GuzziMoto

Sorry Greg, I shouldn't have said that. I was just making an tongue in cheek remark. Didn't mean to stir the pot like that.

emry, you clearly have a good grasp of this and I agree with a lot of what you're saying. We differ mainly in the details. But I still think that Guzzi's ill thought out first attempt at addressing any handling issues with the V11, real or not, by raking out the fork tube angle (even though it is only 1/2 a degree it is still going in the wrong direction) was a mistake. And whether they compensated for this change which reduced trail by adding more back in thru offset I don't know. But to assume they did is a mistake. And yes, as I have also said, trail is more a factor in stability then rake. That makes Guzzis choice to lessen the fork angle thru the triple clamps (raking the front end out) seem even stranger and less thought out.I find it interesting that every bit of info I can find on V11 steering geometry seems to give the same rake numbers and I think I have seen two different numbers for trail. Greg, I am glad to know that we have one of the "good" ones.

Axle nut, yes. The top clamp says 01493100. Where would you find the frame #?

That's fine, as you said it is not a clear cut issue. Chopper guys usually (or at least used to) list both the rake of the steering stem (as rake) and the extra angle the clamps add. In my opinion the problem with adding angle in the clamps is that while the forks are pointed straight ahead the extra angle is in line with the steering stem. But as you turn the forks that angle kicks the front wheel off to the side. It is no longer adding its angle to the steering stem rake entirely. The more you turn the forks the more of that angle goes off to the side instead of in line with the steering stem. This is not a big deal on choppers (they handle poorly to begin with) but on a sportbike anything more then a small bit causes wonkey steering geometry as the forks turn. This not only would kick the front wheel off to one side but would cause the trail to change as well. That is why it is used on choppers and drag bikes mainly. In fact, Kosman, who make them for drag bikes goes so far as to point out that it changes fork tube angle, not rake. But again, that is splitting hairs. The important part is that it is a crude wonkey patch that should have been done differently if at all. Guzzi engineering, gotta love it.

Greg, the number on the underside of the lower clamp is 502 481B. The last part of the vin # (I assume that's what you are calling frame #) is 112434. It was bought as a 2000 in early '01. What does that tell you?

Taking the tank off does not get you much, if any, additional access. It is a tricky job to do. I tend to use a punch and hammer, it is not the "right way" but it is the fast way. The pre load adjustment is at the top of the shock and hard to get to because of the airbox. I would measure your sag first. you should have about an inch of sag from fully extended to how it sits with you in riding position. If you are close with that and have no issues I would leave it alone until you have the bike far enough apart to make the job easier. If you are only 150 lbs I would not be surprised if it was good as it came stock. As far as if you need to change the preload, you can use some math to help you out. If you need say 1/4" more sag then figure that as a percentage of the total travel and then measure the shock shafts travel and figure the same percentage of that is the amount you need to move the preload collar. That will get you in the ball park.

Just when I thought this was digressing into an informative thread......

Thanks.

As I recall the forks have an axle nut. If I understand you correctly then this means they are the earlier forks without the funky offset. I will have to check this evening to confirm.

I think we are using different definitions for "rake". In my experience the common definition of "rake" is the angle of the steering axis. You can not change the rake angle of the steering axis with triple clamps. You can change the trail by changing the offset or you can change the fork angle if you were to bore the top and bottom clamps offset from one another or some adjustable clamp set allow you to change the offset of the top and/or bottom separately to some extent and this would change the fork angle (the steering stem would still pivot at the same angle). The effect on trail of this would vary as the forks are turned and as the suspension compresses. Talk about piss poor engineering. How hard could it have been to just have them weld on the steering head to the frame at a 25.5 degree angle?

Offset bearings are a different thing. In racing you may change out the clamps for ones with a different offset but this has nothing to do with rake. It is about trail. Offset bearings are used to change the rake but they actually move the steering pivot. What Greg seems to be suggesting is different. He seems to be saying that they bored the holes in the clamps at an angle so that the fork tubes were not at the same angle as the steering stem. If this is not what he is saying them I'm sorry, I may be misunderstanding him. But if you change the rake "in the clamps" that is different to me then offsetting the steering stem (which is really just changing the steering head angle without the hassle of actually moving the steering head).

I am curious about this. I have a good bit of experience with bikes but have not seen a bike other then a cruiser use the clamps as a place to adjust the rake. It is not a normal thing and results in wonkey steering geometry. Where did you find this info?

25 degrees from vertical is what I thought the earlier frames were. Next question is are the later frames indeed 26 degrees or are they 25.5 degrees (or as Greg seems to be suggesting the same and the difference is in the clamps)? And has anyone actually measured theirs (while it's stock, once you start jacking up the rear and/or dropping the front it is gonna be different) to confirm that the published numbers are accurate? I know there is gonna be a plus or minus factor in there but I wonder how close their published numbers are.

I have not measured the steering head on either bike but from the pics posted in another thread the two frames are substantially different. It is possible to add or subtract rake in the clamps but it is not a common way for a manufacturer to do it. I would be surprised if that is how Guzzi did it but Guzzi have surprised me before.

I believe there have been some pics posted showing the difference in the frames between early "red frame" bikes and the later ones. There was a easily seen difference between the two. But what I am curious about is are all red frames the same and all black frames the same. I was under the impression that all red frames as well as the black frame from the RM were the same 25 degree rake and all the other black frame bikes were the 26 degree rake. I don't know if trail changed and by how much. Most of my experience is with the early bikes.

Yes, .850 liters is the same as 850 cc's or 850 milliliters.

Please elaborate, Greg. I thought the earlier (often referred to as red frame) V11 Sports had a 1 degree steeper head angle. Is this a separate change to the steeper steering head angle and is this 1/2 degree really in the clamps and not the steering stem? And is there a change in trail to go along with this? And are you saying that all pre LeMans V11s use the same frame, that the black ones and the red ones both have the same head angle? I was under the impression that the color actually meant something and that the red fame bikes were different to the others. If this is not true that is very interesting to me.

At ANY throttle position V11s (and newer Guzzi's) are on average lean at lower rpms and rich at higher rpms. This is done to meet emissions standards. PC's allow you to correct this and improve the way your bike runs but the results are only as good as the guy creating the map. You do not need a PC to have a great running Guzzi but it helps.

Sorry to hear. My sympathies to those he left behind.

Yes, there's a difference. Dirt bikes rarely have tank slapper moments and when they do it is usually not due to steering geometry or weight balance but from rocks and ruts deflecting the front wheel. In fact, to paraphrase an add for a company selling dirt bike steering dampers, they " reduce arm pump and fatigue". They have much the same benefits on a dirt bike as a steering stabilizer has on a 4x4. You should know about that. They reduce the effort needed to keep the front wheel tracking straight inspite of all the rocks and ruts it is hitting. All that stuff is not usually an issue on street unless you have messed up big time...

And now you're gonna tell someone from middle Tennesee how people from middle Tennesee speak... Is there nothing you don't know better then those that do?

Hatchet Rack says "Those with sincere interest in this topic (I suspect there are actually quite a few) will already have noted the ONLY outside sources of credible, professional expertise on the topic that have been brought to this thread from the start.", To which I point out that the person here in this debate with the strongest opinion is the person with the least amount of experience on the subject by his own admission. Hatchet has said that he does not own any street bikes without steering dampers and he has never experienced a tank slapper on a road bike. He says he has had experince in the dirt with it riding "off-road bikes" without steering dampers fitted, but seems unaware of the fact that steering dampers are fitted to dirt bikes with a different primary purpose then that of dampers fitted to road bikes. While I'm sure you can have a tank slapper on a dirt bike, there is a fundamental difference between the two that he is obviously unaware of. So, he has no direct experience with tankslappers or ridding bikes, V11 or not, without steering dampers but yet he is happy, no eager, to tell everyone about the dangers of riding without one. Yet he has no experience to back this up. And then when challenged by people WITH direct experience on the subject all he can manage is to pull out a piece written by someone WITH experience on the subject but whose opinions are no more valid then the others with opinions contrary to Hatchets (and he ignore the fact that even his "expert witness" says in the piece that most Guzzis are inherently stable, whoops, I'm sorry, inherently "very stable". The whole time this is going on he is ignoring the fact that he just got thru arguing in another thread that red frame V11s are stable when "properly set up". And Hatchet has even expanded his claim to include all motorcycles need a steering damper (this is something that needs looked into as the majority of bikes do not come with one stock and by his claim that makes the manufacturers liable and grounds for a lawsuit). This is obviously not true and if Hatchet keeps digging a hole like this he is gonna end up in China. And just so we're clear on this, Hatchet, I started butchering your name and insulting you AFTER you persisted in butchering my name and dragging my wife and I into your pathetic attempts tp justify your feable position. You seem to lack any kind of mechanism that prevents you from asserting your opinion on subjects you have no experience with and then when confronted by people WITH direct experience on the subject who point out the truth of the matter you then insult them and tell everyone that they are wrong and you are right. You are a joke. A bad one.

First, how about setting sag front and rear. As mentioned, too much rear sag can cause the bike to run wide on corner exit. Setting sag is easy to do and very important to the way the bike handles. One thing to point out is that if your springs are too soft (or to hard) then increasing preload to get the sag correct is not the same as having the correct springs. Adding preload does not change the spring tension but only changes the ride height. A simple test of this is to check sag both laden (with a rider aboard) as well as unladen (no rider). Laden sag should be around 20-25% of total travel and unladen sag should be around 5 - 10mm. The actual number for unladen sag is not as important as the fact that there is some sag even with no rider on board. If you have no unladen sag it means your spring is too soft. Unless you are a light weight rider there is a good chance you have too much rear sag. Since you mention this as being an issue in combination corners I will say that it can be caused by the steering damper if it is not letting you turn the bike quick enough, but that is only a possibility and not very likely unless you ride very hard and fast. It is easy to test, though, just remove the damper and ride (carefully at first in case your V11 is possessed by one of those "Demons" the other threads mentions). After you set sag you may want to try dropping the front end 10 mm or so by sliding the fork tubes up in the triple clamps. This steepens the rake but also decreases the trail so it will hurt stability a little. This should not be a problem if you run a damper but I would be careful to test the handling gradually when you make such a change, with or without a damper. Jacking up the rear ride height does the same thing as dropping the front (with the same draw backs plus higher seat height and more ground clearance). Hope this helps. FYI.. I have a 2000 V11 with no steering damper, Marz. front forks at stock height (but modded to actually have compression dampening), and a Penske rear shock and it does not have the issues you describe. I mention that only in that it should not be a problem running wide.

Now I understand... Hatchet Rack truly does not understand this subject, but is absolutely sure he's right. It's amazing he has time to type all this B.S., where does he find the time with all the whacking he does?

After watching the home video, it clearly shows Haga beating Rea into the corner, but it is not as good an angle to show Rea hitting Haga. But it does show Haga beating Rea to the corner and then Rea hitting/clipping Haga as he went by knocking Haga down (again). I am not saying Rea should be banned or penalized in any way, but if he's a respectable person maybe he should man up and say "my bad" or something. Even a half hearted apology would be better then avoiding the issue except to say it was nobodies fault. The general rule of thumb is it is the passing rider who is responsible for passing cleanly. I understand that everyone, even pro racers, makes mistakes. But when you do taking responsibilty for those mistakes is better then saying sh!t h@ppens. Rea is an up and coming racer who could be a top level racer some day but Haga is already there and deserves some respect.