Wildguzzi.com
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: motoTommaso on July 15, 2015, 01:41:02 AM
-
Ok the forum responses have educated me to the point that I have a new appreciation for the advantages of the Cal II over previous models. I came across a review of the Cal Vin and wondered what plus and minuses are for each bike. Expected use would be weekend rides in the 100-200 mile range and hopefully multi-day several camping trips throughout the year.
Specific questions that come to mind immediately are:
- Is the Cal Vin still a Tonti frame bike?
- Is the fuel injection problematic? Is it field serviceable or must the bike be trucked to a shop for computer repair?
I am admittedly a Luddite but I am more conversant with a Dellorto than an FI system. I'm more of a sport tourer guy than a cruiser guy but I've heard the Guzzi's have decent handling for a heavy bike. I'm not a knee-dragger by any means.
School me please. I'm all ears.
Tommaso
-
The CalVin is a much better bike that the Cal II. Torquier engine, beefier forks, 3 additional frame braces (although still a tonti), quality adjustable rear shock, wider rims&tires. FI vs Carbs... pick your posion. There are almost no field servicable parts to an FI system, but then you rarely need field servicing. Bring a credit card and a cell phone, only tools you will need (or that will do much good). The 1100 CalVin motor is a long stroke, long rod motor. It is the sweetest (2 valve) Guzzi motor I have ever experienced.
my thread:
http://wildguzzi.com/forum/index.php?topic=75122
-
On the other hand, am I right, the seat is lower and the floorboards are higher?
-
I can barely remember the ergos on my Cal II (plus that was when I was younger and more compliant), but my CalVin as delivered was cramped, so it may very well have had a lower saddle and higher floorboards. Neither bike had a saddle worth beans.
-
On the other hand, am I right, the seat is lower and the floorboards are higher?
I've ridden both, liked them both, and would have modified the handlebars, foot position, and seat before riding either one a long distance.
Of course, that goes for any bike I've ever owned, so it's not a knock on either one. I hate to have to "comply" with whatever riding position the designer-of-the-day chose when the bike was built ....
Lannis
-
I rode to work today on a 200k Cal II. It is a great bike.
I have ridden quite a bit on my uncle's CalVin. It is a Cal II times two.
Get the CalVin unless, for some reason, you just want a vintage bike.
-
To my eye, the Cal Vin looks better too.
-
I can barely remember the ergos on my Cal II (plus that was when I was younger and more compliant), but my CalVin as delivered was cramped, so it may very well have had a lower saddle and higher floorboards. Neither bike had a saddle worth beans.
I get along with my California II saddle pretty well, but we're both pretty old and I have no idea how similar it would be to other California II saddles at this point. It would be interesting to know if it would be practical to re-stuff the Vintage saddle and bring up the height a little at the dip. The height isn't always a good thing - I'm 6'2'' and I'm not sure I could back mine over a pencil, my legs are so straight to the ground - but for those with the longer legs, some height makes a big difference on a long ride.
The floorboards are mounted on curved struts so they're beside the pipes, not above them. That adds a little depth without raising the seat height, so it seems like it would be a win for everyone.
-
I can barely remember the ergos on my Cal II (plus that was when I was younger and more compliant), but my CalVin as delivered was cramped, so it may very well have had a lower saddle and higher floorboards. Neither bike had a saddle worth beans.
A back-to-back ride with my 98 EV, the Calvin seat is lower and cramps your legs to the floor boards. The Calvin has little more power but doesn't handle as well. IIRC the Calvin shifted better. Might've been different bend on the handlebars.
-
Thanks for the info. Very informative and on point. Keep 'em coming.
re: seat height.... I'm six foot with a 32" inseam.
The black/white seat looks so cool. I wonder if I could take it to a custom seat person and have it refoamed a little higher and a new cover made in the same contrasting pattern? Also what's the clearance for a 6' humanoid's knees with feet flat on the floorboards and the cylinders?
Tommaso
-
When I had the skunk seat on cal 1400 modified, they retained the stock cover, but added material along the cover where it would normally be stapled to the pan to allow it to stretch over the wider foam. same might work for you. sargents did mine, but local auto upholstery places can do it too.
-
I'm 6-4 w/35" inseam and have ridden a 1984 Cal2 (long seat) for some 300,000 miles.
The Cal2--more than any other Tonti framed Guzzi--fits the taller rider (excluding the pre-1984 short seat). The floor boards don't have the extra thickness that later California models had (which means more room for you), and there's plenty of space between your knees and the cylinders because of that long seat.
But, know too that the Cal2 has one of the more mild engines of any Guzzi I've ridden. Compared to the California Vintage, you'll find the Cal2 to be an underpowered, nothing-special-handling (compliments of flex-forks), slow turning bike. It's got charm and room and lots to like, but the later larger displacement Cals are better motorcycles.