GuzziMoto

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.

Very nice. The new Guzzi front wheels are a good bit lighter then the older ones and that along with your better rear tire profile should result in a quicker steering but more stable bike. Good job. I am guessing that you came across an Aprilia fork at a great price? GSXR forks are usually cheaper and more available. But I like the black forks. I believe it is the same front end as my Griso. Interesting mirror set up. What is it? I assume the rear cowl fits over the new seat?

Just going off of memory (which is questionable, I know), as I recall my Griso 1100 (US version) has the tank overflow and vent line coming out the back of the tank. I could be wrong but it is too cold and snowy to go look right now. But if you care I can check after it warms up. I re-routed the lines and got rid of the one way valve and canister.

What year/version? 30513401 is the cap/nut for a 01-02. Look through the parts lists in the links section here... http://66.196.80.202/babelfish/translate_u...ts_list/gb/1100

You should be able to get a rim powder coated silver for about $75 or less.

I guess it is a matter of taste as to which you prefer but I would not call putting a larger and heavier rear wheel and tire on a V11 an "upgrade".

At least your motor is in the frame....

The normal number, at least from what I've seen, is two. One is the vent to let air in to the fuel tank as gasoline is removed. The other is to the area around the fuel filler neck and is for overflow/spillage. Both are important.

I don't have a BillyBob, but I think the fairing, headlight, and dash, are mounted to the same bracket that attaches to the frame. You can remove the fairing but it may look odd with the headlight and gauges stuck out in front of the forks like that. But you probably could use the headlight mount and and dash from a naked V11. Or get a set of twin headlights for the front along with the naked dash.

The V7 is a great starting point to build a cafe bike. Sure there are bikes that are sold already made into cafe bikes, but that is not how many cafe bikes are made. The old school way is to buy a bike and build it into a cafe bike. The factories had little to do with it back then. But it is much like what has happened with the whole chopper movement, now any idiot with enough credit can buy a "custom" chopper even if he doesn't know how to change his own oil. So no, a V7 classic isn't a cafe bike as sold from Guzzi. But just like the Bonneville, which you can build into a cafe bike or you can buy the factory already cafe'd version (the Thruxton) you can buy it and build it or you can buy the V7 cafe classic.

The gravel trap?

I ride in the rain whenever it rains (all to often I'm afraid) and I have removed that big ugly fender. I have no problem with it, but then I usually use a rain suit in the rain (or I get wet). I don't see the issue.

Why would you put a car in the Garage? That's crazy. Garages are for motorcycles and working on them.

Yeah, my wife and I sometimes end up on gravel or even dirt roads. Probably more the most SUV bikes do. But it has never been an issue where I found myself wishing I had something taller and heavier... That makes no sense. A dual sport like a KLR (I have a DRZ 440 myself) is good in those conditions, a Stevio or any other pseudo adventure bike is just not as useful as people want you to believe. But if a 2 wheeled SUV floats your boat, go for it. If it happens to be a Guzzi, all the better. I just have no use for them myself. My brother had two, and he sold them both. The funny thing is, he wasn't a huge fan when he had them and then missed them when they were gone. Like a woman who drives you crazy but is great in bed, after she is gone you only remember the "in bed" part.

I bet it feels like it rocks, but you would likely get left behind by a normal bike and its superior handling.

When you put it like that it seems like a great idea.... No, I have no use for a two wheeled SUV. Some people do, like Dan M. I love the idea of riding Alaska, but until then, no two wheeled SUV's for me. Although I do like the look of the Stelvio, it is just too tall, too heavy, and two impractical (as most SUV's are) for me.

For an "adventure" bike (what a dumb name, like sport utility vehicle) it is nice. But I prefer normal, useful bikes. I have no use for an over weight, over priced, too tall, behemoth in dirt bike clothes. Regardless of the brand. I just need an engine, two wheels, and something ridged to connect them. The V7 Cafe/Classic is very nice. My wife may buy one. But I wish it had more power.