeter frame. It's biggest shortcoming in my opinion (besides the length, not all blamed on the frame design) is the spindly swing arm pivot tie in. As for the V11 frame. It is much better from a sport/rigidity aspect then the Tonti frame. The Tonti frame is like the Featherbed frame, an awesome design for it's time, but compared to modern frames it is less then awesome. The spine frame was an improvement from a sporting perspective but by the time of the V11 it was already being left behind by the perimeter frame. For a street bike any one of them can make for an enjoyable ride, in fact it is often said it is more fun to ride a slow bike fast then a fast bike slow. But don't confuse that with good design. And I was only poking fun at the duality of 68C's post where on the one hand has was condemning Triumph for a dishonest frame (cast to look like a tube frame) but yet the Griso which is an honest tube frame design he also finds fault with, condemning the arc of the tubes be cause it does not look "right" to him. Now he is entitled to his opinion, all I was doing was eluding to the fact that some people you just can't please. Guzzi people seem to be worse then most sometimes. No harm meant.

While I agree with your general statement (the whole "Less is more" premise) I would disagree with some of you other points. The Griso frame is actually a pretty good example of visually pleasing functionality. The high arcing frame tubes allow for a more rigid structure then if they just went straight back plus it makes room between the rails for the gas tank and alternator. Where it comes up short is in the swingarm pivot area and its extreme length. But all in all it is a pretty good design. The V11 frame works well not because it is heavy (it is not) but because it is light. What hurts it is its lack of rigidity, it is rigid by 1980's standards not current standards. The opinions on the modern Triumph frame are not ones I share. If you take issue with a cast frame looking like it is tubes, well that is up to you. There are many other good frames out there doing the same thing. It does not bother me. I would prefer an honest tube frame like the Griso frame, but apparently that is not good enough for some either. You can't please everyone. I am not found of Guzzi's current line up, but they are selling more bikes now then they have in most of their past. That has to be a good thing.

As it was explained to me, by the afforementioned legendary exhaust guy, the primary pulses are the strongest part of the equation. In a two into one set up as the exhaust pulse from one cylinder gets down to the collector and starts up the mid pipe there is a negative pressure wave that goes up the other primary pipe. There is also a negative pressure wave created when the exhaust pulse exits the end of the exhaust system but that wave may or may not make it up to the exhaust valve before the next positive pressure wave comes down. Most street systems are too long for that and your more likely to see that wave making to the collector and meet up with a positive wave there that helps get that pulse out and generate a stronger negative wave to go up the other primary tube to help the pulse begin. Our race systems have virtually no mid pipe. They are just a two into one system with either a mid pipe of less then a foot or no mid pipe at all (just a collector with a muffler like device attached). The key is to get negative pressure waves to be at the collector and at the exhaust valve at the right moments to help the positive pressure pulses get out quicker. The negative pressure pulses that go back up the other primary pipe and make it to the exhaust valve as it is opening are the most important pulses. The secondary pulse that make it to the collector are not as strong, they are split between both primary pipes if they make it to the collector before the next pulse. But on a motor as crude as a Guzzi I doubt the details of the exhaust layout will make much difference. We were running serious cams, head porting, and carbs, on our Ducati's. The Guzzi lump is much less highly strung. On a motor like that it will be much less sensitive to exhaust tuning. On a side note, my wife prefers a twin pipe set up on her V11 while my Griso has one of Todd's right side exit kits currently. On my Daytona it has the StainTune system but I want to build something like what my Griso has because I prefer the sound of a two into one system. To my ears a two into one system has a meaner, raspier, snarl. The two into one system are deeper and more booming with the individual pulses more recognizable.

With a 90 degree v twin there will pretty much always be a difference between the exhausts effects on scavaging from one cylinder to the other. Even if you use unequal length primary tube the distance between one cylinder exhaust valve and the other is the same, regardless of which direction. It takes the scavaging pulse the about same amount of time to get from cylinder one to cylinder two as it does from cylinder two to cylinder on no matter what the pipe lengths are. The primary scavaging effect is from the merge between the two pipes. There is a secondary effect from the exhaust exiting the end of the pipe, but from my experience working with Herb Gebler (RIP) on our Ducati race bike exhausts that was not as important. You can use changes in diameter and other tricks to help even it out but I don't think it will ever be even on a V twin. Some Ducati's used what we called a Spaghetti system with twin cross-overs on a two into two system. I don't have much experience with those. What I do know is nobody on another 750 Ducati ever passed me in a straight line with more power. Our bikes ran two into one systems built by Gebler. I know there is more to power then just the exhaust, and we had all that as well. I'm just saying I heard a lot of people with two into two systems talking about how their bikes had more power then ours did with its inferior two into one system (two into one systems were not common back then) but no one ever backed up the talk by motoring by. By the way, I wanted a twin exhaust system with separate pipes but testing showed us the two into one had nearly as much top end but a wider spread of power. If you looked at the area under the curve you had more total power with the two into one.

A friend of mine is putting one of the units on a Ducati Paso. The stressed to him that the 12 volt feed should be from a switched source. Likely for that reason.

The oem Guzzi batteries where great batteries and last a long time. I bet there are still originals in service. I could not get the original brand (Sparker I believe it was) but Odyssey seem to be the same design or nearly and they also tend to last a real long time. I got my most recent Odyssey from Rousch (yea, them) thru ebay. Another option is the new generation Lithium batteries like the Shorai's. Todd (aka RacerX) sells them. They would be smaller then the original battery but they come with foam to fill in the empty space. I have two of those but it is too early to tell how long they will last.

Not sure what you are talking about but it is normal to have voltage at fuses with the key off. As I recall, on the V11 at least three or four fuses get their power straight from the battery including fuses 1 and two (I believe). Obviously if the fuse gets its power straight from the battery then there is voltage there all the time. But since fuses do not consume voltage that is typically not a problem. The power is switched after the fuse in that case, not before, typically using relays.

If you have stainless exhaust pipes, which modern Guzzi's do, then wrapping them should not cause any issues with corrosion or heat damage. Mild steel exhaust pipes will get destroyed if you wrap them, but stainless is generally fine. While the science of keeping the heat in the exhaust gases to improve performance is sound, as mentioned there is not likely to be any performance advantage to wrapping the pipes on a Guzzi. It becomes a style/personal taste thing. As long as you have stainless pipes you should not suffer any damage from doing the wrapping and there are a few people who have wrapped the pipes on their Guzzi's to prove that. But I don't think anyone here has any illusions about power gains from the practice. It will help prevent you from burning yourself on the exhaust pipes, but that is about the only "advantage" other then the look.

Once the initial issue occurred and the lifter wore thru the surface the rest of the wear was inevitable. Meaning once the wear started it was not going to stop. The amount of wear beyond the initial failure is a function of how long the motor was run after the failure occurred. If the lifter was not hardened properly the failure was just a matter of time. If the failure was oil related then it may only be a matter of time before another lifter does the same thing. I would replace all four lifters and the cam as it seems like a small price to pay to be sure the the issue is fully repaired.

Well, I would agree. Guzzi is having some design issues lately. I own a Griso and that is a great looking bike (that is why I bought it, but I really wanted the prototype with the 4 valve motor). But the other bikes either do not appeal to me (the Stelvio, it is okay looking for what it is but I have no use for a two wheeled SUV), are down right unattractive (Breva, Norge, and 1200 Sport(?)), or are too slow (V7 variants ). Of course that is just my opinion. Guzzi do sell more motorcycles now then they used to, so what do I know. But while I would have bought a street legal version of the MGS01, I have not seen anything in their current lineup other then the Griso that appeals to me. I do wish I had a 4 valve motor in my Griso but I am not buying another just for that. My Griso share it's home with the wife's V11 and V65 Lario as well as my '93 Daytona. I wish Guzzi would build something new that is exciting. Maybe the new water cooled motor will be that opportunity. That could be something. Maybe they will use the new motor as a chance to redesign some things. Shortening up the total length of the motor and trans, maybe by integrating them, plus finally building a motor with modern power output would be nice Put that in a shorter version of the MGS01 or a Griso and I would buy a new Guzzi. But I am pretty sure that will not happen. I wonder when, if ever, Guzzi will build another bike that appeals to me.

Where is it understeering in the corners, on the way in, mid-corner, or on the gas coming out? I think most of the surprise here is because most of us have found the V11 to be a well handling bike. Based on my own experiences I could see someone not being happy with a red frame bike but not for the reasons you quoted, I have found it to be very lively and communicative from the front almost to the point where some might think it is too much. But to hear someone say it is "vague" makes me wonder.... It could be an issue of communication between us, I may not understand what you mean by "vague". But it does make me question if there was not an issue like a bad steering dampener or something that was causing this. It just does not seem like a common complaint. I meant no harm. In fact, a guy willing to cut the front end off and then weld it back at a different angle has my respect. It is just that I would have welded it back on with a steeper rake given the option, not a shallower one. At least a few people have done that with Daytona's. But red frame V11's have good rake and trail number from the factory in my opinion. Again, no disrespect meant. Instead, much respect for having the ability to do what you did. I just hope it does what you expect. PS.... The entire GSXR front end was about $600. All it took to fit was different head bearings. I did upgrade to a modern Brembo radial master cylinder as well. That was another $350. All in all well worth the money.

Well, to each their own. I'm not sure about the wisdom of what you have done (adding trail but also decreasing rake and taking weight off the front wheel) but if it makes the bike more of what you want.... There are easier ways of adding trail and/or decreasing the rake like offset bearings, triples with different offsets, even sliding the forks down in the triples (could require tube extensions to get the kind of changes you went for) that would be un-doable if you ever wanted to return the handling back to stock. By the way, stock the V11 is right there with the other bikes you mentioned, maybe a little more conservative if anything. There is nothing overly aggressive about the geometry of a V11. The funny thing is the early red frame bikes have a slightly steeper rake and a slightly more aggressive feel, you could have just swapped over to a later black frame bike to get at least part of the change you went for. Some of us actually prefer the red frame bikes for their quicker steering and more precise handling. The wife's red frame V11 (a 2000 model) had handling issues that went away when we removed the steering dampener (it was binding). Things improved more when I modified the forks so they actually had compression dampening (stock that fork only has adjustable hydraulic bump stops). Also tire choice and tire pressure have a large part to play. And for the on/off throttle transitions making sure the throttle cables have the minimum amount of slack possible helps a lot, as does proper injection set up. Riding technique may play a part as well, but from what I have seen people I have watched hop on a Guzzi have not had an issue adapting. But you do use the clutch a little more then you might on some other bikes to smooth the throttle transitions out. My Daytona I upgraded to GSXR forks, they work much better and the triples have less offset for more trail but they are slightly shorter so the rake is slightly steeper with a hair more weight on the front wheel, all good things. I have another set for the wifes V11 but have not mounted them yet, all it takes is different steering head bearings so maybe this winter. They are cheap and readily available front ends. I use the forks, wheels, brakes, etc. Upgrade the whole package. The wife's V11 also has a Penske shock but that was because the stock shock suffered the common shock eye cracking issue. But it does work better with the Penske. Did you ask anyone about your handling issues before you cut it? Seems like they would have been fixable. Well, I hope it is welded back on straight and safe. Best of luck with it.

Yes, Pete. I would be interested in one for the wife's V11. Michael

The wife's V11 is an early red frame version. It's forks are likely different then later versions. I closed off some of the open port that allows oil to freely flow during most of the forks travel. As built the valving was only in the last part of travel, more like an adjustable bump stop. Closing off the free flow of oil forced oil through the valve stack. It now has dampening. My Daytona (same basic frame, even worse front forks) I upgraded the entire front end. I bought a used GSXR 1000 front end, forks, wheel, and calipers, cheap. I sent the forks to PPS in NC (out west Lindemann Engineering is a good substitute) and had him custom build them. All totaled was under a grand. I got perfect suspension action, better braking (yes BETTER, more power AND better control and feel) and the lighter front wheel improves handling. The forks are slightly shorter the stock. This steepens the rake much like all those people who say drop the front forks a little to improve handling. But, unlike that approach, the GSXR triple clamps also have less offset which adds back in the trail that steepening the rake takes away. I have another set of GSXR forks that I will likely use to do the same to the wifes V11, but since the valving change it works pretty well. And that takes away the hurry, I'll get to it someday.

I am a big fan of Ohlins equipped bikes, V11 or otherwise. Whether you will push it hard enough to feel the difference I don't know. You may or may not appreciate how well they work (they do work well). But do you need Ohlins on your V11 for it to handle well or be a enjoyable ride? No, in fact the wife's V11 has the older Zook's in front (modified to actually provide dampening) and a Penske out back (money well spent). You can send the stock forks out to have them improved and the rear shock has many options for an upgrade. You can even switch to a GSXR front end with a lighter wheel and better brakes. The Ohlins suspension can be a bit higher in maintenance, they use low stiction seals that are not as durable. In the end it comes down to whether you find a bike at the right price and whether it has Ohlins or not. I would pay extra for the Ohlins but not more then a grand or so. But that is my own limit. While it would cost you atleast 2 grand to upgrade a V11 to Ohlins you could make the suspension as good or better then that (including better brakes) for about $1600.

Generally I would agree, but I don't think this is being done for our old V11s. I would bet money they are just listing this for any Fuel injected bike that it could remotely be made to work on. This is not a model specific widget. If you like cheap solutions I am pretty sure there are cheaper ones. If you want better solutions I know there are better ones. But I have no doubt that there are people for who this is just the right balance. Just don't try to suggest to them that all they are doing is tricking the ecu into adding more fuel by altering the sensor reading it is basing its fueling on.

??????? The pictures only shows a mid pipe/collector and tailpipe/muffler. I did not see anything to indicate the length of the header pipes. As for the diameter of the muffler, a two into one muffler does not need to be significantly larger (if at all) then a two into two muffler on a twin. Only one cylinder is exhaling at a time. The pipe/muffler diameter is sized mainly by cylinder displacement not total displacement. And a well designed two into one(I have no idea how well that two into one system is designed)will out perform a two into two system. I have seen that time and time again.

The wife and I have not ridden in about a month, ever since we got back from the Indy MotoGP. The weather has been cr@p. We found some incredible roads in eastern Ohio and can't wait to return. Maybe in Oct.

That is an issue that plagues modern CARC Guzzi's. While you might have a similar problem the electrics on both bikes are pretty different. The CARC bikes have an ECU that checks for voltage at the moment of starting and if it does not see enough it does not allow starting. When this happens all you get is a quiet "click". The motor does not turn over or anything else, just that click.

Did you get the stem out of the Bearing? I remove the fork tubes from the lower clamp. Their weight can cause issues trying to slide the stem out of the steering head. Then use one of the various "block of wood and a hammer" tricks.