Visit the Wildguzzi Amazon Affiliate Store
LJK Setright (a well known automotive journalist of the time) sarcastically called the 911 a “triumph of development over design”. It was the product of 1930s ideas that were vastly obsolete by the 70s, a fundamentally terrible design that sold though marketing and snobbery associated with Hollywood. It was silly that people fell for it then and now. The 914-6 is a far better car than the 911, and shared the same engine. The 944 was a far better car than the 911 and had an entirely Porsche designed engine. Porsche developed these cars to replace the 911 and subcontracted manufacturing to reduce costs and increase volume to profitable levels - that wad the credo of the time. Porsche was in control.Guzzi is not even a company, and there is no Moto Guzzi design engineering capability. It is not a matter of ‘collaboration’ or other BS marketing speak, it is a matter of the Trip 500 being designed and even built by other people in other companies, another step toward a Gilera-like fate under Piaggio.
Where did the "it is shaft drive" come from. I haven't seen that anywhere. Seeing as it's taking a loooong time to get it to market we can only hope for a shaft or better yet a belt. For sure it's not just a re-badge 457 or we would have it by now.
Again, regarding the other photos in this thread, they're AI generated. EIMCA 2026 isn't until November.
When I drove a 912 the first time in the early 80s, my reaction was that an MG Midget was a better car. It seemed to me completely pointless, a slow 911 with the same poor handling, rubbery control feel etc.Then in about 2000 I drove an ‘83 911, trying to convince myself that they weren’t as I remembered. I remember my feeling, the Alfa Milano Verde that I drove there was twice as good as a sports car, and had four doors and a large trunk.Then in around 2003 I tried again, a friend had a ‘97 air-cooled 911 for sale and wanted me to try it. Same reaction… is this it? Really?The Porsche 944 was meanwhile a nice car, good handling, solidly built and the Porsche engine was good. They messed up allowing VW so much input into the 924 but then saved it. And Porsche remained in control of any product that had their name on it.Nowadays, in a completely different scenario, Guzzi has not been a company for about 20 years, any more than Pontiac or Oldsmobile were companies under GM. The company was long ago dissolved. The bikes are currently assembled in Mandello, overall chassis and styling design is largely by Aprilia and powertrain design is largely by Piaggio in Pontedera. Moving assembly increasingly to a low cost Piaggio plant in India is the next logical progression, and beyond that lies the ‘Alfa Romeo’ option in which the plant in northern Italy becomes only a museum. Unlike Alfa under Fiat I suspect Piaggio would keep just a trickle of production in Mandello, enough for plausible deniability that there’s absolutely nothing of Moto Guzzi left. It’s in a pretty location unlike where the Gilera plant was, and the town of Mandello has got the owners of the plant by the short and curlies via zoning laws. As I understand it, they can’t repurpose the land for any other use.
The "spy" photos show a chain drive. Swapping that out for a belt for production, still possible but unlikely, shaft drive - extremely unlikely.https://www.cycleworld.com/motorcycle-news/moto-guzzi-the-trip-500-parallel-twin-spy-shots/Again, regarding the other photos in this thread, they're AI generated. EIMCA 2026 isn't until November.
Meanwhile Guzzi is not even a company, and there is no Moto Guzzi design engineering capability. This is not a matter of ‘collaboration’ or other BS marketing speak, it is a matter of the Trip 500 being designed and now even built by other people in other companies, another step toward a Gilera-like fate under Piaggio.
While sad that Moto Guzzi is no longer a company (just a subsidiary of a conglomerate), perhaps due to the defenders of "the old ways" inside "Moto Guzzi" retiring or dying off.
Personally, I fail to see why Guzzi identity got lost under Piaggio, or whatever. The V7 has been a success - relatively speaking - since we first saw it in 2008(?) and continue so today. The V9 engine was an improvement without any negatives that I am aware of, and has probably been the base for the majority of models over the past decade. In 2004, Guzzi sold less than 4000 bikes, 2006 seems to be the best production year with 10200 units, since then numbers seems to sit somewhere in the 6-8k annual machines made. Interestingly, 2006 saw mostly big twins, while they seem to be mostly gone today.Anyway, whoever produce goods will want a profit. Those who cling on to history and tradition without complying to market demands tend to diminish or vanish. But even then, you can get it wrong and be forced to go back to your roots, like Harley now bringing back air cooled engines with old instead of bold styling. I wonder if the V100 has been a financial success for Guzzi? It does not seem to sell in the same numbers as the V7 and V85 ranges based on the small block.If Piaggio can market a new 500 as a Guzzi and get good revenue out of it, more power to them. Even if some will hate it for not being traditional or a true Guzzi. I am pretty sure there were haters when Guzzi introduced the (in comparison) heavy and complex V700 back in the 60s also, but its overall idea remains to this day. And Guzzi have made bikes with parallell twins before, with liquid coolind and with chain final drive, so the new "fake" Guzzi 500 will not be revolutionary for the brand in any respect. And if it really succeeds, it could fund new traditional Guzzi V-twin models with air cooling.Sorry for the ramblings that probably did not make a lot of sense.
I just hope that the matte color schemes are left out of the equation, and whoever is doing the paint design actually has some talent. It's just my opinion, but the color schemes in combinations are mostly amiss the last 10 years with very few exceptions.
... complex V700...
Complex? A V700 is about as simple of a motorcycle as anyone can build!
The color combinations you describe are from Aprilia, and started in 2002 on the (previously quite attactive) V11 Sport, before Piaggio was on the scene, with a prior cameo appearance on the 2001 Rosso Mandello. They are scooter inspired.“Marketing Reality” is nonsense. Smart and creative people create a product and company that succeeds long term. Less inspired people rely on marketing and sales techniques to move products for another year, then try again without getting anywhere. The Aprilia paint schemes are a great example of this, as is recycling old Moto Guzzi designs like the V7 Sport in cheapened form because they couldn’t come up with anything original. The V85TT was not this, and worked better. It’s just not a very high performing bike, but it’s a reasonable product that has sold OK-ish for six years. Enfield BTW makes 2500 bikes a day, mostly traditional singles updated over decades. Triumph is nothing by comparison. The best ‘recent’ year for Guzzi was 1971, and they made 47,000 bikes. They’ve been stuck at roughly 6,000 for ten years, under Piaggio.
Too bad there is no Sportbike or Sport Tourer Tuono based V4.
With the announcement of the new Triumph T40, I suspect those sales may be about to get quite a bump.
What happened to the BSA 650? Triumph could be marketing that bike.
The BSA 650 is in US dealers now. Why would Triumph market a competitor's motorcycle?
