I have not heard of the plastic adaptor for the throttle, I might give that a try. Do you know where I can get hold of one? Cheers
Have a look at link below, there is an option for multi 950. There is some discussion on the panigale forum about this. https://ducatispacers.com/products/...s-2017-monster-supersport-xdiavel-multistrada
Over 7k now and still smiling. The tyres lasted for 6k and I've replaced them for the same again. If Ducati could please add a chain oiler, a sat nav and a bigger spring on the centre stand (to stop it banging on these third world English roads) then the bike would be complete.
A little further searching and I see they are just developing a 1260 kit. Cant get the video in this link to play on my phone at moment. https://mailchi.mp/ddc881932c49/were-developing-a-brand-new-spacer-kit-and-last-day-4th-of-july-sale
The forward slack is so you can throttle off from cruise-control & then tap the resume button. Well, that's what I've always used it for.
I will be ordering them as soon as they are available - thanks for the heads up i had skipped passed their email.
Wow, this does look seriously interesting and might well deal with the awful snatchiness of the current throttle action! Once available, I will certainly be trying this modification out. Thanks for sharing. Regards TonyN
The only trouble with that is, you get a bigger dent in your exhaust when you roll it off the centre stand
I emailed the guy on your link recently and got the same answer that he was sorting out spacers to fit the 1260. Following that I found them on ebay, listed as compatible with the 1260. I had doubts though I thought it may be the same source. I thought I would take a chance considering the low cost. It turns out the smaller of the spacers fits one lug of the 1260, but the other is too large. As far as I can see two of the small spacers will do the job as the lugs are the same size. So I'm going to ask them to send me a second small spacer. Incidentally one spacer only fitted eliminates the majority of the free play on it's own.
I message him yesterday and he said that they were currently making the tooling for the 1260 spacers and would be available in approx 3 weeks.
This is what I bought on ebay as advertised for the 1260. As you can see they don't fit. I was going to ask them to send me a second small spacer as you could get away with two of them....sort of! But having looked at them again, and bearing in mind it's the throttle we are talking about, I have decided I will wait for the new correct one's due in three weeks. Incidentally it seems the ebay seller gets them from the bloke on Espen's link and seems genuinely unaware they didn't fit the 1260.
I imagine so. If anyone has a 3D printer and wants to make some and needs a throttle to get the dimensions, the one in my picture is a spare as I have now got heated grips, so I'm happy to lend it.
I could do this, it looks super easy. I'm just not sure how they're supposed to improve things on a throttle-by-wire bike, but I'm probably missing something? PM me to discuss, although the heat in my workshop at the moment is making accurate 3D printing a bit tricky at the moment. I've got a couple of projects on hold until things cool down a bit. I've got nothing so urgent that I need to install AC in my workshop so if you're not in any hurry I'd take a look on behalf of the community.
Rainman I'm not sure how to PM you? To answer your question - the spacers are designed to take up the free play in the throttle housing, purely the forward/back free play as you apply and back off the throttle. So it's nothing to do with the ride by wire as such. From reviews I have seen it seems to help quite a bit with applying a smoother throttle transition on and off, which I think should make the bike smoother to ride. I always find on the Multi that due to the free play there is always a slight delay from twisting the throttle to the bike responding, making it a bit snatchy. It may not be for everyone, some people like some free play, personally I don't. Thanks for your offer to have a look at doing it. If you want my spare throttle to work from let me know. I'm presuming you know how to PM me
OK understood, but here's my two penneth - the free-play in the throttle cable is desirable and may in fact be essential, although the reason for maintaining it might be diminished a little on modern throttle systems, and it might be that I'm just a bit old-school in getting my head around why people want it. Certainly on older bikes with a throttle cable linked directly to carbs and injectors the cable is generally longer and obviously has to be routed all the way from the handle bar at one end to a linkage at the other, quite often making at least one 90 degree turn albeit hopefully routed with a generous radius. Having sufficient slack in the throttle is critical to safety as when the bars are turned the radius in the cable changes making the cable tighten in one direction and (sometimes) loosen in the other direction. The longer the cable, the more pronounced this will be. When adjusting the play in the throttle cable it's important to do it with the handles at full lock either side and ensure that there is *just* a tiny amount of play at full lock on the tightest side (generally on the right side as you tend to pull the cable radius tighter in that direction). If the cable is too tight when the bars are turned it can cause the throttle to open slightly and thats the last thing you want if you're making your winding your way through stationary traffic. When I was much younger I used to spanner in a bike shop and if a customer's bike was in for a service and MOT we'd invariably have to back off the throttle cable adjustment because a customer had adjusted it themselves to get rid of the slack that was almost inevitable when the handle bars were pointing straight. This then made it too tight at full lock and it caused a small throttle opening, sometimes just enough to give the impression of merely a slightly higher tick-over, but on different bikes it could be much worse. The upshot is that anything that can cause an uncontrolled throttle opening is an MOT failure, so we'd adjust the throttle cable correctly to ensure it wasn't. We'd also get customers complaining that when they'd had a service we'd adjusted their throttle cable unnecessarily and now their throttle was all sloppy, which would cue a small session of enlightening the customer as to the reason why. I'm pretty sure that once they'd gone away they would adjust it back how they wanted it as I'd get the same bikes coming back the following year with the same issue - you have no control over what a customer does to their own bike once it's out of the workshop and little things like that which came up all the time would become a standing joke amongst fellow mechanics. I don't think we ever actually failed a bike on it's MOT due to the throttle cable being too tight as we also kept a couple of 8mm/10mm spanners so once we'd highlighted it and educated the customer they could adjust it themselves and remedy such a simple issue immediately. Anyway, enough of the nostalgic ramblings. Today throttle cables are much shorter as they only run down to an analogue ECU input which interprets throttle opening and allows the ECU to ultimately dictate the throttle output itself by controlling a servo. The issue of unduly influencing the throttle cable is much reduced, but it's still there. Which leads me to my next question - if the cable can't be adjusted at the handle bars then there must be a good reason for not enabling easy cable adjustment, but also the cable must be able to be adjusted at one end at least? After all, it's still a cable, it can stretch over time, so it must still be adjustable. So why not lift the tank and adjust it at the other end if you must? Thinking about it, I'm not sure I want to start making throttle components that alter the manufacturers intended spec. I don't think I have sufficient indemnity insurance for that.
