GuzziMoto

Did you mean if you DO hear the fuel pump it is the phase sensor? Because if you DO NOT hear the fuel pump then I would bet it is the relays. In the States the stock Siemens relays fail alot (so do some of the cheap replacements)and while it might not be the relays it is the first place I check if mine does not start and I carry spares when we travel so that I don't end up stuck AGAIN. The last two towards the back of the bike are both required to run the fuel pump. I think the last one is for the ignition and the next to last one is the ecu, but I could have it backwards.

There are five relays under the seat and one of them (I forget which one) controls power to the ignition I believe. They are prone to failure and some have had issues with the terminal block they connect to getting corroded or an otherwise bad connection. My wifes V11 came to a halt much the same way because of them.

7 DB1 SR's. Woops, wrong site.

Talk to Michael Himmelsbach at Penske. He had one made up for my wife that worked perfect.

Anything you do to restrict the exhaust flow more then it is already restricted now would likely reduce flow and thus hurt the way the bike runs (less power). I tried with a spark arrestor (on a SuperMoto) to reduce the sound level by wrapping the screen of the spark arrestor with steel wool (mineral wool?). It was a miserable failure. It did not quiet down the sound but it did mess up the way the bike ran. I will be impressed if you are able to get the bike through without some creative thinking (cheating). 99 to 95 db is a big reduction. One thing you could try, along the lines of what was previously posted, is to "adjust" the tach so it reads 1,000 or so rpms low. Road racers on the east coast used to have a issue with this if they raced at Bridgehampton. They had a low noise limit. Most of the racers there learned that increasing the volume of the muffling system and not restricting it was the way to go if you still wanted power. They would add extensions onto their mufflers that would add volume and usually also disperse the sound in different directions (towards the ground seemed to work well). Good luck

In the USA, we have something called a db snorkel. It is made mainly for two-stroke dirt bikes. It does a good job of quieting them down. It is basically what it sounds like, a snorkel that attaches over the end of the exhaust which runs back down the length of the can and then back up the can with a 90 degree outlet on the end. The increase in length/volume is I believe what does the quieting down. It does not hurt the performance of the motor. Whatever you end up with, increasing the volume/length of the system would be my goal if I were you.

Stainless valves are non-magnetic, but I would not call them the best. They do work reasonably well, but stainless is neither light weight nor especially hard. But as the stock valves are made of old cheese they would be an improvement me thinks. Just be sure to replace the guides at the same time.

Not to state the obvious, but obviously you are hitting the end of the pin closer to the wheel, trying to knock it to the left (away from the wheel). And you should be using a punch, you don't want to hit the end directly with a hammer or anything else larger in diameter then the end of the pin. You want a punch that is smaller then the end of the pin so you don't mushroom the end. That is a bad thing. I have used a punch the right size and a socket extension to allow me to comfortably hit the punch from the other side. The female end of the extension will hold it on the punch for you. Yes it is true that solvents can be bad for brake seals, but a little liquid wrench type solvent carefully applied to the end of the pin can be a good thing. If pulling the caliper will help you then do it, but unless you have a bench vise I would leave it in place. That's just me, though. That would be up to you. The important things are to hit it in the right direction and not to mushroom the end or it won't want to go back through and you may have to cut it off and replace.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I get it already. I, and everyone else who doesn't agree with you is an idiot, a Philistine, a fool, or some combination there of. The point I was suggesting is that 9 times out of ten it is YOU that is inserting political B.S. and propaganda in thread that are not political in nature. If some one else adds something of that nature it is usually YOU that they are responding to. There was nothing political in this thread until you. Until then this was just a light hearted thread poking fun at how some people (you) beat an off topic (usually) subject to death (sometimes with no clue what it all really means. But since you read it somewhere then it must be true and you must be an expert on it. Sometimes you didn't even read it somewhere but just made it up as your opinion and then converted it to fact. And while sometimes you do have good info to give out, other times you don't. The funny thing is you don't know the difference. You seem to think that every thing you have to say we want to hear. That just ain't so.

Thanks, Ben. This has been amusing. HatchetWacker, do ya think that maybe the "off topic" reference was referring to your habit of dragging political opinions and propaganda into threads that are not of a political nature to begin with? I'm just sayin.... Some people can't see the forest for the trees, and some of those peoples reaction is to cut the trees down so they can see the forest.

Yes, right side up forks use completely different and much higher torque values for the pinch bolts and comparing the two is a waste of time. As for the axle torque values on an Ohlins front end, I don't have an Ohlins front end any more and the ones I've had were not R/T forks so I don't have a number for you.

Which technical manual, Ohlins or Guzzi? I'm sure that 25Nm will work but in my experience that is a little higher then needed and not what I use. I would stick with the 18Nm originally mentioned. I use ft/lbs and inch/lbs so I use 12 ft/lbs to 14 ft/lbs or 144 to 168 inch/lbs. That comes out to just under 17Nm to about 19Nm. Tighter does not get you any increase in rigidity but it does risk squeezing the upper tube to the point of interference with the lower tube as it slides (it is about 50% more torque then I use). To each their own.

Considering they don't make bikes like that anymore, yes. It is also in line with what they go for around here. Since the early red frame ones are more desirable to me and Green was the best color, I would have happily paid that for it. As long as it is in good shape and well taken care of, 16K miles is nothing on a Guzzi.

Sweet... Red frame, Green bike.

That sounds about right. I don't have Ohlins forks but typically you don't want to over tighten those pinch bolts. It can actually deform the aluminum outer tube which will cause an issue as the inner tube slides past that point. The upper pinch bolts could be tighter but I don't think it is needed.

I think you are looking at the air/fuel ratio line. I don't think the chart has a torque curve, just hp and air/fuel. And no, it does not look good.

C and D may turn together, and there is no clicks. They just compress the spring raising the ride height of the rear when you are on the bike (race sag). They do not actually stiffen the spring. You do need to be sure to tighten them (C and D) against each other when you are done. This prevents them from moving from where you set it. The one against the spring is the one that sets preload and the other is a lock nut to hold the first in place. I find it easier to undo "C" so that it is no longer against "D". That makes it easier to turn "D" to adjust, and then tighten "C" back down tight against "D" when you are done. Also, it is okay to turn the spring with "D" and sometimes that makes it easier to adjust "D". "A" (at the other end of the shock)is a rebound adjustment. That is how fast the shock extends after compression. "B" (on the remote res) is your compression dampening.

I'm sorry, I Don't recall taking sides on whether corn licker is a good idea or not (just for the record, until they can sort out some of the issues, if they can, I am not a big fan of it). But I am not surprised that you ASSumed what my position is. You ASSume a lot of things. I guess you are a fully qualified ASSume'r. I made no reference to "ANY vehicle in the USA that reliably, efficiently, and cost-effectively uses 100% ethanol for fuel?". I DID point out that using ethanol for fuel not only is NOT impossible but that it is done on a fairly large scale and has be possible since at least as long as the Ford Model T has existed. Or maybe that is a left wing plot to con the public? Ford did say that ethanol is "the fuel of the future". Henry Ford is part of a left wing plot, remember where you heard it first. Soon it will spread across the internet and become fact. HatchetWacker, you are a true piece of work. So when Greg posts about a V11 running on corn licker only an idiot would stand there and say that it is not possible, or even highly unlikely. Only an idiot stands there denying something that is there for all to see. And the answer to the tank/ethanol question seems to be that ethanol alone can not be responsible for it and that the additive package that is added to fuel in some areas in addition to the ethanol may be the root of the problem. Because if it was the ethanol that was the cause of the problem then you would see the problem EVERYWHERE that ethanol was used, but you don't so it is not. Maybe it plays a part in the problem but clearly it alone does not cause the fuel tank issues experienced by some. But I am sure that there is no way in hell that you will ever see what others easily grasp so I don't expect you to get it. So go on and keep blaming the ethanol. Others, including myself, will continue to put gas containing ethanol into our plastic fuel tanks and suffer no ills as a result. Maybe it is the fact that we don't understand the problem that we don't experience it? Or maybe we are part of the cover up to hide the real plot. Perhaps there are black helicopters circling your house as we speak. Or maybe it really is the other additives in the gas.

No, wait. You have to quote sources to have your theory regarded as fact. It doesn't matter that the source you quote is the Foundation for MissInformation, you need sources damn it.

HatchetWacker, you realize that something like 90% of the new cars sold in Brazil are capable of running on 190 proof ethanol (95% ethanol, 5% water). The first Ford, the model T, was designed to run on it. It is not ground breaking and certainly not impossible. The fact that one guy converted is obscure motorcycle to run on ethanol is not ground breaking and not big news. Whether you are a fan of corn licker as fuel or against it does not change whether it can be done or not. It has been done already. The question here is supposed to be whether corn licker is responsible for plastic fuel tanks deforming. I have not experienced a problem with that in the Mid-Atlantic area despite the fact that we have been running ethanol for years and I have owned and continue to own a number of vehicles with plastic fuel tanks.

Thank you Greg. That made my morning.

Yes, fully closed would be fully screwed in which would be full clockwise. Don't over close it.

Strange, my Griso front wheel feels a good bit lighter then my wifes V11 front wheel with the exact same tire on it. Haven't measured the difference as I didn't care that much. Keep in mind that one or two pounds difference in weight for a front rim is a lot. Most 150 rear tires are made for a 4.5" rim so your choice makes sense to me. A 160 is the more common choice as it is also usually made for a 4.5" rim (it is what I have done) but a 150 should be plenty for the V11's power output and weight and should increase steering response and improve stability. It may wear a little faster then a 160 but that is just a guess and I doubt the difference will be significant.

Try ebay. It has a bunch of options under $100.

Getting into a debate on oils is a waste of time. I do feel compelled to point out though that you have lumped all modern synthetic oils together. That is not a generalization that I would make. Modern oils vary widely in their base stocks and more importantly their additives. I stick with oils that have an SG rating as this seems to be the optimum rating for motorcycles.