Impact of upgraded frame on V9 gen2

[toomanybikes]

I'm toying with picking up a 2017 (gen1) V9 Bobber, assuming the footpeg ergos and gas tank shape aren't deal killers. This will be a casual bike to complement my V85.

I've seen that there was a major upgrade in 2021, providing a 10hp engine boost, upgraded instruments, and frame stiffeners. The benefits of the first two improvements are pretty obvious, but does anyone have info on the upgraded frame? How "bad" was the gen1 frame, especially for someone on the wrong side of 200 lbs (90 kgs)?

For completeness, AI summarizes the changes as
Engine & Performance: Updated to meet Euro 5 standards, boosting power to 65 HP at 6800 rpm and increased torque.
Frame: Reinforced headstock for improved stability and handling.
Comfort & Tech: Rubber-mounted footpegs to reduce vibrations.
Styling: New LED lighting with a DRL in the shape of the Moto Guzzi eagle.
Dashboard: New digital instrument cluster.
Bobber Specific: New, more comfortable, and sleeker two-piece seat, as well as aluminum side panels and a revised front fender.

Thanks,

Steve

[Dirk_S]

I don’t know the full differences in frames between the E4 V9 and E5 V9, but do note that the original V9’s frame is quite beefy. I wouldn’t call it “bad.” But maybe some claims of wobble caused Guzzi to further reinforce the front?

Both the E4 V9 and V7 III (both members of the first generation of hemi head small blocks) have similar beefy head stocks and support plates at the neck and spine intersection. Significantly beefier than the previous V7 II, which itself was visually beefier than older small blocks. It’s a heavier motor than the previous hemi head motors.

Concerning footpegs, the factory offered an aftermarket relocation that brought the pegs back from a slight cruiser position to more standard. If your bike doesn’t have the relocation brackets, reach out to me—I could sell you mine. eBay’s also your friend, I would assume.

[Dirk_S]

I couldn’t find an E5 V9 frame on eBay, but here are screenshots of frames from a V7 II, V7 III, E4 V9, and E5 V7, which I would imagine is pretty much the same as the E5 V9, minus the rear fender support rails. Looks like maybe they moved the support plates around the spine and down tubes inside a little?

[toomanybikes]

I couldn’t find an E5 V9 frame on eBay, but here are screenshots of frames from a V7 II, V7 III, E4 V9, and E5 V7, which I would imagine is pretty much the same as the E5 V9, minus the rear fender support rails. Looks like maybe they moved the support plates around the spine and down tubes inside a little?

Wow, nice pics. Those changes are pretty subtle, almost like the internal discussions were "we need to make some front end changes for (insert reason here), let's say they 'improved stability' in case someone asks"

[Kev m]

First Gen V9 is the Goldilocks motor that for some reason punches above its specs and feels almost like a big block.

I thought all V9 had received the headstock upgrade, but maybe I'm remembering wrong.

My V7III has a bit of a wobble at times that I think the V9 and later V7 addressed. It's not enough for me to abandon the bike, because it's otherwise wonderful, but I strongly suspect the V9 is better (from my test rides).

The only thing that has stopped me from abandoning my V7III for a first gen V9 is tank capacity. Literally that's it, and well, my V7III is REALLY well setup.

[toomanybikes]

First Gen V9 is the Goldilocks motor that for some reason punches above its specs and feels almost like a big block.

I thought all V9 had received the headstock upgrade, but maybe I'm remembering wrong.

My V7III has a bit of a wobble at times they I think the V9 and later V7 addressed. It's not enough for me to abandon the bike, because it's otherwise wonderful, but I strongly suspect the V9 is better (from my test rides).

The only thing that has stopped me from abandoning my V7III for a first gen V9 is tank capacity. Literally that's it, and well, my V7III is REALLY well setup.

Surprised to hear your quote about the gen1 V9 engine. I'll try to test that if a test ride happens.

[Tkelly]

The tanks are small but the bike gets 50 mpg.

[Dirk_S]

The tanks are small but the bike gets 50 mpg.

+1
When I picked up my V9 in Binghamton, NY and rode back to Portland, Maine, I wasn’t really bothered by the tank capacity. Besides, ya gotta give the coccyx a break, right?

[faffi]

The tanks are small but the bike gets 50 mpg.

My Gen I V9 average 58-59 mpg.

[Kev m]

The tanks are small but the bike gets 50 mpg.

Yeah, but I'd be giving up a bigger tank on a bike that gets the same mileage...

[bad Chad]

Guzzi claimed to have modified the gen two frame to make it stronger, but I don't think that was accurate.  The v9 frame in enhanced over the v7 of that era, I can't recall, I think it was the v7III?   These where 16/17 model year, then when they came out with the gen two, they did move the foot pegs back with a real frame mod, but they also claimed to have strengthened it via various tweaks.  I compared my gen one frame to the gen two, and could find no difference whatsoever, except for the previously mentioned peg move.  I think, mostly they where claiming as a new upgrade, what they had done to the frame, two years earlier,  and just claimed that the previous frame improvement, along with the new peg positioning was a "new" feature.

[toomanybikes]

Yeah, but I'd be giving up a bigger tank on a bike that gets the same mileage...

The V85 gets basically the same mileage (~60mpg when not in the dirt) and has a huge tank. Tank range is on the order of 350-400 miles.

[Kev m]

The V85 gets basically the same mileage (~60mpg when not in the dirt) and has a huge tank. Tank range is on the order of 350-400 miles.

It's only a 1/2 g bigger than my smallblocks.

But it doesn't matter because I don't like ADV bikes.

And to be fair, the V85 isn't even a bad looking one by those standards, but it's still got a number of design points for which I don't care.

No big deal, at least they made a V7 with better brakes and suspension now... I still plan on picking up another eventually.

[Bulldog9]

IIRC, part of the 'upgrade' included heavier gauge tubing.

[toomanybikes]

IIRC, part of the 'upgrade' included heavier gauge tubing.

That's what I was thinking as well. Thicker tube walls wouldn't be visually noticeable

[bad Chad]

I'm not at all convinced that was a real thing, at least in regards to gen one vs gen two.  But regardless, there is no issue with any of the v9s basic set up.  It's the forks and shocks that leave some wanting more.

I mean think about it.  The cost of upping all the tube sizes when know body was complaining about it, makes no sense.  I have never seen any info that would support the claim that tube sizes were increased.

[Bulldog9]

I'm not at all convinced that was a real thing, at least in regards to gen one vs gen two.  But regardless, there is no issue with any of the v9s basic set up.  It's the forks and shocks that leave some wanting more.

I mean think about it.  The cost of upping all the tube sizes when know body was complaining about it, makes no sense.  I have never seen any info that would support the claim that tube sizes were increased.

I know they reinforced the headstock, but seem to remember someone putting a caliper on the later bikes and the frame tubing was a larger diameter, ie. thicker/heavier.  Not that anyone was complaining, AFAIK, it was for the increase in power and for a more solid feel. IMO, the V7ii frame is rock solid, and looks very much like the Tonti Frame on my Convert when all the bodywork is torn off.

[Kev m]

This is rank speculation, but:

When the V7III came out a few people here (IIRC Sarah Greer among them) talked about some instability (wobbles) that she and a think a few others were chasing.

I didn't think much of it at the time not having felt it myself on my MkI or any demos.

Then we picked up the MkIII and it was fine for a while.

Then Jenn pretty much abandoned the idea of riding it and I took it over... immediately adding luggage. Then lo and behold it happened to me too.

Right now I can make my MkIII wobble with repeatable predictability by reaching about 55-65 mph and taking my hands off the bars or just loosening my grip enough to allow a little free motion and shutting the throttle.

I've played with rear spring preload, tire pressures, checked head for play, and replaced the worn rear tire, with nothing having an appreciable affect.

It seems less likely when there's no luggage and maybe shifting my weight forward helps a little too, but I haven't completely settled it yet.

I have since wondered if the change in weight and power of the MkIII was enough to introduce this variable and if the reinforced head stocks they've mentioned (and eventual final drive changes they've made as well) might not be related to preventing such things.

But it's just a swag.

[bad Chad]

I know they said they reinforced the head stock for the 2018 and up 2nd gen, and at the time they showed pictures of a head stock with steel plates welded in.  But what I am saying is that all the 2017 first gen v9s already had the reinforced headstock!   Take a look at any 2017 v9, and you will see what I'm talking about.  Perhaps the 2016 didn't, but by 2017 they did.

[Kev m]

I know they said they reinforced the head stock for the 2018 and up 2nd gen, and at the time they showed pictures of a head stock with steel plates welded in.  But what I am saying is that all the 2017 first gen v9s already had the reinforced headstock!   Take a look at any 2017 v9, and you will see what I'm talking about.  Perhaps the 2016 didn't, but by 2017 they did.

I'm betting that if my swag is right the V7 didn't get the same treatment until later, maybe the 850.

[bad Chad]

I think that's exactly how it went down Kev.

[Dirk_S]

You can reinforce the headstock, and then further revise that reinforcement later, which is what I believe was done. The photos I shared earlier, in my opinion, show that very thing. Initially the V9 had a headstock support plate that appeared to be on the outside of the tubes. Then, on the V7 E5, they look to be stamped inward. What supports a structure better—when a plate is simply welded on the outside, or when it’s also supporting the center of the forces; ie, holding a 50 lb. back of concrete mix out to your side, or above your head? My thoughts, anyhow. And to me, that’s enough to say “We <further> reinforced the headstock”

[Dirk_S]

Two more closeup photos to compare between a 1st generation V9 and a ‘21 V7; again—assuming the V7 E5 and V9 E5 are essentially the same up front:

[toomanybikes]

Two more closeup photos to compare between a 1st generation V9 and a ‘21 V7; again—assuming the V7 E5 and V9 E5 are essentially the same up front:

Disclaimer - Conjecture

Based on those two pics, it looks like the '17 had the horizontal tubes taper and end at the plate or maybe bend inwards and connect to the downtubes. Hard to day definitively without seeing what is behind those gusset plates.

The later model clearly has the horizontal tubes extending all the way to the down tubes, with eth gusset plates wrapping around the tubes.

All in all, it doesn't sound like I should be worried about a '17 V9 frame unless it's been abused/crashed.

[blu guzz]

I hate to add fuel to this fire, but, I will anyway.  Is the rake the same?  I have always been able to see spacial differences, even if small and I could just  about swear that the pic of the 21 shows a slightly steeper rake.  Maybe my imagination, but I know that small differences at the headstock create larger differences the longer the fork tubes are.  I have no dog in this fight, so if I'm full of stuff, I can live with it.

[Dirk_S]

Based on those two pics, it looks like the '17 had the horizontal tubes taper and end at the plate or maybe bend inwards and connect to the downtubes. Hard to day definitively without seeing what is behind those gusset plates.

Nah, the horizontal tubes go all the way to the down tubes in the normal fashion. To be sure, I just walked down into the basement and checked the tubes on my sleeping ‘17 V9 (I was careful not to wake it). I’m not the most knowledgeable on here, but I don’t know of a Tonti frame—big block or small—whose horizontal tubes didn’t end at the down tubes. It would kinda defeat the purpose IMO of the Tonti frame design structurally speaking.

Is the rake the same?  I have always been able to see spacial differences, even if small and I could just  about swear that the pic of the 21 shows a slightly steeper rake.  Maybe my imagination, but I know that small differences at the headstock create larger differences the longer the fork tubes are. 

Here are screenshots from the first gen V9 (E4) and the V7 E5. I can’t find an E5 V9 owners or service manual anywhere online (someone with an actual E5 V9 would be helpful here!):



If we go off my theory that the V9 E5 and V7 E5 frames are pretty much the same, aside from the rear upper rails, then the frame geometry measurements show that both V9 generations are the same. The rake and trail differ, my conjecture, because the E5 service manual is specifically for the V7 E5 models, which have slightly smaller tire diameters and shorter forks.

[toomanybikes]

Nah, the horizontal tubes go all the way to the down tubes in the normal fashion. To be sure, I just walked down into the basement and checked the tubes on my sleeping ‘17 V9 (I was careful not to wake it). I’m not the most knowledgeable on here, but I don’t know of a Tonti frame—big block or small—whose horizontal tubes didn’t end at the down tubes. It would kinda defeat the purpose IMO of the Tonti frame design structurally speaking.

Agreed, I should have phrased my comment differently. Ending tubes at the plate would make no sense structurally.