A new Guzzi engine

[LowRyter]

A fraction unwise to presume that Kev M's opinion isn't as worthy of digestion as the aforementioned luminaries.
I reckon his insight is refreshing on occasions.
Just sayin'.

well, Kev's opinion is almost always presented, so there is little worry......   

[Kev m]

well, Kev's opinion is almost always presented, so there is little worry......   

There is that too. 

[kenvil1]

The BMW water-head is only 35% water-cooled, if I'm not mistaken. The fins still account for 65% of the engine cooling. This formula would also work well for the Guzzi engine since it is already efficiently air-cooled by design.

[twhitaker]

The BMW water-head is only 35% water-cooled, if I'm not mistaken. The fins still account for 65% of the engine cooling. This formula would also work well for the Guzzi engine since it is already efficiently air-cooled by design.

This would make me very happy.   

[Murray]

The BMW water-head is only 35% water-cooled, if I'm not mistaken. The fins still account for 65% of the engine cooling. This formula would also work well for the Guzzi engine since it is already efficiently air-cooled by design.

So the've half arsed it! Personally I don't see the point if they are going to the trouble of building a new motor build a new motor, the old no matter how many you try to please somebody won't like it. The original Vtwin way back when was a pretty advanced design for the time. Things like electric start only high pressure oiling system etc etc. A half baked design will be shunned by the red suspender types because its not an exact replica of thier 850... (insert archaic old pussbox here) it will get panned in the press because it won't be able to go head to head with its direct competitors.

I think a few people here should do themselves a favour and go take a test ride on a 1200 monster/ multistrada or a KTM super duke or something similar. Bikes have taken a massive step forward even in the last 10 years. They need a platform that will get them through the next couple of euro emission cycles not one that will barely last 6 months that is at least in the ball park of what the competition is doing.

[lucian]

I think a few people here should do themselves a favour and go take a test ride on a 1200 monster/ multistrada or a KTM super duke or something similar. Bikes have taken a massive step forward even in the last 10 years. They need a platform that will get them through the next couple of euro emission cycles not one that will barely last 6 months that is at least in the ball park of what the competition is doing.
[/quote]

 :1:

[Kev m]

I think a few people here should do themselves a favour and go take a test ride on a 1200 monster/ multistrada or a KTM super duke or something similar. Bikes have taken a massive step forward even in the last 10 years. They need a platform that will get them through the next couple of euro emission cycles not one that will barely last 6 months that is at least in the ball park of what the competition is doing.


 :1:

Maybe that would be appropriate for a some.

But then there are those of us who have, and aren't impressed or attracted to that.

Seriously a wet-head, monoshock smallblock sounds pretty good to me, as long as it's good looking and as fun/useful as my V7.

[TimmyTheHog]

Maybe that would be appropriate for a some.

But then there are those of us who have, and aren't impressed or attracted to that.

Seriously a wet-head, monoshock smallblock sounds pretty good to me, as long as it's good looking and as fun/useful as my V7.

 :1: what this man said

[ITSec]

I'd be happy with the approach in the rumored powerplant from a few years back. If you recall, it was a 90 degree 1300cc v-twin intended for traditional transverse MG mounting, supposedly designed with input from Aprilia's engineers, and dominantly water-cooled with cosmetic but functional fins to carry the classic appearance. At the time, the speculation was for power in the 130+ HP range with a torque to HP ratio similar to existing MG engines.

Such a lump would be well-suited in a revival of the CARCs under the new EU regulations - perhaps a Norge, a Stelvio and a new generation LeMans...

[Mr Revhead]

Could it be a resumption of this?
https://www.cycleworld.com/2013/06/04/new-moto-guzzi-liquid-cooled-v-twin-engine-work-in-progress

[bmp72]

Let hope not:

"As on the old Honda CX500, the gearbox of Moto Guzzi’s new liquid-cooled V-Twin will rotate in the opposite direction of the crankshaft to kill the torque reaction generated by any motorcycle engine with a longitudinal crank."

This would kill the whole character of the bike for me...

[Mr Revhead]

Why? As it is I only notice the torque reaction on my Guzzi and CX when revving when stopped.

[Huzo]

Let hope not:

"As on the old Honda CX500, the gearbox of Moto Guzzi�s new liquid-cooled V-Twin will rotate in the opposite direction of the crankshaft to kill the torque reaction generated by any motorcycle engine with a longitudinal crank."

This would kill the whole character of the bike for me...

Does the contra rotating gearbox suppress the torque reaction ?
I've heard that sprouted a lot but am a bit hazy on it. I thought the torque reaction was due to the fact that the engine wants to spin around the crank due to the reluctance of the crank to want to spin against the natural resistance to motion.
I feel that it's like an electric drill that catches an wants to spin in your hand, the torque reaction is a function of the resistance to motion.
The equal and opposite force that the con rods are imparting on the crank. As the big end imparts a force on the crank journal, the cylinder head is being pushed away in the other direction, imagine the explosion in the combustion chamber, ( actually a controlled burn, explosions are detonation), the expanding gas pushes the piston down but also the cylinder head up. Just think, if you jammed the rear brake on and dumped the clutch in gear, the entire bike would want to rotate with the wheel motionless.
The contra rotating mass of the gearbox will work to equalise gyroscopic forces, but as I see it, spinning the gearbox the other way would have no effect on negating torque reaction.
Dissenting views ? Or should we start a thread, informed comment would be good.

[Huzo]

Why? As it is I only notice the torque reaction on my Guzzi and CX when revving when stopped.

It's actually more pronounced when transmission is under load in motion, but the bike immediately, (deep breath), countersteers to initiate a lean the other way, and the forces remain in balance.
But happy to chat about it....

[bmp72]

Why? As it is I only notice the torque reaction on my Guzzi and CX when revving when stopped.

I do this a lot     also at low idle you can feel every power stroke     and I want to keep that...

[Mr Revhead]

Does the contra rotating gearbox suppress the torque reaction ?
I've heard that sprouted a lot but am a bit hazy on it. I thought the torque reaction was due to the fact that the engine wants to spin around the crank due to the reluctance of the crank to want to spin against the natural resistance to motion.
I feel that it's like an electric drill that catches an wants to spin in your hand, the torque reaction is a function of the resistance to motion.
The equal and opposite force that the con rods are imparting on the crank. As the big end imparts a force on the crank journal, the cylinder head is being pushed away in the other direction, imagine the explosion in the combustion chamber, ( actually a controlled burn, explosions are detonation), the expanding gas pushes the piston down but also the cylinder head up. Just think, if you jammed the rear brake on and dumped the clutch in gear, the entire bike would want to rotate with the wheel motionless.
The contra rotating mass of the gearbox will work to equalise gyroscopic forces, but as I see it, spinning the gearbox the other way would have no effect on negating torque reaction.
Dissenting views ? Or should we start a thread, informed comment would be good.

It's all to do with the spinning bits, not the up and down bits ;)

[Huzo]

It's all to do with the spinning bits, not the up and down bits ;)

Lovely !
Do I just accept that and go and put the kettle on, or can you enlighten me ?
See new post..

[Mr Revhead]

" I thought the torque reaction was due to the fact that the engine wants to spin around the crank due to the reluctance of the crank to want to spin against the natural resistance to motion"
Newtons 3rd law. It's not resisting motion, it's the equal and opposite reaction. So the spinning creates a torque reaction in the opposite direction.
It's not created by the combustion trying to push the cyl head up.
There are forces involved there, but they, I believe, represent them selves as vibration.
Take a horizontally opposed engine. The torque just as much, yet if it was caused by the combustion trying to push the heads out, being opposed they would counter each other out? But the don't.
The torque reaction is caused by a rotational mass.

[Mr Revhead]

So, in answer to the gear box, yes rotating that mass the opposite direction would help negate that effect.
I do need to pay more attention to what my Cali feels like. Before I got it people would say "be careful piling it on, as the torque reaction will catch you out"
Can't say I've ever had anything like that

[kingoffleece]

Sounds like the perfect question for Kevin Cameron over at CycleWorld.  Those interested can submit over the web and that feature is in the mag every month (one of the few reasons to read it IMHO) and also more of them are on the web site.

I'm with kev m on a lot of this stuff.  I've ridden all, or most all (nobody can try everything) and find 130 plus bhp and 27 riding modes along with 14 different shock settings to be completely useless to me.  YMMV, as always.

In an earlier post I mentioned how I rode and followed several very skilled riders on "older" equipment, including a few of those Mot Guzzi things.  Point is, in the technical and not so technical stuff all the newish high hp bikes can't gap the oldish Guzzi bikes, or even a very skilled rider on a 300 Verses!

It's difficult to see where 130-140-150 plus hp is really needed for riding a motorcycle.  To each their own to be sure,  but having had several "super go fast" machines I don't ever see one in my future again.  Just my .02 worth and as we all know BIG numbers and 1/10 faster than last years bike means the current one is toast and we all better go buy the latest and greatest NOW if we want to be with it.

I imagine there's lots more discussion here.  Wish it was with a fine Scotch and cigar!

[rocker59]

SD, 140hp 4cyl V4 Guzzi would have lots character in my opinion.

Where is Rocker's opinion when we really need it?   For that matter, Chuck from Indiana, Pete Roper, Lannis, Kev M (perhaps not)? 

 

Inquiring minds want to know!

Yeah, a MOTUS-like bike from Guzzi would be super-cool. But a "mid-size" standard with modern suspension and a touch of classic Guzzi styling would probably be a better idea... they need another 1200 big block to fill the glaring gap in the lineup.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[bmp72]

Same here, in 1996 I traded in my ZX9R for a Moto Guzzi LM3 . High power is useless and makes a bike boring (for me), around 70 hp is ideal.

For me the noise a bike makes is a very important part of the whole experience. And I found that the more throttle you give the better the noise. But to be able to do this in real life traffic the bike should not be too powerful. Have a WR250X at the moment, I love the noise it makes when you go through the gears almost redlining it (which is necessary if you want to get upto 70 mph on the local Autobahn here, only 30 hp).

This is a youtube of a bike similar to my very first (I had the 400cc version), the noise just gives me goosebumps: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emjPQhb8-nc

I really loved the noise the V7-II made last weekend during the testdrive  my LM3 sounded and behaved like a steam engine, hissing and puffing through the carbs  (K&N cone filters)...

Also have a 1982 FXB Sturgis, purely for the noise this old shovelhead makes...

With the modern powerfull bikes (used to have a R1200R) you just get a little 'pfffft'  and you're over the speed limit.

[Huzo]

" I thought the torque reaction was due to the fact that the engine wants to spin around the crank due to the reluctance of the crank to want to spin against the natural resistance to motion"
Newtons 3rd law. It's not resisting motion, it's the equal and opposite reaction. So the spinning creates a torque reaction in the opposite direction.
It's not created by the combustion trying to push the cyl head up.
There are forces involved there, but they, I believe, represent them selves as vibration.
Take a horizontally opposed engine. The torque just as much, yet if it was caused by the combustion trying to push the heads out, being opposed they would counter each other out? But the don't.
The torque reaction is caused by a rotational mass.

Not quite empirically correct. But I'm not gunna pursue it.

[Dilliw]

I think a few people here should do themselves a favour and go take a test ride on a 1200 monster/ multistrada or a KTM super duke or something similar. Bikes have taken a massive step forward even in the last 10 years. They need a platform that will get them through the next couple of euro emission cycles not one that will barely last 6 months that is at least in the ball park of what the competition is doing.


 :1:

I've ridden my brother's S2R back to back with my Griso and I'm glad I have the green one.  I've also ridden a Streetfighter S and the Super Duke.  IMO a lighter, faster sport bike misses the mark when you are talking sub 100mph speeds.  I'd rather have the solidness and punch of my Griso or something lighter and easier to ride.  But that's me and my old self; the Griso is plenty fast when you are on the downside of the "go for it" days.

[Kev m]

I understand the appeal of these high hp bikes, just like a get the appeal of a modern sport chassis that is comfortable/capable.

BUT at the end of the day I have found time and again that it is more fun FOR ME to make do with less, to ride a slow bike fast than a fast bike slow. I can simply USE more (a higher percentage) of the bike (chassis and hp) if it is not as sophisticated and fast.

* I can rev the engine more.
* I can push the chassis closer to the limits
* I can do both while being closer to legal, or at least relatively sane, speeds.
* I have more fun doing that as opposed to constantly saying shit, I better slow down.
* I get a kick out of the efficiency too - higher mileage, etc.

Now don't get me wrong, like I said, I see the draw of the superbike, and if that's your thing have at it.

I'm perfectly happy on something that doesn't tempt me to misbehave nearly as much. And, if I'm honest with myself, I'm happier.

I also can't stand bikes that look to modern, insectoid, robotic, inorganic. Give me classic lines that suggest it is more primitive than its counterparts (and honestly it is in some ways, and that's fine). But put it all in a trouble-free, low-maintenance package - a gas-n-go neo-classic.

That's all I'll ever need.

[jas67]

So the've half arsed it! Personally I don't see the point if they are going to the trouble of building a new motor build a new motor, the old no matter how many you try to please somebody won't like it. The original Vtwin way back when was a pretty advanced design for the time. Things like electric start only high pressure oiling system etc etc. A half baked design will be shunned by the red suspender types because its not an exact replica of thier 850... (insert archaic old pussbox here) it will get panned in the press because it won't be able to go head to head with its direct competitors.

I think a few people here should do themselves a favour and go take a test ride on a 1200 monster/ multistrada or a KTM super duke or something similar. Bikes have taken a massive step forward even in the last 10 years. They need a platform that will get them through the next couple of euro emission cycles not one that will barely last 6 months that is at least in the ball park of what the competition is doing.

Have you ridden the BMW Wasserboxer?    There is nothing half-arsed about it.   Not everyone needs 160+ HP.   The Wasserboxer puts out 125 HP, but, more importantly, it puts out 92 ft*lb of torque, and has a nice broad torque curve.

If Moto Guzzi built  partial-water cooled Vtwin with these specs that still looked good, I'd buy it! 
 

Maybe that would be appropriate for a some.

But then there are those of us who have, and aren't impressed or attracted to that.

Seriously a wet-head, monoshock smallblock sounds pretty good to me, as long as it's good looking and as fun/useful as my V7.

 :1: :1: :1:

[kingoffleece]

Agreed.  The BMW wet head is quite a nice power plant.

[Huzo]

" I thought the torque reaction was due to the fact that the engine wants to spin around the crank due to the reluctance of the crank to want to spin against the natural resistance to motion"
Newtons 3rd law. It's not resisting motion, it's the equal and opposite reaction. So the spinning creates a torque reaction in the opposite direction.
It's not created by the combustion trying to push the cyl head up.
There are forces involved there, but they, I believe, represent them selves as vibration.
Take a horizontally opposed engine. The torque just as much, yet if it was caused by the combustion trying to push the heads out, being opposed they would counter each other out? But the don't.
The torque reaction is caused by a rotational mass.

The analogy about the horizontal twin thing is BS. The torque is felt when the flywheel is accelerated or decelerated. It is the input of energy into that mass, as the rods push, they are producing an equal and opposite force against the heads, so however many Newton metres it takes to spin the flywheel up is felt as an equal torque in the opposite direction by the engine mass.
Ask an engineer or a physicist. When there is no acceleration of mass, there is no resultant torque.

[twowheeladdict]

Reading through this thread would definitely scare a non-Guzzi owner away. 

Most Japanese engines will go 100,000 miles without ever cracking the engine open to fix something that they didn't do correctly.  If only the Japanese knew how to style a motorcycle.  They have to cheap out and meet a budget because they know their bikes won't sell if priced the same as the US and European competitors. 

When the Japanese get the styling close to their competitors, they use cheap plastics and budget components to stay competitive. 

My FZ-07 is an ugly bike, but it weighs 400lbs wet, has 75 hp, a wide seat and cost me under $6000 as a new leftover.  It is covered in plastic.  Plastic over a simple steel fuel cell.  Plastic made to look like carbon fiber.  Headlight set too low in front of the bike.  Gauges mounted to the lower part of the handlebar clamp so you can't use risers with the handlebars.  But, when I bought it I had weight constraint and 400lbs was my max weight.  I had luggage constraints that the bike had to take Givi V35 bags. 

[Tusayan]

Rotax four stroke aircraft engines have water cooled heads and air cooled barrels.  The idea in that application is that the heads need to be water cooled because of the power density of the engine at full power, but with air cooled barrels in the event of cooling system failure you can limp home at reduced power. Not so much a factor for a motorcycle engine but something to consider - one reason I prefer air cooled engines is reliability.

Re 'modern' bikes, I've been surprised when trying them that they often feel clunky and ill at ease in normal service.  The fastest Ducatis and the water cooled BMW Boxer are both bikes I wouldn't buy for that reason.  Conversely, something as basic as a carbureted SV650 Suzuki (an $1800 motorcycle, used) or even an old R100GS BMW is just a lot more fun for me as are many older Italian bikes.

Re Japanese versus European bikes in 2017, I'm afraid that after years of preferring Italian or German stuff for its serviceability, quality and unlimited life I now tend to prefer Japanese stuff for the same reasons.   New European bikes with their dealer reset service lights, lack of service manuals, plastic fuel tanks etc have alienated me and I find the Japanese seem to have greater respect for their customers and haven't gone as far in that direction.  The tables have turned.