Looking for information on the new California's

[segesta]

I really like my California 1400, but it's my first heavy cruiser so I have nothing to compare it to. It's heavy to move in the garage, but once underway it is very smooth and easy to handle (and I'm short).

But you won't get many Cool Points in public because it is just so rare that nobody even knows how cool it actually is.  :P Like driving a 1969 Datsun Fairlady Z.

[mtiberio]

Drive By Wire for instance

I think the new V7 version 2 has traction control, if it has that it has TBW

[Kev m]

I think the new V7 version 2 has traction control, if it has that it has TBW

I know that it's been debated back and forth since the introduction, but the thinking is the current 1TB V7 (like my Stone) is supposedly a TBW (or partial TBW system).

[youcanrunnaked]

IMO, telling the OP that he won't notice a performance difference between his Ultra Classic and a Cali 1400 Touring is hogwash.  

The Harley is around 150 lbs heavier, has about 20% less lean angle, is down about 10 hp, doesn't have traction control, likely doesn't have ABS, and comes from the factory with a grossly under-sprung suspension.  The post 2009 FLH chassis may have been an improvement over the wiggly H-D touring chassis of years past, but it can't touch the new California's chassis for rigidity, feel, and feedback.  Adding the Ultra's fork-mounted batwing fairing to the Harley chassis doesn't help matters; the bike steers like a truck compared to the Guzzi.

I have yet to ride an Indian Chieftan, so I'll reserve final judgment on a Guzzi-Indian comparison.  However, from reading comparison tests and looking at spec sheets (always tricky business, I'll admit), I'd be surprised if the Guzzi was not the better overall performer.

[Kev m]

IMO, telling the OP that he won't notice a performance difference between his Ultra Classic and a Cali 1400 Touring is hogwash.  

The Harley is around 150 lbs heavier, has about 20% less lean angle, is down about 10 hp, doesn't have traction control, likely doesn't have ABS, and comes from the factory with a grossly under-sprung suspension.  The post 2009 FLH chassis may have been an improvement over the wiggly H-D touring chassis of years past, but it can't touch the new California's chassis for rigidity, feel, and feedback.  Adding the Ultra's fork-mounted batwing fairing to the Harley chassis doesn't help matters; the bike steers like a truck compared to the Guzzi.

I have yet to ride an Indian Chieftan, so I'll reserve final judgment on a Guzzi-Indian comparison.  However, from reading comparison tests and looking at spec sheets (always tricky business, I'll admit), I'd be surprised if the Guzzi was not the better overall performer.

126# heavier to be pedantic - Cal 1400 Touring 753 wet (not including a topcase or backrest, which one might presume he'll add, so the difference will be closer to 100# when all is said and done) and current Ultra 879#.

Where are you getting the 20% lean angle difference? I'm not sure I've ever seen a spec on a Cal 1400, but I'd be interested in it.

That said, what does 20% come to in this case - 6 degrees - I'm skeptical of that number... maybe though.

ABS - not sure about the 2010, but obviously the current could. Not that I think that's a game changer on "handling" which is what we were discussing.

Same goes for traction control, which I think in either case probably doesn't come into play unless it's raining.

I call total and utter BS on the suspension, the FLH's I've ridden (and I've ridden many) were all fine in that regard. I noticed nothing superior about the Cali 1400 suspension.

And handling for that matter, I go back to the fact that 99% of riders aren't going to be scraping the floorboards on either of these behemoths anyway.

[youcanrunnaked]

Kev,

I've seen as-tested running weights for the Ultra C at greater than 900 lbs, but okay, a ONE HUNDRED POUND DIFFERENCE -- Holy shyte!  That's almost a different class of motorcycle!

I recall seeing lean angles for the Guzzi in the high-30's/ near 40 (can't seem to find it now); Ultra C is 31 degrees, but c'mon -- EVERY tester who's written about the Cali has remarked on its greater-that-cruiser-class lean angles.  There is a noticeable difference between the Guzzi and the Harley.  Every time I test-ride a Big Twin, I scrape hard parts without even trying; on the Cali, I could not get any parts to scrape -- and I tried!

On anything other than smooth pavement, every FLH I've ridden has had a bad case of suspension pogo-ing.  They are sprung too soft, the fork is under-damped, and the rear shocks don't have enough travel.  If you stiffen the air shocks to reduce the movement out back, you get your lumbar region hammered. It's an old-tech, budget suspension on a $25,000 motorcycle.  Buy one and then add $4,000 in aftermarket suspension parts and tuning, and you might have something that can keep up with the $18,500 Guzzi.

Traction control only matters in the rain?  I disagree, but okay, I see you point -- Harleys never get ridden in the rain.  (That's what you meant, right?  ;) )

The only "performance" H-D wants to talk about is torque.  The much smaller California 1400 engine makes only 9 ft/lbs less maximum torque, but reaches its peak 700 rpm sooner.  Check and mate, Moto Guzzi.

That most riders will not ride these bikes at 10/10ths, or even 9/10ths, is not the point.  It's about the feelings of confidence and exhilaration that you get from a high-performance machine versus a more pedestrian vehicle.  Both my gf's Chevy Trail Blazer and my BMW E90 will get us from point A to point B, and I will never use the BMW to its full potential, but I know which one I prefer to drive....

[father guzzi obrian]

When Pete's Cali was stashed at my place, I thrashed it in the twisty bits of SoCal, it handled very well, and I did bevel his floorboards for free. With the power the Cali makes, and the flat torque curve, the traction control is nice to have when you're powering out of a corner in the Santa Monica mountains.  I really liked Pete's Cali, and I don't care for cruisers, but it was a blast to ride. Pete rode it everywhere with Jude and didn't have a hiccup, Pete's buddy took it up to Seattle, and when he returned, the only problem he had was the crossover leaking, which the local dealer fixed under warranty and was a known problem.  It had a fair amount of mileage without a single glitch.  Just sayin...  I have not ridden the competition, but I like the power, and I don't know if the Harley could keep up, or the Indian could with its weight

[Kev m]

YouCan - I think most of our disagreement is a matter of degree or perspective, though I think we just flat out disagree on a few points no matter what.

To directly respond to your points.

Weight - I'm sure you can accessorize an Ultra C ridiculously and increase the weight even more. And let's be honest, an Ultra with fairing, radio, front and REAR crashbars, tour pack etc. is a bit of an unfair comparison to a Cali 1400 T in the weight department since the Cali is missing a bunch of that stuff.

Perhaps an RK vs. Cali T is a better comparison at that point (MUCH more similarly equipped). At that point we're talking a 59# difference.

But when I talk about 100# or so not meaning that much in THIS CATEGORY of bike, I stand by it. That might be significant to a V7, but it's almost meaningless to a tour bike.

Hell, the BMW K1200LT's used to weigh 860# wet, a GL1800 Wing has broken the 900# mark stock.

And, as I've stated before my R1100RSa weighed nearly 200# less than my RK, but the RK FELT LIGHTER from the saddle because of the center of gravity.

Lean Angle Spec - 31.9 degrees (effectively 32) is the published spec on an Ultra. Saying that you've scraped hard parts when you ride a big twin is almost meaningless though. What model did you ride? Half of them are lowered and have less angle. How was the suspension set-up? Were you leaning with the bike or leaning it under you? Frankly if everything is set-up right, and you still scrape too easily, then fine, THAT BIKE is likely NOT FOR YOU. Move on. I don't think 6 degrees more (if that's even the difference) is going to be the determining factor for most people looking to buy a Cali, Indian, or FLH. Others here have stated they could easily scrape parts on the Cali too.

Suspension - This one puzzles me. I want to make a princess and the pea comment because I just don't know what it takes to please you on this. I've ridden plenty of bikes with bad suspensions. I know what hammering can be and the FLH just doesn't do that to me. And that's fine, people have different tolerances for such things I get that, but you hold up the Cali as some sort of standard comparatively? There's nothing earth shattering about the design or quality of components on the Guzzi. I can't see it being THAT much more (if any) comfortable. Or are we bag on performance? Because again, though you CAN ride these bikes in a somewhat spirited manner, that's NOT what they are generally intended to do.

Traction Control - yuck yuck, your jokes aside, TC only becomes an issue in the DRY when the power-to-weight ratio is a LOT more aggressive than the GUZZI or the Harley. And there are certainly those who feel the Cali is horrible on broken pavement or dirt/gravel too so don't tell me it's an advantage there. Personally I don't see the need for it on these bikes, though I can't see the harm when it comes to wet weather so I'm not bitching.

Power - no doubt the Guzzi makes more peak HP - reports I have suggest we're talking 84 at the rear wheel, though not until 6500 rpm, the Harley peaks at only low 60's at 5000 rpm. But the Harley makes a few ft. lbs. more peaking at only 250 rpm after the Cali. Though I'd sure like to see comparative torque curves, as I bet the Cali drops off quicker. But yeah, if a few tenths is important to you in straight line acceleration, the Guzzi takes that category. That's not exactly check-mate to most people in this segment though. And the Harley is EASILY upgraded for more power - just pipes/air-cleaner and tune will easily meet or beat Guzzi numbers on that one.

Feel - You're right that someone should buy the one that feels BEST TO THEM. But trying to call the Cali 1400 a BMW and the Harley a Chevy is disingenuous. If the Harley is an SUV, the Cali is a crossover ute at best.

[mtiberio]

My 2013 FLHP was new when I bought it. It had the singularly most attrocious suspension of any motorcycle I have ever riden or owned. The shocks came off the 2nd day I owned it. When I get around to it, the forks will get revalved. It was stable at 95, but no more so than my Cal14. The Cal 14 out handles it hands down. I put 15000 miles on the Cali before I sold it. My FLHP currently has 8000 miles

[Kev m]

My 2013 FLHP was new when I bought it. It had the singularly most attrocious suspension of any motorcycle I have ever riden or owned. The shocks came off the 2nd day I owned it. When I get around to it, the forks will get revalved. It was stable at 95, but no more so than my Cal14. The Cal 14 out handles it hands down. I put 15000 miles on the Cali before I sold it. My FLHP currently has 8000 miles

Correct me if I'm wrong, not these types of bikes were not your thing most of your life correct? Meaning you were a racer right? And most of your bikes were more sporting in the first place?

I mean even taking about riding either of these at 95 mph tells the story, that's not the point of these bikes, Cali included.

[lucian]

I almost purchased a 2012 rk classic before I rode the cali. It definitely felt way heavier both at rest and handling wise. Was not impressed with the braking but it did have a lot of low end . It had been modified by the seller with a stage 4 big bore kit and rinehart pipes, the sound was a liitle to much for my taste. I test rode that beast several times as it belonged to a good friend of mine, but it just seemed too loud and too heavy  for me. I was struggling to find a standard style cruiser that didn't weigh 900 lbs. yet was big enough to be a good touring mount. The cali was really the only one out there that fell in that range and offered the performance features I was looking for, mainly powerful brakes with abs. I have always had a thing for brakes, and the cali definitely has em. There is no doubt it is still a heavy bike , but not as heavy, and definitely handles like a much lighter bike once underway. As for the technology, time will tell, I figure if it's there as a safety improvement than it's worth the gamble. Knowing those brakes could save my ass,  I'll be more than happy to put up with risk of any down time. Nothing against the Harley's, will likely own one again someday , but I haven't ridden one yet that can come close to the performance of the Guzzi.

[fotoguzzi]

YouCan - I think most of our disagreement is a matter of degree 

degree of Harley love?

[Kev m]

degree of Harley love?

Meh, I love Guzzis too.

Lucian, I dunno man, like I already pointed out a standard RK is literally only 59# heavier and just barely over 800#.

And as for brakes they have dual 4-pot Brembo.

<shrugs>

[youcanrunnaked]

Kev, why do you keep defaulting to a comparison with the "standard Road King?'  That's not the comparison the OP is asking about.  He specifically states that he currently rides an Ultra Classic and wants to know how riding a California 1400 (I assume the Touring model) will compare.

[steveford]

I've just rolled over the 20000 mile mark on 1400 T, and all I can say is I absolutely love it. I started out on a Convert in the 70's, put well over 100000 miles on 2 01EV's, but this is by far the best and most advanced Guzzi I've owned. I've had no problems to date, and It's smooth as glass. All I can say is go get one!!!  ;-T ;-T ;-T ;D ;D ;D ;-T ;-T ;-T

[Kev m]

Kev, why do you keep defaulting to a comparison with the "standard Road King?'  That's not the comparison the OP is asking about.  He specifically states that he currently rides an Ultra Classic and wants to know how riding a California 1400 (I assume the Touring model) will compare.

I believe I've explained why, to better compare apples and apples in specs.

We don't have specs for a fairing and topcase Cali 1400 (yet). But if one set one up as such you'd expect the weight difference and weight distribution to change.

I'm saying this narrows the differences which I feel are already overstated in many cases.

[youcanrunnaked]

Do you enjoy arguing for argument's sake, then?  Because your arguments are irrelevant to this thread.  The OP want to compare the Ultra to the Cali; he probably couldn't care less what you want to do.

Back on point.  The Ultra is a pig compared to the Cali 1400 Touring  -- yes, even with a top case.  The difference in weight is at least 100 pounds IF Harley's numbers are to be believed, and according to test data, they cannot.

[rocker59]

Do you enjoy arguing for argument's sake, then?  Because your arguments are irrelevant to this thread.  The OP want to compare the Ultra to the Cali; he probably couldn't care less what you want to do.

Back on point.  The Ultra is a pig compared to the Cali 1400 Touring  -- yes, even with a top case.  The difference in weight is at least 100 pounds IF Harley's numbers are to be believed, and according to test data, they cannot.

I don't see where the OP stated he was looking for a direct comparison to the Ultra.  Just that he wanted feedback on impressions of the Cal 14, and he was thinking of making a change:

Hello everyone, I'm interested in getting feedback from those of you that own the new California. I currently ride a 2010 Harley Ultra Classic, please don't hold that against me. I'm thinking about making a change in the near future. Thanks

[youcanrunnaked]

I don't see where the OP stated he was looking for a direct comparison to the Ultra.  Just that he wanted feedback on impressions of the Cal 14, and he was thinking of making a change:

Quote:

"I'm interested in getting feedback from those of you that own the new California. I currently ride a 2010 Harley Ultra Classic... I'm thinking about making a change in the near future."

The OP says he is thinking about changing rides, from his 2010 Ultra C to a Cali 1400, and you think that the "feedback" he is looking for is a comparison with bikes other than his Ultra Classic?   ???   Uh... no.

[lucian]

Not sure of the numbers Kev, but the RK just felt and handled heavier than the cali. Also the harley had 6000 miles on the clock so perhaps the brakes were glazed a bit, ,but I now have 7000 on the cali and the braking still feels superior. When my brother tried my cali his first comment was how well it stopped, he rides a heritage softail nostalgia. I am not sure of the exact weight of my cali custom, but I think it is a little under 700 lbs. stock. I will add that my friend sold that road king for only 1800 dollars less then he paid for it . No guzzi owner will match that resale. He bought a new harley flh and still refuses to try my cali. I guess what you don't know can't hurt you.

[rocker59]

Quote:

"I'm interested in getting feedback from those of you that own the new California. I currently ride a 2010 Harley Ultra Classic... I'm thinking about making a change in the near future."

The OP says he is thinking about changing rides, from his 2010 Ultra C to a Cali 1400, and you think that the "feedback" he is looking for is a comparison with bikes other than his Ultra Classic?   ???   Uh... no.

What do say we wait for the OP to chime in on that?  Do you have a long distance mental link to the OP, or are you just talking out your ass?

This is a discussion forum and we're just discussing impressions of the California 1400 here.  Most of the people discussing it have ridden them, even owned them.

Some of the impressions may not mesh with yours.  Some of them don't mesh with mine.  That's just the way it is in a discussion.

 ::)

[Kev m]

I hear ya Lucian.

Rocker, exactly, this is just a discussion. More information and opinions are better for the OP and anyone else who reads it in the future.

YouCan, I'm of the opinion that in these matters most people bring their preferences and prejudices into the impressions. And that's a natural human thing to do, as we all color our perceptions with our experiences (and some preconceptions).

I'd LIKE TO THINK (but freely admit I may be mistaken) that because I'm a fan of multiple brands (Guzzi, Harley, BMW, Triumph, Ducati, and even some preducts from JAPanInc.) that I keep a more objective viewpoint than those who are more brand centric. But like I say, I'm imperfect too.

Still. I believe my preference for bikes like the Cali/RK/Indian etc. keeps them slightly more in perspective for me where I suspect some on this board tend to try and quantify them in terms of a Griso, or V11 Sport, or worse a STRX or the like.

The truth is an FLH is a "pig" compared to those, but not a Cali 1400, which perhaps falls on the sporty side of the big touring bike segment, but still squarely in that same segment.

[LowRyter]

you can modify a Harley to give you similar performance to Cal 14, but it will hammer you to death.  The 14 is freaking turbine smooth.  Or order the Screaming Eagle Jackhammer package.

Other than the crossover, they've been pretty reliable.  I think you can get a reliable crossover from Guzzitech for $250 and Corbin seat for about $450.  That's pretty much chrome or tassels from HD.

[oldbike54]

  Damn , everyone of you guys are wrong  ;D Or right , who knows  ;)

   Dusty

[youcanrunnaked]

What do say we wait for the OP to chime in on that?  Do you have a long distance mental link to the OP, or are you just talking out your ass?

This is a discussion forum and we're just discussing impressions of the California 1400 here.  Most of the people discussing it have ridden them, even owned them.

Some of the impressions may not mesh with yours.  Some of them don't mesh with mine.  That's just the way it is in a discussion.

 ::)

What we have here is... failure to communicate.

I AM NOT saying that general observations regarding the California 1400 are misplaced in this thread.

A AM saying that given the OP's STATED interest in moving from an Ultra Classic to a California 1400, talking about how the new Cali compares to a ROAD KING is immaterial, and maybe a bit disingenuous, as it is stacking the discussion in favor of H-D by ignoring the OP's stated comparator in favor of talking about some other H-D model that compares more favorably to the new Cali.

It has nothing to do with my personal "preferences and prejudices," except for my personal preference and prejudice for honest discourse.  Kev and I are having a friendly, if spirited, discussion.  I don't think that's anything new between us.  I would hope that by now he knows that I respect his opinions, even when we don't necessarily agree. 

I keep comparing the California 1400 to the Ultra Classic, for obvious reasons that I have repeatedly explained; he keeps steering the discussion away from that comparison and towards a comparison between the Cali and a different bike, the Road King -- because, as he said, it makes for a closer comparison.   Even my last statement, that "the Ultra is a pig compared to the Cali," he broadened to include a statement regarding the entire FLH line.  No, Kev, I am singling out the Ultra -- heaviest, slowest, and poorest-handling of the FHL bikes for comparison -- because that's what the OP's ride establishes as the relevant point of comparison.   

[Kev m]

My disagreement stems from the fact that I think we sometimes measure with micrometers when yardsticks would do. At the end of the day no one races these bikes, so a few degrees of lean angle or tenths of a second in a quarter mile are likely meaningless.

TO ME the differences in "performance" between an Ultra and a RK are pretty small, but so are the differences between a Cali 1400 and most any FLH.

Certainly they are minuscule if you compare any of them to any other category of bike, like a Griso or Stelvio or V7.

My point is that we may do the OP a disservice making it seem like there are canyons between his current ride and a Cali.

Based on his current ride, he'll be much more at home and familiar with a Cali than on anything else MG sells. So the question really is if he says he wants something DIFFERENT is the Cali different enough.

My stance has (and always will be in these cases) that WE can't answer that for him because it's too subjective (just look at how you and I feel differently about the comparison of his FLH OR a RK to the Cali).

I'm saying HE needs to ride and decide.

[youcanrunnaked]

I heartily agree, Kev; the proof of the pudding is in the tasting.

I also agree with you that the differences among the leading bikes in this category are ones of degree, rather than of kind.  I would only add, to paraphrase Everett Dirksen, that a degree here, a degree there, and pretty soon you're talking about a real difference.

Cheers.   :BEER:

[Kev m]

Sure, it MAY add up. The rides I've taken tell me it doesn't add up FOR ME. YMMV.

BTW, I realize this is a 2014, but we were talking about power earlier, specifically torque, you'll notice the 2014 makes MORE torque than the Cali 1400 EARLIER in the rpm range (i.e. above 80 ft. lbs. by 2300 rpm, actually hell it's probably making as much as the PEAK Cali 1400 number by about 1900 rpm):



I'll also add because not everyone realizes it if they're not familiar with Harley.

HARLEY SANDBAGS THEIR MOTOR OUTPUT TO ENCOURAGE OWNERS TO SPEND MORE MONEY MAKING THEM FASTER.

With the introduction of their current EFI system (dual 02 sensor systems that mostly debuted in 2007) they finally crossed the line.

I.E. in the past they always had the excuse that they were EPA limited and that's why their motors were so strangled.

But starting in 2007 they formally released 50 state STREET LEGAL exhaust systems (under the Screaming Eagle name) which could be installed on their 07+ bikes with NO REFLASH and yield 10-15% hp/torque gains (though I've seen numbers as high as 20%).

So it's quite likely that the 77 hp / 92 ft. lbs. FLH in that dyno chart above would EASILY make 85+ hp / 101+ torques using a conservative 10% figure with nothing more than 50 state street legal mufflers from Harley. And with a higher flow air cleaner and reflash even more.

MCN put the Cali at 84 hp and 73 ft. lbs. of torque. There MAY be more to be had, but I think we both know that MG doesn't strangle their motors as much as Harley (hell, I don't think most manufacturers can get away with that, so I don't think they leave as much easy hp on the table).

I realize that's not apples to apples, but it shouldn't be completely ignored either.

[youcanrunnaked]

^^^  I see your point, but... those are 2014 numbers.  The OP's ultra is a 2010.   ~;

[Kev m]

^^^  I see your point, but... those are 2014 numbers.  The OP's ultra is a 2010.   ~;

I know, I know, I know...

I assume those are TC103 and his is a TC96 (not that there is an earth shattering difference, but there IS a difference).

I'm also just pointing out what is available to the OP - depending on how different he wants to go.

Don't get me wrong in all of this - I very much like the Cali 1400 - and it's a "contender" for my own garage (but only if they do something about that rear fender/tail-light ick, so maybe that new Eldo version).