I test rode the new V7 Cafe today. Yes, I did! :O)

[Guest]

[jest2dogs]

My 750 Breva was scheduled for some warranty work today. Apparently, I am the only person to ever have a warped front brake rotor on a Breva!

It was just last night (well, Friday night) that I read that MI had just taken delivery of their first V7 Cafe.

"Great! Stupendous! I will actually get to see one up close." I was excited!

The weather has sucked this week and my wife and I awoke (late) this morning to the sounds of a yard flooding deluge. But we pulled ourselves together for the day trip to Seattle (from our boondock location in Port Angeles) and got to MI about 1:30 PM. No, I trucked the bike there just in case...

...well, I did kid my wife (and myself) about preparing for a "trade-in". And when I saw a green sided building under construction as the ferry neared landfall I proclaimed, "Hey there's our next new house color!" She replied, "Not for our house! You're next bike maybe, but not the house!"

She, obviously, was unaware of her foot-in-mouth statement  

You should have seen her jaw drop when I pointed to the new green Cafe in MI's showroom.   (No, I didn't buy it. I couldn't afford the divorce. )

While I was waiting for my Breva to be serviced I took some pics of the V7 Cafe and some pics of a V7 Sport that was also on the premises. BTW, this is in no way intended to compare one V7 to another. They are different bikes. I just thought the pics of the "nod" and the "inspiration" were a neat touch. Enjoy.

Surprisingly, there was no deluge in Seattle this afternoon, and shooting in the dark I said to Dave, "Too bad it's not sunny and bone dry, or I might press you for a test drive of the new bike."

My jaw hit the floor when he said, "Well, it's not sunny, but it is dry. We have a spare helmet..."

Wowza! I had my pudding bowl helmet (yes, a D.O.T. one), goggles and my waxed cotton Filson in the truck. I nearly ran to get them. By the time I returned Dave had the Cafe burbling at the curb and a waiver for me to sign.

I was not stressed, really, at all. Oh, I was last year when I rode the soon-to-be-mine, 750 Breva around the easy-to-get-lost, Greenlake area. But not today.

The engine, brakes and controls are all familiar. The footpegs are more forward than the Breva's (by about 1") and the short, swan-neck type, clip-ons (*Dave will appreciate that ) are lower down than the Breva's sporty handlebar. This combination makes for a knees-in-58-year-old-gut moment. But once underway the gut is no longer a problem (What gut?)

The power seems to come on quicker than the Breva's (as compared to a ride a few minutes later on my own bike). Though I only took it to 4,000rpm (Yes, honestly. No winks.) it seemed snappier. It could be mapping/timing/tuning or it could be due to increased weight forward on the throttle hand as the wrist is twisted down...? Whatever, it was fun.

While waiting at an excruciatingly long traffic light, I scoped out the apparent size of the bike. Similar specs as the Breva but it feels lighter, smaller, and lower (the low bar height, perhaps, or the is it the seat height?). The bike seems to be beneath me instead of in front of me. Instead of feeling like Ben Hur riding a chariot I feel like I'm on a spirited Morgan, lean and up to the task. ("Just gimme a chance, gimme a chance", said the lion.) And I'm only 5'8" tall. I liked the stance.

I didn't perform any panic stops, nor highway driving, but the brakes felt perfectly adequate. Enuf said there.

Some folks are concerned about the 18" front wheel. Frankly, I like the larger wheel and the wire spokes, to boot. It feels more stable as I weave side to side on a residential street (I don't normally drive this way, just testing...). Contrarily, the Breva's 17" wheels tend to fall, abruptly, into slow speed turns.  Sometimes unnervingly. The Cafe's bars and 18" wheel combo feel very tractable around town and I don't see a problem on the twisties. (I have a Royal Enfield with 19" rims and it is a delightful handler.)

I like the color. Not at first, but once I was underway I liked the feel of it. OTOH, my wife would just as soon barf....

Now for the best part, THE PIPES! The pipes, they are a callin'. OMIGOD! At idle they have that "normal" small block burble. But then, you blip the throttle, or simply pull away from the intersection and the baritone bark ignites your loins!
If I can't have a Cafe, I at least, want those pipes. (They do sweep upwards, though, so I will not be carrying any large saddlebags).

Hmmm, maybe next year I'll threaten to paint the house bright green...

 

[iceblue]

Cool!!
Another V7C thread.

Love it. Another positive test ride.
This has to be Guzzi's bread and butter just now.

Challenging sometime with our wiphies - girl toys are not similar to boy toys 

Ciao

[oldmanjob]

You lucky dog all I got was a chance to sit in it

[dgurovich]

I agree.  I can afford any bike I want, it's the divorce that would be crushing. 

I'm thinking about painting my V7C in the 750S "look".  I figure it's going to be about $600 to do it, but it would be COOL(?), especially with the Cafe seat that I ordered (seriously, a bargain at around $170).

The thing is, I actually LIKE the white a lot... 

[jsh1120]

I was another of the "lookieloos" at MI yesterday. A few observations.

() Finally managed to figure out the Cafe's color that looks so different in various pictures on the web. Yes, it's a matte finish. And yet it's "bright." Works very well, I think, though I have a feeling it may look dated in a few years. (Just a guess.)

() Not having the guts to ask for a ride until some other nutter had done so, I just sat on the bike a bit. Much better seating position than the Classic, I thought. Much like the difference between the 2009 Thruxton (with higher bars than earlier years) and the other Bonnies. Liked the bar position a lot.  

() I was struck by how small the bike is, especially in comparison to the V7 Sport shown in the photos. The Triumph Bonnevilles are considerably larger than their ancient counterparts, a comparison that is striking if the two bikes sit next to one another. Not so with the Cafe vs. the V7 Sport. The former is actually smaller than its predecessor. (Yes, I know the relative comparisons are strained, at best. The V7 Cafe is hardly the descendant of the V7 Sport. But many would argue the same about the Bonnies.)

() My observations about relative size were probably triggered by looking at the new Aprilia RSV4R MI also had on the floor. Talk about a compact bike!

() The upswept mufflers look very good, imo. Wonder about luggage, of course, but that's not what this bike is about.

() Would still like to see a cafe version of a bike based on the 940 motor, but I suspect that isn't in the cards. (And yes, all I'm doing is bench racing specs. I have no idea how such a bike would behave.)

() All in all, a beautiful bike. I don't see it taking many sales away from its natural rival, the Triumph Thruxton, but I think MG gets at least a "B+".

[Guzzimundi]

Thanks for the review, Jest. I'm beginning to feel sorry for my little Breva. 

[elmosisu]

BTW...... You're not the only one who warped the front rotor on your B750.       


Got it replace with a used Ebay M750 Ducati rotor.   $60     

[Ray R]

I got to see a V7 Cafe and Thruxton side by side at Cascade Moto on Friday. I have to admit, the Thruxton looked to have the superior fit and finish. @70hp vs @50hp. 41mm adjustable forks vs 40mm static. And @$500 less to boot. I think only the loyal Guzzisti are going to opt for the Classic. But I'd love to take them out for a back-to-back test ride before making that decision final.  

[birdmove]

  That bike is a beauty! Years ago, I went to Moto Int and test rode an MZ/MUZ Traveller. I lived in Bonney Lake then (now in Puyallup). I really didn't know my way around that area of Seattle very well. One of the guys there tried to describe a nice test loop that would include a bit of freeway, some windy roads, etc. Me have a non existing sense of direction got all messed up on the test ride. I had visions on them calling out the swat team after  a guy that stole a new MZ motorcycle. I guess it was much worse in my mind, because when I found my way back, there was no problem. I like the V-7 and the 750 Breva very much.

   jon

[dgurovich]

I got to see a V7 Cafe and Thruxton side by side at Cascade Moto on Friday. I have to admit, the Thruxton looked to have the superior fit and finish. @70hp vs @50hp. 41mm adjustable forks vs 40mm static. And @$500 less to boot. I think only the loyal Guzzisti are going to opt for the Classic. But I'd love to them out for a back-to-back test ride before making that decision final.

Ah, let's compare stats!

I went to work on my Guzzi this morning just to see if some software that was on "autorun" had crushed itself under its own weight.  When I restarted the system, I decided to take a little trip around Chicago.  150mi later....

I'll take light and quick over big and fast.  I've ridden quite a few newer Bonnies, and in my opinion they don't deserve to smell the underwear of the V7C.  What's your butt tells you when you're on the bike is all that matters.

[ScepticalScotty]

"But I'd love to them out for a back-to-back test ride before making that decision final" - don't be fooled by numbers, or seduced by them. They are just numbers after all. Take that test ride. Remember that 70hp is not going to be what you are using 90% of the time.

[Ray R]

- don't be fooled by numbers, or seduced by them. They are just numbers after all. Take that test ride. Remember that 70hp is not going to be what you are using 90% of the time.

Indeed. But the torque numbers were better on the Thruxton as well.  

The dimensions aren't that much different, with the Thruxton having a little shorter wheel base, but at the same time being a little heavier. It's hard to tell the exact difference as the manufacturer's websites show wet weight for Triumph and dry for Guzzi.

Again, these bikes were just sitting on the showroom floor. A test ride is the real tell.  But, just sitting there, that Thruxton had a much nicer fit/finish all around. Signals, paint, rims, welds, etc.

[jest2dogs]

Jon/Birdmove,

I thought I recognized that moniker. Are you considering getting a Guzzi stablemate for your green friend there? I have both and they are getting along very nicely, thank you.

and to "elmosiso",

You are probably right. But the shop said I had the first rotor warped under warranty. No charge and it's 1mm thicker than original.

As to the power of the Breva/Classic/Nevada/Cafe it's all in what you actually use. I rode a friend's Honda Hurricane years ago and found it scary and useless for everyday riding. My 150cc scooter is great for zipping to the store and will do 55-60 (indicated) but I'd no sooner drive it on the secondary highway than I would a Radio Flyer wagon.

I think the only time I even thought about wanting "bigger" while riding the Breva was when I was tired, and then it wasn't about power really. Just a bigger bike with a big fairing I could huddle behind. The headwind was atrocious and beating me bad. The Breva performed just fine though, it was me that was weakening.

The most power I had in a bike was the 1976 R90/6 (I had two over the years) and that was ~63hp. That last R90 fell into disuse because it was too big for around town and I wasn't doing anything long distance back then. I actually got more use, and loved the dickens, out of my 1970 R75/5. Same size bike as the R90's but the power was less and more usable for all around needs. (And the wind beat me bad on one of the unfaired R90's too, so it's not about power.)

The V7 Cafe was real fun, nimble and apppeared small (perhaps deceiving) which means it will get a lot of use. (I see a lot of big road bikes in garages. Only used for the big rides. Too bad they don't have something they could use everyday.)

[ohiorider]

Triumph has definitely cleaned up the Bonnie lineup cosmetically.  The controls on the newer Thrux make my 2003 controls look a bit cobby.   But, even though there's a 1200 Sport coming my way (already purchased, haven't taken delivery yet), my 2003 T100 with nearly 41000 miles will be a keeper.  Absolutely larger than it's decendents, but she can be used for some long distance cruising if you are up to taking a smaller bike long distances.  And still a sweet ride around town.  We took two Bonnies on a 5000 mile, 13 day ride in 2006, and I can say that the trip was a hoot!

I'm sure if I spent some time in the saddle of the new 750 Classic or Cafe, I'd fall head over heels in love with that bike, too.  But I do enjoy listening to my Bonnie making those BritBike vertical twin sounds as she accelerates.

Maybe I just like motorcycles in general, especially those that feel like bikes, not appliances.  I'm sure the 1200 Sport will not disappoint!

Bob

[birdmove]

    Hello, jest2dogs. I'm not really planning on buying a Guzzi right now.Its not a good time. I got a six week layoff from the HDF/Buell dealership I work at.I should be going back to work on Nov. 17th. I have admired the Guzzis for a long time though. I have yet to test ride one. When I go back to work I have Sundays and Mondays off, and most other dealers are closed too, so it makes it tough to go test ride one. When I went to Vince's to test ride an Enfield, it was in December of 2007 and I had a week off. Of course I came home with my 2007 Bullet Classic.I couldn't resist slapping a photo of old "One Kick" in my reply above, as I knew you also ride an Enfield.

    Also, I have three bikes: my 2007 Royal Enfield Bullet; my 2007 Yamaha XT225 dualsport;and my 2006 HD XL883 Sportster.If I decide to get another bike, that means one of those three has to go. That would be a tough choice for me.The Yamaha gets incredible gas mileage and can go off road. The Enfield? I'd probably hate myself if I sold it, and the Sportster? Since I work/worked at an HD dealer its kind of fitting I ride one.Also that XL is a very good motorcycle, and I bought it used with a nice employee discount.

    I'm now 56 years old and only ride solo, so a 750cc Guzzi would be just fine for this old geezer.I like the Breva and the new V-7.

   Take care all, Jon in Puyallup, Wa.

[jsh1120]

...I'll take light and quick over big and fast.  I've ridden quite a few newer Bonnies, and in my opinion they don't deserve to smell the underwear of the V7C.  What's your butt tells you when you're on the bike is all that matters.

Interesting mix of metaphors there. I'll avoid any further comment except to note that in my experience the Thruxton is very very different from (and much more satisfying than) the other Bonnies (and I've ridden all the versions quite a bit.)  

Further, the Bonnevilles, more than most bikes I've ridden, seem to be especially susceptible to relatively inexpensive performance enhancement. I suspect it comes from the relatively low state of tune in the stock versions and the under-stressed character of the engine. It's not at all unusual to add another 15 horsepower to that 60 (or so) HP in the engine and retain a very ridable street machine. And if that isn't enough, one can always use one of the new Bonnies to set speed records in Utah.

I've yet to ride a V7, but I suspect it's at least as enjoyable as, say, the stock Bonnie or the T100. On the other hand, I doubt seriously that even the best set up V7 could compare with a couple of Thruxtons I know.

http://www.triumph.co.uk/canada/News_8944.aspx

[Kev m]

don't be fooled by numbers, or seduced by them. They are just numbers after all. Take that test ride. Remember that 70hp is not going to be what you are using 90% of the time.

BINGO!

I've been enjoying my B11 which makes PLENTY of power by MY standards - but I noticed today that I DO ride it faster than the other bikes in our stable. Give me more power and I'm just gonna ride even faster. Cut away some power and, as long as I don't have any problem merging or outrunning the average traffic, I'm happy as a clam.

I'm sure I'd love the V7 Classic or Cafe

[Bikebits]

I own both a Triumph twin, in Scrambler form, and a V7C. I posted a comparison of the two here:

http://www.bmwmoa.org/forum/showthread.php?t=40016&highlight=crazy+impulse+buy

[Kev m]

I own both a Triumph twin, in Scrambler form, and a V7C. I posted a comparison of the two here:

http://www.bmwmoa.org/forum/showthread.php?t=40016&highlight=crazy+impulse+buy

I take it you're DAVE?

Nice write up BTW

Well,
I've put a bit over 1000km on the little Guzzi in under a week and I thought I'd share some impressions. The first service is due at 1000km, and as riding season is rapidly drawing to a close here, I thought I'd get the service done and put her away with fresh oil etc.

I'll make some comparisons to the Triumph Scrambler, as I own one as well, and I know the Triumph Bonneville variants will be compared to the V7 Classic.

I'd read as many online reviews and tests as I could to have some idea of what to expect. My take is as follows:

Looks are completely subjective, but both of these designs are winners in my eye. When the Scrambler came out in 2006 with those high pipes and traditional Triumph lines I wanted one baaad. It took me two years to succumb, but there have been absolutely no regrets. Based on appearance and size, the Guzzi is perhaps truer to the models it emulates while at the same time being very sophisticated in detail. To borrow someone else's analogy, while these are both cover versions of the original songs, the Guzzi has put together a slightly better remake.

The Guzzi is cold blooded, and a couple of reviews said it is hard to start from cold. I discovered the trick to getting it to light up. Ignore the fast idle lever on the bars and crack the throttle open ever so slightly when pressing the starter. Touching the throttle is generally a no-no on FI bikes when starting, but it works like a charm. My Scrambler is of the carbed variety, but the choke can come off after a minute or so. They're equal here.

The different Bonneville variants claim horsepower in the mid fifties to mid sixties, with weight around the 450 lb mark. The V7 claims 48 hp with a weight of 401 lbs. The Scrambler definitely accelerates faster and the engine is a smooth, vibration-free marvel. It rivals an inline four with the character of a twin. The Guzzi vibes more at idle and smooths out at speed, but never equals the Triumph. I should note that the Scrambler has the 270 degree crank, so matches the firing characteristics of the 90 degree v-twin in the V7 . The fuel injection on the V7 is very well sorted out, and once warm it will pull from less than 2000 rpm. Fortunately peak torque is squarely at cruising speed, which helps overcome the horsepower deficit. Although the V7 is tractable with adequate power, the Triumph has enough extra ponies to make passing less of a gamble and the smoothness of the engine is superb for a twin. The Scrambler takes this one, but with the advantage of an extra 121cc.

You'll want to stay on the Guzzi's throttle to use the available power, however that is a good thing. I did not know factory exhausts could sound this good any more. It has a muted "Ducati on aftermarket pipes" growl that is intoxicating, without being loud. To get the same melody the Triumph requires an accessory exhaust, which will invariably be louder. Big win for the Guzzi on exhaust note.

It took the first couple of hundred km for the V7 clutch to bed in and now it's light and positive. A bit lighter than the Triumph, which has a broader engagement point. The Triumph clutch is a bit smoother in use.

The stock Guzzi Brembos are far superior to the stock Triumph brakes. I put an aftermarket EBC floating front disc and pad set on the Scrambler; that is probably close to being the Guzzi's equal. Stock, the Guzzi wins hands down.

An annoyance on the Triumph is the idiot lights can't be read in full sunlight. I replaced the bulbs with aftermarket LEDs, and now they are fine. The Guzzi's instruments and idiot lights are all LED lit, and are adjustable for three levels of brightness. The V7 LCD odometer in the speedo is matched by a similar info panel in the tach that has time or temperature. The odometer starts to count up distance travelled on reserve once the yellow light comes on. The yellow light does flicker on and off a lot before it decides to stay on. The Guzzi instruments, while retaining a nice traditional look, are a lot more sophisticated. Guzzi wins here.

Cycle parts: The paint and finish on the Triumph is very nice, but the chrome, while bright, is thin. I make it a point to never ride once winter salt goes on the roads. In spite of this, the rims on the Triumph got so rusty in one year that Triumph has authorized a warranty replacement. Kudos to Triumph for stepping up to the plate, but the rims shouldn't have rusted in the first place. The finish on the Guzzi is superb. Pearl coat paint looks inches deep, and small touches abound like the finishers placed over the joints where the frame bolts together where the Triumph has none. The Guzzi comes with a full, useful tool kit, the Triumph has an allen wrench under the side cover that is used for the laborious process of removing the seat. One turn of the key and the Guzzi seat is off. The Triumph has a separate steering lock (and key) for the fork lock, which is identical to that on a /5. The Guzzi lock is integrated into the ignition. Although both bikes seem well turned out at first glance, the V7 is much more refined based on details.

The Guzzi handles like it is on the proverbial rails. Steering is razor sharp and the suspension is perhaps too taught. One review I read said the factory sets the bikes up for carving the Italian Alps. I backed the preload off on the shocks and it is now much more suited to bumpy North American pavement. My Scrambler, as delivered, had extremely harsh damping in the forks and not enough in the shocks. I remedied that by going to lighter fork oil and Ikon shocks. I went for a ride on the Scrambler immediately after coming off the Guzzi and it felt like an RT by comparison. As delivered, the Guzzi is superior to the Scrambler in comfort and handling. Right now the Guzzi wins in the handling department with a 'tighter' feel, but the modified Scrambler is more comfortable. I'll fiddle with the Guzzi suspension to see if I can improve comfort without compromising handling.

Of course the V7 is shaft drive, and due to what must be a heavy flywheel there is a sideways bob when the throttle is blipped, familiar to BMW boxer owners. Due to the modest power output rear end jacking is minimal. The Triumph has a high quality X-ring chain and didn't require any adjustment in a 6500 km trip. Modern chains are nothing like those of decades ago and are now quite viable for a touring bike. That said, there's no need to carry lube or large size wrenches for adjustment on the Guzzi, so it gets the nod here.

The new Bonnevilles have built an enviable reputation as being as bulletproof as anything being built these days. The V7's "small block" power plant has been around for a few decades now, and all the bugs seem to be well worked out. We'll call this one a tie, with maybe a whisker of advantage to the Triumph if I can believe all the stuff I've read on the 'net. So far the accessories I've wanted for the Guzzi have been back ordered, whereas those for the Triumph arrived quickly or were in stock. Triumph has a more extensive dealer network, but Guzzi is undergoing a major expansion now that it is in Aprilia's hands. We'll give Triumph a win in the factory support column, but Guzzi's are a rarer bird.

Although both these bikes seem like similar retro styling exercises at first glance, they are significantly different to live with. The V7 Classic is much more refined in finish and execution but the wonderful engine in the Triumph is a joy to use. I'm going to keep them both, the V7 for commuting and the Scrambler for back road exploring. After over 25 years of BMW ownership my F800ST now seems superfluous. I'll make that decision come spring.
__________________
Dave
'09 Moto Guzzi V7 Classic
'07 F800ST
'06 Triumph Scrambler

[flashman]

() I was struck by how small the bike is, especially in comparison to the V7 Sport shown in the photos. The Triumph Bonnevilles are considerably larger than their ancient counterparts, a comparison that is striking if the two bikes sit next to one another. Not so with the Cafe vs. the V7 Sport. The former is actually smaller than its predecessor. (Yes, I know the relative comparisons are strained, at best. The V7 Cafe is hardly the descendant of the V7 Sport. But many would argue the same about the Bonnies.)

Mmmm, the two bikes have nearly idential dimensions - with the V7C being slightly larger, but considerably lighter.  The V7C is only shorter in length, and then by 21mm (under an inch)

HP; V7C: 48 @ 6800rpm, V7S: 52 @ 6300rpm (Guzzi's own figures)
Dry Weight; V7C: 401 lbs, V7S: 454 lbs
Wheelbase; V7C: 1449mm, V7S: 1470mm
Overall Length; V7C: 2185mm, V7S: 2165mm
Seat Height; V7C: 805mm, V7S: 750mm (IIRC)
Width; V7C: 800mm, V7S: 700mm

someone did a very nice overlay comparison; http://media.photobucket.com/image/v7c%20v7%20sport%20overlay/motocomo/v7_classic_vs_sport-1.jpg




  

[jsh1120]

() I was struck by how small the bike is, especially in comparison to the V7 Sport shown in the photos. The Triumph Bonnevilles are considerably larger than their ancient counterparts, a comparison that is striking if the two bikes sit next to one another. Not so with the Cafe vs. the V7 Sport. The former is actually smaller than its predecessor. (Yes, I know the relative comparisons are strained, at best. The V7 Cafe is hardly the descendant of the V7 Sport. But many would argue the same about the Bonnies.)

Mmmm, the two bikes have nearly idential dimensions - with the V7C being slightly larger, but considerably lighter.  The V7C is only shorter in length, and then by 21mm (under an inch)

HP; V7C: 48 @ 6800rpm, V7S: 52 @ 6300rpm (Guzzi's own figures)
Dry Weight; V7C: 401 lbs, V7S: 454 lbs
Wheelbase; V7C: 1449mm, V7S: 1470mm
Overall Length; V7C: 2185mm, V7S: 2165mm
Seat Height; V7C: 805mm, V7S: 750mm (IIRC)
Width; V7C: 800mm, V7S: 700mm

someone did a very nice overlay comparison; http://media.photobucket.com/image/v7c%20v7%20sport%20overlay/motocomo/v7_classic_vs_sport-1.jpg

Interesting. I stand corrected. The comparison I was drawing was based on a V7 Sport that MI happened to have in the back shed. Had the bikes been sitting next to one another, I wouldn't have made the error. It's interesting as I think about it, though. The V7 Cafe seemed noticeably smaller than the V7 Classic now that I think about it. Since that's obviously not the case, I suspect it's just an impression that results from the lower bars and solo seat on the Cafe.

[Trevor G]

() The upswept mufflers look very good, imo. Wonder about luggage, of course, but that's not what this bike is about.

I can't wait to see it with a tombstone fairing and enormous sidebags.

Someone will do it, and soon, I reckon, too.  ;-(

Not so cheerily  ;-(

Trevor G

[Bikebits]

I take it you're DAVE?

Nice write up BTW

That would be me.

[jest2dogs]

I'm sorry, but I was there, and I took pics of both. I don't take much stock in the "overlay comparison". You are comparing an early model MG big block to a late model small block in different frames and they are supposed to be similar in size? C'mon, maybe we need Dave @ MI to get out his tape for us. Compare these two photos taken with the same camera the same day. Figures I have found for the Sport put it at somewhere between 485 and 499 lbs but I do not know if that is wet or dry. And that V7 Sport is l-o-n-g.

Maybe if someone has this book it might lay the comparison to rest:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Moto-Guzzi-Sport-Bible-Veloce/dp/184584064X

[sign216]

I'll admit, the V7C seems a little "compact," even though it's numbers are similar to older big blocks.  Perhaps it's perception, like an optical illusion.  Despite it's real size, it doesn't come off as a big bike. 

Remember when a 750 was a big bike?

Joe

[iceblue]

I sure do - a 750cc was the ultimate bike size - HD being utopia.

Ciao

[sign216]

I sure do - a 750cc was the ultimate bike size - HD being utopia.

Ciao

Harley Davidson as a bike utopia?  Am I reading that correctly? 

[flashman]

I'm sorry, but I was there, and I took pics of both. I don't take much stock in the "overlay comparison". You are comparing an early model MG big block to a late model small block in different frames and they are supposed to be similar in size? C'mon, maybe we need Dave @ MI to get out his tape for us. Compare these two photos taken with the same camera the same day. Figures I have found for the Sport put it at somewhere between 485 and 499 lbs but I do not know if that is wet or dry. And that V7 Sport is l-o-n-g.

Maybe if someone has this book it might lay the comparison to rest:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Moto-Guzzi-Sport-Bible-Veloce/dp/184584064X

Well, I'm not comparing anything - all those figures are Guzzi's own... Which should pretty much lay it to rest.  The figures are from the V7C manual, and "Moto Guzzi - The Complete History from 1921"  The bikes aren't similar in size - they're within an few mm of being identical in size.  The Sport is 50lbs heavier, dry.  485 lbs would be right for it's wet weight.  The figures I gave above are for dry weight.  

If you doubt the accuracy of Guzzi's measurments, that's one thing, but arguing the point here isn't really going to accomplish anything - you can go look up the measurments yourself if you'd like, but you're not going to find anything different.  

The terms "big" and "small" block may be confusing you - the modern small block 750 lump is about identical in size to the V7 Sport "big block."  Common sense, as well as the stats, would tell us so - there's only so much bigger or smaller your can engineer a lump when you fix the displacement.  The modern big block is a considerably larger engine than either the V7C's or V7 Sport's.  But the OLD big block was only big in comparison to 500cc singles...  You have to consider the terminology in the context of the relevant time period.  

[iceblue]

I sure do - a 750cc was the ultimate bike size - HD being utopia.

Ciao

Harley Davidson as a bike utopia?  Am I reading that correctly? 

In terms of displacement    It was 1.200cc back then.

Ciao

[jsh1120]

I'm sorry, but I was there, and I took pics of both. I don't take much stock in the "overlay comparison". You are comparing an early model MG big block to a late model small block in different frames and they are supposed to be similar in size? C'mon, maybe we need Dave @ MI to get out his tape for us. Compare these two photos taken with the same camera the same day. Figures I have found for the Sport put it at somewhere between 485 and 499 lbs but I do not know if that is wet or dry. And that V7 Sport is l-o-n-g.

Maybe if someone has this book it might lay the comparison to rest:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Moto-Guzzi-Sport-Bible-Veloce/dp/184584064X

Well, I'm not comparing anything - all those figures are Guzzi's own... Which should pretty much lay it to rest.  The figures are from the V7C manual, and "Moto Guzzi - The Complete History from 1921"  The bikes aren't similar in size - they're within an few mm of being identical in size.  The Sport is 50lbs heavier, dry.  485 lbs would be right for it's wet weight.  The figures I gave above are for dry weight.  

If you doubt the accuracy of Guzzi's measurments, that's one thing, but arguing the point here isn't really going to accomplish anything - you can go look up the measurments yourself if you'd like, but you're not going to find anything different.  

The terms "big" and "small" block may be confusing you - the modern small block 750 lump is about identical in size to the V7 Sport "big block."  Common sense, as well as the stats, would tell us so - there's only so much bigger or smaller your can engineer a lump when you fix the displacement.  The modern big block is a considerably larger engine than either the V7C's or V7 Sport's.  But the OLD big block was only big in comparison to 500cc singles...  You have to consider the terminology in the context of the relevant time period.  

Since I inadvertently started this discussion, let me add another $.02.  I have no reason to doubt Flashman's figures. And his "big" vs "small" block comments are well taken. My only point was that MG seems to be running against the general tide in which "retro" bikes are considerably larger than the models they commemorate. (e.g. Triumph, Ducati, Honda). No value judgment implied; just an observation.

Finally, while I'm sure Flashman's figures are correct, the fact remains that the lines of the original V7 Sport give one a visual impression of a much longer bike than the V7 Cafe. That the actual figures don't support that impression only suggests how the eye (or at least my eye) can be fooled by different styling.

[flashman]

Since I inadvertently started this discussion, let me add another $.02.  I have no reason to doubt Flashman's figures. And his "big" vs "small" block comments are well taken. My only point was that MG seems to be running against the general tide in which "retro" bikes are considerably larger than the models they commemorate. (e.g. Triumph, Ducati, Honda). No value judgment implied; just an observation.

Finally, while I'm sure Flashman's figures are correct, the fact remains that the lines of the original V7 Sport give one a visual impression of a much longer bike than the V7 Cafe. That the actual figures don't support that impression only suggests how the eye (or at least my eye) can be fooled by different styling.

I think the Sport looks longer because of the lower seat height - it's 10cm (13%) lower for the same length of bike.  That, plus the long straight lines of the Tonti frame and Lafranconis may be the reason it appears stretched.  Although they got the V7C close, there's just no comparison with the V7 styling IMHO.  Amazing how two bikes can be so close, yet so different.  To me, the line of the frame and pipes on the V7 Sport make all the difference.     

[jsh1120]

Since I inadvertently started this discussion, let me add another $.02.  I have no reason to doubt Flashman's figures. And his "big" vs "small" block comments are well taken. My only point was that MG seems to be running against the general tide in which "retro" bikes are considerably larger than the models they commemorate. (e.g. Triumph, Ducati, Honda). No value judgment implied; just an observation.

Finally, while I'm sure Flashman's figures are correct, the fact remains that the lines of the original V7 Sport give one a visual impression of a much longer bike than the V7 Cafe. That the actual figures don't support that impression only suggests how the eye (or at least my eye) can be fooled by different styling.

I think the Sport looks longer because of the lower seat height - it's 10cm (13%) lower for the same length of bike.  That, plus the long straight lines of the Tonti frame and Lafranconis may be the reason it appears stretched.  Although they got the V7C close, there's just no comparison with the V7 styling IMHO.  Amazing how two bikes can be so close, yet so different.  To me, the line of the frame and pipes on the V7 Sport make all the difference.     

+1. My sentiments exactly. In fact, MI had a customer's V7 Classic on hand on Saturday, as well. And the lower pipes seemed to lengthen the bike compared to the Cafe.

[Moto]

I'm sorry, but I was there, and I took pics of both. I don't take much stock in the "overlay comparison".

I created that overlay comparison. I scaled it very carefully using Moto Guzzi's posted specs on the V7 Classic and specs from my own copy of the factory manual for the V7 Sport. The new bike is according to those sources a bit longer than the old one, though its wheelbase is a bit shorter. The rear fender accounts for the difference. You may notice the red reference lines I included to make it easier to see where the differences lie.

You could have searched the archives to find more information rather than impugning my work in your ignorance.

Moto

[flashman]

I'm sorry, but I was there, and I took pics of both. I don't take much stock in the "overlay comparison".

I created that overlay comparison. I scaled it very carefully using Moto Guzzi's posted specs on the V7 Classic and specs from my own copy of the factory manual for the V7 Sport. The new bike is according to those sources a bit longer than the old one, though its wheelbase is a bit shorter. The rear fender accounts for the difference. You may notice the red reference lines I included to make it easier to see where the differences lie.

You could have searched the archives to find more information rather than impugning my work in your ignorance.

Moto

Moto - thanks for creating that and apologies for not giving credit - I had no idea who knocked it up.  Very interesting to see the two bikes compared like that.  

[Greg Field]

The terms "big" and "small" block may be confusing you - the modern small block 750 lump is about identical in size to the V7 Sport "big block."  Common sense, as well as the stats, would tell us so - there's only so much bigger or smaller your can engineer a lump when you fix the displacement.  The modern big block is a considerably larger engine than either the V7C's or V7 Sport's.  But the OLD big block was only big in comparison to 500cc singles...  You have to consider the terminology in the context of the relevant time period.  

I have to disagree with this. A V7 Sport motor is just as large as a Norge 1200 motor. Both are much larger than a V7C motor. The visual mass of the big block motor is part of why a V7 Sport looks so much different from a V7C, especially from the rear, the vantage point that most emphasizes how much bigger the big-block motor looks.

[Moto]

Moto - thanks for creating that and apologies for not giving credit - I had no idea who knocked it up.  Very interesting to see the two bikes compared like that.  

No problem, Flash. I wasn't reacting to your contribution.

Moto

[jest2dogs]

Moto,

Your overlay diagram was not given with references or proper credits. From my days as a researcher I always take such references with a grain of salt. Thus my comment "I don't take much stock..".  I cannot impugn your work because you were not given credit. You are correct to feel slighted after your obvious efforts. But calling me ignorant does not make for easy communications on this forum. There are many uninformed comments being made in this thread, especially in relative size of small vs big block.

Thank you for taking the time to cite your references. I have researched several comparative spec sheets on-line for other models and brands and I have found discrepancies between them, perhaps pre-production vs final production figures or perhaps a journalist who was too lazy to check their facts. It happens.

I still want to get out the ruler and measure the darn thing  
 
-Jesse

[Moto]

Moto,

Your overlay diagram was not given with references or proper credits. From my days as a researcher I always take such references with a grain of salt. Thus my comment "I don't take much stock..".  I cannot impugn your work because you were not given credit. You are correct to feel slighted after your obvious efforts. But calling me ignorant does not make for easy communications on this forum. There are many uninformed comments being made in this thread, especially in relative size of small vs big block.

Thank you for taking the time to cite your references. I have researched several comparative spec sheets on-line for other models and brands and I have found discrepancies between them, perhaps pre-production vs final production figures or perhaps a journalist who was too lazy to check their facts. It happens.

I still want to get out the ruler and measure the darn thing  

-Jesse

Yes, well, I see your point. I was a bit under-impressed with your argument based on having seen two bikes and taken their pictures. To make the pictures count, you have to have them in the same scale.

My original posting was in a long thread back in 2008, here: http://wildguzzi.com/forum/index.php?topic=17951.msg271435#msg271435 . Enjoy. No hard feelings.

[jest2dogs]

Moto,

Nope, no hard feelings. Thanks for your clarity. As to the pics, yes they would be better to scale but I did not know ATT that I was going to have this discussion. 

As I am several hours from MI, and the sample vehicles in question, I doubt I will be back there soon enough to properly conduct any hands-on research. I have written to Dave R. for his input. He may not want to get involved. Or maybe he'll lay the whole thing to rest.

I am going to peruse your earlier posting now...

-Jesse

[flashman]

The terms "big" and "small" block may be confusing you - the modern small block 750 lump is about identical in size to the V7 Sport "big block."  Common sense, as well as the stats, would tell us so - there's only so much bigger or smaller your can engineer a lump when you fix the displacement.  The modern big block is a considerably larger engine than either the V7C's or V7 Sport's.  But the OLD big block was only big in comparison to 500cc singles...  You have to consider the terminology in the context of the relevant time period.  

I have to disagree with this. A V7 Sport motor is just as large as a Norge 1200 motor. Both are much larger than a V7C motor. The visual mass of the big block motor is part of why a V7 Sport looks so much different from a V7C, especially from the rear, the vantage point that most emphasizes how much bigger the big-block motor looks.

Interesting!  I thought they were the same size... based on side by side comparison and a few quick measurements... Guess not!  Mind you I've never seen a modern big block and old big block side by side as well... That would be interesting for comparison.