*California 1400 Merged Threadfest*

[Damnyankee]

I have my doubts Guzzi will ever develop a 1600 cc powered machine but just in case, I would advise Guzzi to put that motor in something like say a a sport like machine. That way, I could own a Guzzi and one that may go as fast as my Daytona...Speaking of Daytona...how about Guzzi sticks 1600 cc's into say, a Daytona? ;D ;-T

Whether you think big power machines are good or not...it's the way bikes are going and if Guzzi wants to compete and still maintain that Guzzi thing..they're gonna have to find a way to sqeeze more power out of the existing motor or drop it and start using Aprilla motors.

[jeff]

Not so sure that is the way bikes are going. Seems the major manufacturers are beginning to bring some modified domestic models of less than 1600cc to the US market. In fact I propose the appeal of now moderate sized bikes is on the rise. 750cc to 1000cc. Am I incorrect?

[Gliderjohn]

I find it kind of ironic with the new "little" V7 classic appearing to be selling so well.
GliderJohn

[Damnyankee]

Not so sure that is the way bikes are going. Seems the major manufacturers are beginning to bring some modified domestic models of less than 1600cc to the US market. In fact I propose the appeal of now moderate sized bikes is on the rise. 750cc to 1000cc. Am I incorrect?

Maybe just my wishful thinking Jeff. I'm in an "end of life" crisis...seems the older I get the faster I wanna go.  ;D I'm hoping Triumph starts making a liter bike like my 675 ;D

[Kev m]

What puzzles me is that a company like MG which builds/sells maybe 8-10k bikes in a year has very very very little in common with a company that builds/sells 300k bikes a year.

And when you look at what MG builds from a design perspective they have even less in common.

Breva, Norge, Griso, Stelvio, Bellagio are all as different to a Harley as a BMW is to a Harley.

Now the V7 and Cal-Vin and maybe the standard Cali that they don't even bother selling in the US anymore DO have SOME cross-over to Harley's demographic, but even there it is not much.

Looking at recent history BMW DID see a SPOT of success/a spike of sales with their R1200C - but EVEN BMW decided it wasn't worth continuing to pursue. HELLO, wake the frick up, if BMW can't (or won't) do it with the network of dealers they have in the US and the success they saw with the R12C, then that is a wake-up call.

Even Triumph who basically came back in the US on the strength of their "Classics" still relies on a whole bunch of 800cc bikes (that are on the fringe of Harley's demographic) and a bunch of modern sport bikes/standards which are completely out of that demo.

Ducati recently reached milestones in their sales figures. YEAH, the retros contributed there too, but they didn't find the need to chase Harley and build cruisers.

Personally I think from a product perspective Guzzi is hitting the nail pretty square on the head.

Continue to pursue the 8V bikes, find a way to either give the 750 a little more performance OR TO MAKE IT CHEAPER. Hell, find a way to reduce costs (without cutting quality) on the whole freakin' line.

Make it so that dealers can stock bikes with confidence and sell bikes at a profit in the US (and elsewhere in the world if they have some of the same non-current model discounting issues elsewhere too) and you should be able to grow sales.

But there is no saying MG should even WANT to be at the same sales level as Harley or Honda.

[uncle]

I look at this way:  Moto Guzzi has got to something....    A big cruiser may not be what I would do,  but if it's in the means of their ability to build one,  why not.  

[Joliet Jim]

If only they could take the old 750 lose 10% of the engine and weight and double the power. 







like triumph did.

and a stretch guzzi would be nice for 2 up touring for us big folk.

[John Ulrich]

and a stretch guzzi would be nice for 2 up touring for us big folk.

I gave up on that ever happening and added a Goldwing to the stable as the "2 wheeled minivan"..... Wife is in heaven!

[panhead]

Looking at recent history BMW DID see a SPOT of success/a spike of sales with their R1200C - but EVEN BMW decided it wasn't worth continuing to pursue. HELLO, wake the frick up, if BMW can't (or won't) do it with the network of dealers they have in the US and the success they saw with the R12C, then that is a wake-up call.

Do not assume the BMW decision to stop the cruiser was an independent or even rational decison.   They push hard there for cutting edge technology, something a cruiser does not usually reflect.  They have marketing goals for a lot of the wierd stuff they design, and again the cruiser does not match that.    Finally, if you read their stated reason for cancellation of the cruiser, well it struck many as dishonest.  In short, BMW probably walked away from their curiser for large full line marketing reasons, not because the cruiser market is not a good place to be.   Just not a good place for the forward edge types at BMW.      I see no carry over rationale for MG.

[rtbickel]

Terblanche made Ducatis look like clown bikes, spastic, ass in the airstyling with a quarter inch of seat padding.  Just what Guzzi needs.

[dgurovich]

The question would be why?  I can see the CalVin motor being upped to 1200, but why make it bigger?  It's 250lbs MINIMUM lighter than any of the metric/American cruisers.  What's the point except to appeal to people that simply have to compensate for biological issues?

I'm a helluva lot more interested in the 940 coming over here.  Screw anything above 1200.

[Mark West]

Businesses are naturally going to follow market trends. When SUV's started being >30% of all vehicles sold all of a sudden Porsche and just about everyone else had to build one. If you don't have one, you are automatically shut out of 30% of the market. Much like fashion, you aren't going to have much success if you do not have an offering for the majority of the market. You can make the world's best standard and totally dominate the market but if people stop wanting standards and that is all you have, then your business is going to suffer or at least it isn't going to grow.

So what are the dominant bikes of the day? I don't know the numbers but I would guess that the single biggest category is cruisers. Based on how many HD alone sells, I'd say that it is the dominant market and even capturing 1% or even 1/2% of it would be a big gain for Guzzi. I don't see anything wrong with Guzzi chasing the market as long as they do it in a way that is original and they don't just try and copy HD. I would hope that they still put some emphasis into ensuring the bike is fun to ride and suitable for more than Toy Drives and hanging out in front of a bar wearing assless chaps.

Unfortunately I don't have much confidence that will happen. The Norge and Stelvio are just a little too BMWish for me and I worry that the same could happen with a new cruiser. But there is also the Griso, which to me does look original and whether you like it or not, it isn't easily mistaken for anything else. Hopefully they'll choose the original route over the copy.

[Kev m]

Looking at recent history BMW DID see a SPOT of success/a spike of sales with their R1200C - but EVEN BMW decided it wasn't worth continuing to pursue. HELLO, wake the frick up, if BMW can't (or won't) do it with the network of dealers they have in the US and the success they saw with the R12C, then that is a wake-up call.

Do not assume the BMW decision to stop the cruiser was an independent or even rational decison.   They push hard there for cutting edge technology, something a cruiser does not usually reflect.  They have marketing goals for a lot of the wierd stuff they design, and again the cruiser does not match that.    Finally, if you read their stated reason for cancellation of the cruiser, well it struck many as dishonest.  In short, BMW probably walked away from their curiser for large full line marketing reasons, not because the cruiser market is not a good place to be.   Just not a good place for the forward edge types at BMW.      I see no carry over rationale for MG.

Well, from my sources at BMWNA at the time the rationale was they'd ridden that wave as far as it was going to go. I.E. after initial success, sales had dropped off dramatically and their studies said they "needed" a much larger displacement to continue to stay "comptetive" in that market.

I see plenty of carry over rationale, but then again, that's why I said it in the first place.  ;)

[LowRyter]

the idea of 1400 / 8v from the current engine sounds pretty neat.   ;)

Building a huge monster with a heavy crank, extra large frame to carry it, and all the extra heat on your legs?  No   ::(.

Basically the Cali/EV will run rings around a RoadKing.  A little more power and comfort, but don't make a wallowing two wheeled Lincoln, keep the handling, brakes and the weight off.   ;-T

[Mark West]

Looking at recent history BMW DID see a SPOT of success/a spike of sales with their R1200C - but EVEN BMW decided it wasn't worth continuing to pursue. HELLO, wake the frick up, if BMW can't (or won't) do it with the network of dealers they have in the US and the success they saw with the R12C, then that is a wake-up call.

Do not assume the BMW decision to stop the cruiser was an independent or even rational decison.   They push hard there for cutting edge technology, something a cruiser does not usually reflect.  They have marketing goals for a lot of the wierd stuff they design, and again the cruiser does not match that.    Finally, if you read their stated reason for cancellation of the cruiser, well it struck many as dishonest.  In short, BMW probably walked away from their curiser for large full line marketing reasons, not because the cruiser market is not a good place to be.   Just not a good place for the forward edge types at BMW.      I see no carry over rationale for MG.

Well, from my sources at BMWNA at the time the rationale was they'd ridden that wave as far as it was going to go. I.E. after initial success, sales had dropped off dramatically and their studies said they "needed" a much larger displacement to continue to stay "comptetive" in that market.

I see plenty of carry over rationale, but then again, that's why I said it in the first place.  ;)

I figured the C didn't sell because it completely missed what cruiser buyers wanted, i.e. retro look, low tech, bad ass sound. The C was one of the most ridiculous looking bikes ever IMHO and the sound it made with an aftermarket exhaust still makes me laugh. Definitely took the original idea a bit too far with that one.

[ronjon]

the idea of 1400 / 8v from the current engine sounds pretty neat.   ;)

Building a huge monster with a heavy crank, extra large frame to carry it, and all the extra heat on your legs?  No   ::(.

Basically the Cali/EV will run rings around a RoadKing.  A little more power and comfort, but don't make a wallowing two wheeled Lincoln, keep the handling, brakes and the weight off.   ;-T

But what about all the riders who want a wallowing 840 lbs two wheeled Lincoln?  There are a whole bunch of people who don't give a rats arse about light weight or handling.  Heck, most could not tell you what the word "countersteer" means in the motorcycling sense.  They just want to have their feet forward and up in the air while they ride. ;)  I say give em what they want.  - Just keep making the lighter, good handling bikes too. ;-T

 MG could use a variation of the successful model that Triumph uses.  They have a range of three types of motorcycles.

http://www.triumph.co.uk/usa/10259.aspx

Cruisers
Modern Classics
Urban Sports.

That way they make a bike for almost everyone.

[Kev m]

I figured the C didn't sell because it completely missed what cruiser buyers wanted, i.e. retro look, low tech, bad ass sound. The C was one of the most ridiculous looking bikes ever IMHO and the sound it made with an aftermarket exhaust still makes me laugh. Definitely took the original idea a bit too far with that one.

But it DID sell, it sold VERY well at first. It was actually the best selling BMW (in the US) for a couple of years after it's intro.

"Cruiser" riders can't all be lumped into loud and retro only. The Vrod may not be a best-seller, and it's been slow to be embraced, but IT DOES SELL, in numbers that would make MGNA jealous.

The 12C was innovative, and kinda cool, they rode that wave for all it was worth then cashed out once the novelty was over.

[LowRyter]

the idea of 1400 / 8v from the current engine sounds pretty neat.   ;)

Building a huge monster with a heavy crank, extra large frame to carry it, and all the extra heat on your legs?  No   ::(.

Basically the Cali/EV will run rings around a RoadKing.  A little more power and comfort, but don't make a wallowing two wheeled Lincoln, keep the handling, brakes and the weight off.   ;-T

But what about all the riders who want a wallowing 840 lbs two wheeled Lincoln?  There are a whole bunch of people who don't give a rats arse about light weight or handling.  Heck, most could not tell you what the word "countersteer" means in the motorcycling sense.  They just want to have their feet forward and up in the air while they ride. ;)  I say give em what they want.  - Just keep making the lighter, good handling bikes too. ;-T

 MG could use a variation of the successful model that Triumph uses.  They have a range of three types of motorcycles.

http://www.triumph.co.uk/usa/10259.aspx

Cruisers
Modern Classics
Urban Sports.

That way they make a bike for almost everyone.

what about them?  Not the type to shop for a Guzzi

[Joliet Jim]

the idea of 1400 / 8v from the current engine sounds pretty neat.   ;)

Building a huge monster with a heavy crank, extra large frame to carry it, and all the extra heat on your legs?  No   ::(.

Basically the Cali/EV will run rings around a RoadKing.  A little more power and comfort, but don't make a wallowing two wheeled Lincoln, keep the handling, brakes and the weight off.   ;-T

But what about all the riders who want a wallowing 840 lbs two wheeled Lincoln?  There are a whole bunch of people who don't give a rats arse about light weight or handling.  Heck, most could not tell you what the word "countersteer" means in the motorcycling sense.  They just want to have their feet forward and up in the air while they ride. ;)  I say give em what they want.  - Just keep making the lighter, good handling bikes too. ;-T

 MG could use a variation of the successful model that Triumph uses.  They have a range of three types of motorcycles.

http://www.triumph.co.uk/usa/10259.aspx

Cruisers
Modern Classics
Urban Sports.

That way they make a bike for almost everyone.

what about them?  Not the type to shop for a Guzzi

Really, then why are many guzzi riders interested in bigger bikes like the rocket or  big bird.  When i shopped it was between HD, Honda, Yamaha, Triumph and Guzzi and the Guzzi  barely won out over the Triumph.  Guzzi doesn't make what i want in a next bike but currently Triumph makes several.

[Skeeve]

Makes sense, they want to sell bikes to guys who would otherwise buy another brands big cruiser.  

It's not so much about putting a dent in HD, it's about maybe selling 1500-2000 Guzzis in NA, vs hundreds.

Do you really think it is that simple? i.e. if you increase the CCs they will suddenly sell 3x to 4x as many bikes in the US???

 ???
 P:)

Well, selling 3x to 4x as many cruisers wouldn't be that big a jump: that's going from what, 2000 to 8000 bikes a year? Obviously, not in these economic times, but easy enough to do in the next boom cycle...

And increasing the displacement has proven to be a route to sales success [albeit, sometimes only temporary] in that market segment. For Guzzi esp., it may prove the right choice since getting to 1600cc in the current cases can only be done by stroking the motor, which would move the torque curve lower. [How many n00bs have come to WG only to be told "you're not riding it right, it likes to be revved!.."?]

Do I think any of this would have meaningful f/x on Guzzi's obscurity here in the US? Not at all; that problem stems from other sources than any perceived lack of displacement...

[Kev m]

Well, selling 3x to 4x as many cruisers wouldn't be that big a jump: that's going from what, 2000 to 8000 bikes a year? Obviously, not in these economic times, but easy enough to do in the next boom cycle...

<snip>

Do I think any of this would have meaningful f/x on Guzzi's obscurity here in the US? Not at all; that problem stems from other sources than any perceived lack of displacement...

BINGO - as you said in the last bit, without THAT change, the first COULDN'T happen -

i.e. if you don't do something meaningful about Guzzi's obscurity and dramatically increase either the number or perceived quality of dealers - then you wouldn't have the infrastructure necessary to sell thousands of bikes.

and it's not an increase from 2000, hell, wouldn't 4x BE AN INCREASE TO 2000, but still...

[panhead]

 Kev

Why I disagree with you is that curisers are not a novelty.    No close.
BMW may have made a novelty curiser, but that is their fault.   If sales fell off
it was because their curiser did not measure up.

I test rode several c's when they came out, hoping to buy one.   They were not
very good for their class.   They had a whicked buzz up your spine at around 3200 rpm as I recall.   They had the sound of a lawn mower.   They had wierd front forks that worked no better than conventional forks.    Yet for all that, there were lots who gave them a try.

I believe BMW walked away from that market because it conflcted with the image they seek.
MG has a much more successful history with cruisers.  Bringing them up to date, especially the ergonomics a new frame would allow, would be a big step back, IMO.

[Kev m]

Pan

I suspect you and I also differ on our defintion of cruisers.

TO ME - Dressers aren't cruisers, neither are MOST Dynas and until recently MOST sportsters. Those are classic, tourers and standards respectively. Softails are for sure, arguably most Vrods are some weird sub-set called power cruisers.

TO ME - a cruiser has to have forward controls, low seat heights, and lots of bling, not necessarily lots of function.

Why am I making that differentiation.

I actually do believe that at least to an extent Cruisers ARE a NOVELTY.

I see a difference in the type of riders who typically buy "CRUISERS" as I've defined them and people who would buy say a California.

The strength of Guzzis lie in a balance of form and function that I think lies solidly to to the function side of what I just described.

The buyers of those types of bikes, UNLESS they are a "power cruiser" aren't going to care if it's 1200cc or 1600cc - if anything, I think they get it and might be off-put by too much capacity.

Now maybe my own prejudices are showing through in this.

I like Harleys, but I'm having a problem with the size to which the BTs have grown.

I don't know where the line in the sand needs to be drawn, but I have a problem taking bikes that have motors as big as my wife's car seriously.

[panhead]

Kev

IMO you over - define a cruiser.

Here is my take:  A cruiser is a bike with an upright riding position and a relatively low center of mass.   That's all.

If you hang bags etc on it, it could also be a touring bike,  but the rider physical position is still cruiser.  That is why the body position of a HD rider on a full dressed bagger is the same as would be on a relatively standard big twin HD.

The C BMW we discussed was therefore also a cruiser, bags and windscreen or not.
And so the Cali Guzzi's are IMO cruiser type bikes, although higher than mainstream cruisers as the Tonti frame is by nature a relatively high cg frame.

I think some of the reasons that Cali cruisers did not sell even better than they did, even if they were one of the most popular Guzzi type bikes for well over a decade, are that the ergonomics were poor compared to other cruiser type bikes, the board models had a ridiculous brake pedal, and the overall lack of dealer placement and advertising.

I would guess that a new larger mill Guzzi cruiser with better ergonomics and more adverts would do very well.   What would separate MG from the Harleys and their clones would be better handling, braking, and a basically better V Twin configuration.
Just MO. 

[Kev m]

But Pan - I don't completely disagree with what you're saying.

EXCEPT - couple of thoughts.

On your conclusion - the average Harley guy doesn't give a crap about brakes or handling and they love the fatally-flawed Harley mill so they wouldn't care how much "better" (even if they realized it) the Guzzi twin was.

And when you talk about Cruiser ergos - that's WHY I define cruiser as I do, with FORWARD CONTROLS!

I mean, an upright standard bike is NOT a cruiser.

XR1200 - NOT a cruiser

XL1200R was NOT a cruiser to me

Hell even Jenn's 1200L is not a cruiser (though it's getting close).

To me a Cruiser sacrifices a certain amount of function for forms sake.

A bagger doesn't compromise on function.

A cruiser has forwards, and a low suspension, and maybe apes (or mini apes)....

But I do admit that's my personal defintion.

and it is born from a division I see in the priorities of the riders.

I don't think that riders with the priorities that I label as cruiser are the segment that might buy a Guzzi.

That's not to say some of those who are attracted to say a Dyna or non-lowered Sportster might.

But NOT a $15k Cal-Vin vs. $12k Dyna - at least for MOST customers.

Hell, you would think $15k Cal-Vin would compare nicely to a $17k RK - but I don't think it is a lack of CCs that is hurting the Cal-Vin sales in comparison.

[cali]

I think I'll go out on a limb here and say why don't guzzi build the 1600, dress it up in goldwing style clothes with all the bells and whistles and then market it as their flagship model like honda has done with their goldwing?At least there can be no argument that it is a TOURER more than it is a cruiser.If they did that supported by better dealer backup and a good range of "personalising" accessories readily available I think guzzi may be pleasantly surprised reguarding sales. :D

[pete roper]

I mean, an upright standard bike is NOT a cruiser.

XR1200 - NOT a cruiser

XL1200R was NOT a cruiser to me

Hell even Jenn's 1200L is not a cruiser (though it's getting close).

To me a Cruiser sacrifices a certain amount of function for forms sake.

A bagger doesn't compromise on function.

A cruiser has forwards, and a low suspension, and maybe apes (or mini apes)....

Jeez Kev? Am I the only one who thinks that you and some others are making 'Motorbike' a bit too complicated? Who gives a fat rat's arse about what they are 'Labeled' as. They are essentially a pair of wheels with a propusive device in between 'em. There are good ones and bad ones. How many different categories, (eg. Cruiser, custom, sports, etc... ::) do people need. If we want to argue semantics? Go ahead, but surely it isn't really worth the bandwidth???

Pete

[Kev m]

Pete,

lol, I'm not making it complicated, I'm just over-analyzing it  ;)

No seriously, isn't that how we understand things, break them down into smaller and smaller elements.

Let me focus on the rider/demographic instead of the bike.

You know I love Harleys, but a LARGE part of their success is an image that appeals to the non-rider who thinks they want to be a rider. As such a large portion of their sales (and the metrics that capitolize on the same demographic) focus on LOOKS not FUNCTION.

They focus on things that I find completely anti-guzzi -

Forward controls and gyno-exam ergos
lowered chassis with height limited suspensions
Chrome (not plastic, not cheap metal that pits)
Image
and maybe most importantly cause a significant percentage of the buyers are newbies - complete turnkey ownership with plenty of localized support.


Even if I could get over MG pandering to this crowd with the first 2 points (ergos and reduced function), I don't see them uping the quality of the chrome/materials, and I definitely don't see them with the type of turnkey ownership experience they need for THAT particular crowd.

[mphcycles]

If I were them though I'd be spending my money on training workshop staff the world over and finding someone better then Webber-Marelli and Digitek to supply the 'Brains' and instruments and tuning the wretched things up so that they both meet emissions standards AND work well, not one or the other!

Pete

THIS !

[panhead]

Even if I could get over MG pandering to this crowd with the first 2 points (ergos and reduced function), I don't see them uping the quality of the chrome/materials, and I definitely don't see them with the type of turnkey ownership experience they need for THAT particular crowd.

IMO this is your strongest point, Kev.  No way they could ever provide the home team support that HD has positioned everywhere.

OTH, they would only need one or two percent of HD's cruiser market to have a big success on their hands, Guzzi relative.

If I had to pick just one really new model upon which to hang the fate of MG,
after all is said and done,  it would have to be a new cruiser-touring type bike aimed
to take away a few thousand HD buyer types.  My recent observations in Europe on how many
HD baggers are now running around there suggests to me that that market segment is ripe
for some Euro based competitioin.    Well that is my guess anyway.