GuzziMoto

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.

Oh Jeez, if I knew there was going to be a quiz on it I would have studied. Seriously, I don't remember off hand. I would have to look it up (if I can find it). What I do remember was that it was about 1/2 of the height of the chamfer at the edge of the chamber. I wanted to remove almost all of the chamfer but wasn't sure if I would have clearance issues then. So I went with half the chamfer. If I can come up with more exact numbers I'll let you know.

Milling the base of the cylinder is the same as using thinner base gaskets. In my opinion it does not matter whether you mill the top of the cylinder or the bottom. They are not exactly the same thing but the differences are minor and of detail nature (like the aforementioned altering of where the piston runs in the cylinder if you mill the bottom. You can mill the top of the cylinder and as that is usually an easier thing to do it is often cheaper. It also does not change where the piston runs in the cylinder. Exceptions to this are some Ducatis and such that use a lip in the top of the cylinder instead of a gasket and it is harder to mill the top then the bottom. So you can fly cut around the inner cylinder at the bottom. If you mill too much off the bottom you need to make sure the inner cylinder is also shortened to keep the crank from hitting it. If you do mill the top you want to make sure the guy doing it and his equipment are in good shape as the sealing of the top is much more important then at the bottom. I have milled the tops of the cylinders and the bottoms of the heads on my wifes V11 to reduce pinging and it worked, although it has been claimed on this site by some that I don't own a V11, have never set one up, and don't ride one (or something to that effect).

We used to get the rockers for our Ducati's redone by Megacycle. They were much less expensive then replacing and usually they worked well. But the surface finish has to be right or it will fail.

I see no reason why you could not use multiple inserts. I have done it. As for the jug or head as a guide/jig, I would think that would work if your drill bit is long enough to drill what you need out of the block while sticking out past the head. But the idea scares me unless you have a plan to keep the drill bit from carving up the head (some sort of centering spacer?). Maybe some epoxy on the drill bit to cover any of the drill bit flutes that you don't need (i.e., only have the part needed for drilling into the block and the rest filled in with epoxy). Just keep pulling the bit out if needed to clean the shavings out. I personally have never used an insert for anything more serious then an exhaust stud (I used two in a row). But I have known people to use them for all sorts of important things and I have more faith in a heli-coil then I do in aluminum threads. Good luck.

I like the original gold anodizing on other peoples bikes but prefer other colors on my own. I would powder coat them. They have so many wild powder coat finishes nowadays to choose from. I would think you could find something that would look great and be more durable.

I think the coatings for wear are getting better and better, but they still don't last forever. back in the mid 90's when I first started playing with coatings they would not last 10 hours in our race motors. Nowadays they should last much longer but still not likely the life of the piston, at least not that I've seen. But as I said, they do seem to get better and better. They also ceramic coat the piston domes now which is something else we started playing with way back then. If you are getting the skirts coated I would coat the domes as well. On the subject of the carbon burnt on the pistons, it can come from a variety of sources but one thing to check are the valves and guides. A few people including myself have had them wear out and cause those kinds of issues. As I recall there is no valve guide seal like a normal motor so valve guide clearance is extra important. Which means if the valve stem and/or the valve guide are worn then oil will make its way down the valve and into the combustion chamber on the intake side and down the stem only to burn into a crusty coating on the exhaust side. It also seems to cause detonation or pinging, at least for me. Just saying it is something to check if you have not done so already.

When the valves in my wifes V11 were replaced due to wear the guides were toast as well. Hope this work helps your issue. Similar work helped with mine.

If you soak aluminum parts in oven cleaner then yes they will dissolve. Eventually. But if you spray it on carbon encrusted aluminum parts or nikisil coated aluminum cylinders and wipe it off then you will be fine. Or don't use it. But TZ racers would use it to clean up engine parts when they could not get muriatic acid. Normal cleaners are not likely to have much effect. But as I said unless you are having engine issues due to excessive carbon build up then I would not worry about it. And I would be more concerned about build up on the back side of the valves, especially the exhaust valves, over a coating on the piston dome or some crusties around the rim of the cylinder above where the rings run. To each his own.

gavo's complaints made me think... I truly can't believe how far this has gone. It is not that complicated a concept. But I feel compelled to try again to explain this. This may be a waste of time as anyone who was interested in understanding this may have moved on due to the bickering and name calling. But in case it will help anyone still left understand, here goes. Disclaimer: This is intended as an aid to understanding how a motorcycle rear suspension works and is not suitable for figuring how much thrust is needed to go to Mars or anything like that. It does not factor in friction but it will get you more then close enough. I know dlaing already went through this but I would like to take a stab at putting the stake in this vampires heart once and for all. The following deals only with compressing straight rate springs. There are three parts to the basic equation of spring rate, the spring rate itself, how far the spring compresses under load (weight), and what that load is (how much weight). The ratio of shock travel to wheel travel does not directly enter into it, but it can be used to figure out how far the spring compresses if you know how far the wheel traveled. More on that later. For now, start with a 400lb spring. This spring will compress 1" under 400lbs of weight. It will compress an additional 1/2" if you add 200lbs more weight to the original 400lbs. The point is it doesn't matter whether it is the first 1" of compression or the last, it will take 400lbs to compress the spring 1". Simple. Anyone who does not agree with or understand this may as well either re-read this part until you do understand or leave now. Now, if you don't know how much weight was put on the spring but you do know the rate of the spring and how far it compressed you can figure out how much weight was put on the spring. You only need two of the three values to figure out what the other value is. For this part I will convert my 400lb spring to metric to make the math easier. My spring that took 400lbs to compress it 1" takes about 7.15Kg to compress it 1mm. So it is a 7.15Kg/mm spring. If it compresses 10mm then I know that 71.5 Kg of weight was put on it. If it compresses another 10mm then I know 71.5Kg more weight was put on it. The same goes for figuring out the rate of the spring or how far it will compress, if you know two of the three values you can figure out the third. Now, I am sure some of you are already screaming "WHAT ABOUT THE 1:2 RATIO OF SHOCK TRAVEL TO SWING ARM TRAVEL". Well, while that effects how far the wheel will move when the load is put into the spring it does not change the load put into the spring. 400lbs of weight put on the rear wheel will compress a 400lb spring on the shock 1". The difference the ratio will make is how far the rear wheel will move when the shock compresses that 1". Now, I feel compelled to point out that the 1:2 ratio is not a number I came up with and I have no idea how accurate it is. But for sake of argument I am going to use it in what follows as it should be close enough (or not). Where this discussion got off track was when it was suggested that someone achieved a desired change in free sag and race sag (and referred to this as "sag delta") with only an 11% increase in spring rate, thus justifying his claim in what the stock spring rate is. I take no responsibility for the starting figures provided, only the math used to reach my conclusions (ie, if the starting figures are wrong then the results will be wrong). Now, while we don't have figures for how far the shock compressed under load we do have sag changes and a ratio of 1:2 for shock travel to wheel travel. We can use that to figure out approx. how far the shock compressed. So, now all we need is a spring rate to start with and we can figure out how much weight was put on the rear suspension to achieve that shock compression and we have one. He had a 9.7Kg/mm spring installed to replace the stock spring. Then when he climbed on the bike the shock compressed 9mm (half the claimed 18mm of wheel travel, race sag - free sag divided by the 1:2 ratio, remember the shock will compress 9mm when the wheel moves 18mm). This tells me that him climbing onto the bike put 87.3Kg of weight onto the rear spring (that is 192lbs, which is more then he says he weighs so I am guessing his measurements are off a little, but I already warned you about that. hopefully they are consistently off). Now that we have 87.3Kg of weight established as what he is adding to the rear suspension, lets see what the rate of the other shock is. He says that the rear of the bike sagged an additional 26mm from free sag when he climbed on board. That means the shock compressed 13mm (again half of wheel travel). And we know it took 87.3Kg of weight to compress the rear suspension that 13mm because that is what he said, that he weighed the same then as now. So if you divide 87.3 (the weight) by 13 (the amount of wheel travel) you get 6.715Kg per mm of compression. That means that if his numbers are accurate then in order to achieve a roughly 31% reduction in how far the rear suspension compresses when he climbs on board he has applied a 30.42% increase in spring rate. This is much more of a rate increase then he claims to have applied but I am sure there is some error in the sag numbers provided as well as maybe a change in rider weight from one set of measurements to the other (or not) as well as possibly a different length of the new shock changing the ratio of shock to wheel travel. Plus friction will reduce the amount of suspension travel a small amount under a given weight but this is only a small difference. But again, I am just working with the numbers provided. The numbers that you end up with in lbs for us Americans are an original spring rate of only 376lbs compared to a final spring rate (new spring) of 543lbs. Again, that is a 30.42% increase in spring rate to achieve a 31% claimed (30.77 actual) change in how far the rear suspension compresses under the weight of the rider. Now I would venture a guess that if his numbers are reasonably accurate that the actual original spring rate might be in the 400 to 450 pound range. But in order for the spring rate to be much higher then that his numbers would have to have a pretty serious flaw in them. My guess is that the numbers are pretty close and that the original spring rate was in the neighborhood of 425 to 450 pounds. But without measuring the spring rate (which can be done by using the methods outlined in this post, all you need to know is how much weight you add to the rear suspension and how far the shock compresses, knowing how far the rear suspension compresses is not as useful because the 1:2 ratio may be one of the numbers that is off in the original set of numbers). If you put a scale under the rear tire (hopefully with the front tire level with the rear that is on top of the scale) and measure how much weight you add when you get on the bike and also measure how far the shock compresses when you add that weight you can then divide the weight (in kilos) by the travel (in mm) to get the rate. Sorry this is so long but as I said, this has gone on long enough and it is time to put a steak in it. If any one has any serious comments about this or errors in my math to point out then by all means go ahead. But if all you have is more name calling, bickering, or typo's to point out then please go somewhere else. P.S. dlaing, you were right.

You could try oven cleaner, it is made for removing baked on grease which is much like oil. But unless you have a problem that the baked on oil is causing (ie, pinging or knock) then I would not worry about it. The coating of oil will raise the compression ratio slightly (which can be a good thing as long as the motor does not knock or ping) but other then that unless you have valve deposits from it or something else that will actually hurt performance or an issue with knock or pinging I would not worry about it. I would be reluctant to sand or doing anything that will create particulate debris that may end up creating issues in an otherwise running motor. And if it is not running right then take it the rest of the way apart and clean off the piston and cylinder with emery cloth, scotchbrite pads and/or sandblasting as required. And if by horizontal free play with the piston you mean that it can rock slightly on the wrist pin then yes, .5mm is fine. Your cylinder still shows good crosshatching in the photo, that is a good thing.

The spring is not working against a 2:1 ratio, it is working with a 1:2 ratio. For every 1" that the spring compresses or extends the wheel will move 2". The terms 1:2 ratio and 2:1 ratio are not interchangeable. Maybe the fact that you are interchanging them is why you don't understand. And yes, I "get it". But for some dumb reason I thought maybe I should help you try to "get it" too. My bad. I am sorry.