*California 1400 Merged Threadfest*

[bad Chad]

Moto Guzzi US anounces the new Cali 1400cc, is it H2O?
http://www.motoguzzi-us.com/en_US/news/default.aspx

[Seagondollar]

And yet no mention of the new(er) engine that Cathcart apparently knows about?

[Amboman]

Whatcha' got against Rotaxes?  :) Some of the best engines ever made!  ;-T

You asked...

I asked Kevdog actually and half kidding at that.  ;) 

[Sack]

Young riders are the vast minority and for the most part they are not buying bikes, especially new ones.

Correct, but I'm thinking of the future of motorcycling, not just Guzzi. In the short term any manufacturer can design and build bikes for the riders today. But what about tomorrow?

[Kev m]

Cash strapped,  non-riding kids of today will become the cash rich riders of tomorrow.
 ;-T

[kevdog3019]

No interest in that kind of power and delivery.  No issues with Rotax as an engine in general.  Rotax has a niche just like Guzzi, Harley, Bimmer airheads, Ducati's, and others.  Of course we could turn Guzzi into every other Rotax bike manufacturer.  Boy... wouldn't that be exciting to compete against a like-mindset (well... except now it WOULD come down strictly to Guzzi's bad business model, and they'd lose the sale).
-Kevin     

[pebra]

Well, I’ve been following this thread with great interest, although many statements ring familiar …

So I’d like to add my angle: Never underestimate the Italians’ ability to waste an opportunity to excel in the market.
The starting point in terms of technology, design and brand name and recognition might be superior, but see what happened to Alfa Romeo and Lancia …  admired car companies that should have competed with BMW, Audi, ...
Sure, there’s Gucci and Armani, but ….

[Skeeve]

So I’d like to add my angle: Never underestimate the Italians’ ability to waste an opportunity to excel in the market.
The starting point in terms of technology, design and brand name and recognition might be superior, but see what happened to Alfa Romeo and Lancia …  admired car companies that should have competed with BMW, Audi, ...
Sure, there’s Gucci and Armani, but ….

Gucci & Armani are clothing companies: no technological details to get right, pure style & construction techniques that haven't changed significantly since the Luddites were sabotaging Jacquard's mechanical looms... Astute observation, Pebra!  ;-T

[kevdog3019]

I think they're more like Gucci and Armani than you think.  The one bike we almost all agreed was beautiful was the MGS-01... and, well, you know the rest of the story...
They even won a race or two with the MGS-01 and bagged it.  Now... how stupid was that??  I'm talking about them making a street-legal version, not THE racing version.  Maybe even "kit" the racing stuff for those that want to spend $$ and take it to the track only.  Guzzi had to have lost an opportunity and $$ with that race bike.  It's not cheap to do R & D, build something new, pay a racer.  They won for God's sake, then walked away like it never happened.  Pure stupidity!  That bike could have even been changed a bit and called a Lemans or Daytona (for where it won I believe).  You don't win American Idle then just walk away and never produce an album.  They did NOTHING!!  OK... it's the engine.
-Kevin

[JohninVT`]

I think they're more like Gucci and Armani than you think.  The one bike we almost all agreed was beautiful was the MGS-01... and, well, you know the rest of the story...
They even won a race or two with the MGS-01 and bagged it.  Now... how stupid was that??  I'm talking about them making a street-legal version, not THE racing version.  Maybe even "kit" the racing stuff for those that want to spend $$ and take it to the track only.  Guzzi had to have lost an opportunity and $$ with that race bike.  It's not cheap to do R & D, build something new, pay a racer.  They won for God's sake, then walked away like it never happened.  Pure stupidity!  That bike could have even been changed a bit and called a Lemans or Daytona (for where it won I believe).  You don't win American Idle then just walk away and never produce an album.  They did NOTHING!!  OK... it's the engine.
-Kevin

I think the MGS-01 was purposeful and imposing looking...like a Swedish axe.  I wouldn't call it beautiful in the normal sense of the word. 

I'm no authority on the MGS-01 but if you strip away the looks, was it really much faster than a Griso 8Valve?  It also wouldn't make much sense to have 4 different shaft drive systems(CARC, new Cali, small block and an MGS-01).  They were too expensive to produce and sell before the financial apocalypse... so they are definitely too expensive now.   

[Turin]

I'm no authority on the MGS-01 but if you strip away the looks, was it really much faster than a Griso 8Valve?  It also wouldn't make much sense to have 4 different shaft drive systems(CARC, new Cali, small block and an MGS-01).  They were too expensive to produce and sell before the financial apocalypse... so they are definitely too expensive now.

Yes and Yes. The MGS 1225 cc motor made something like 125 hp at the rear wheel, and had a top speed of over 160mph. It is also much lighter than a griso 1200 (which was not built for racing). That said, 6 years ago it might have been competitive in certain racing classes, but not in the big ones where it counts (superbike) today it'd have a hard time keeping up with the 600s.

[Pescara]

The MGS-01 was developed by Moto Guzzi prior to the Aprilia takeover.  It was doomed by the takeover, and its designer likewise had his creativity for Guzzi cut short.  The only important factor was "not invented by us" syndrome at Aprilia.

[rocker59]

The MGS-01 was developed by Moto Guzzi prior to the Aprilia takeover.  It was doomed by the takeover, and its designer likewise had his creativity for Guzzi cut short.  The only important factor was "not invented by us" syndrome at Aprilia.

Don't you mean Piaggio?

[Pescara]

The MGS-01 was developed by Moto Guzzi prior to the Aprilia takeover.  It was doomed by the takeover, and its designer likewise had his creativity for Guzzi cut short.  The only important factor was "not invented by us" syndrome at Aprilia.

Don't you mean Piaggio?

Yes, and I should clarify:  The MGS-01 was developed by Moto Guzzi and a subcontractor prior to Aprilia taking over all *engineering*, and prior to Piaggio taking over Aprilia in its entirely (and subsequently moving all engine development to Piaggio).  Aprilia was slowly transitioning Guzzi engineering and design to themselves, but there was still a Moto Guzzi engineering group that did independent work.  

[kevdog3019]

I'm no authority on the MGS-01 but if you strip away the looks, was it really much faster than a Griso 8Valve?  It also wouldn't make much sense to have 4 different shaft drive systems(CARC, new Cali, small block and an MGS-01).  They were too expensive to produce and sell before the financial apocalypse... so they are definitely too expensive now.

Yes and Yes. The MGS 1225 cc motor made something like 125 hp at the rear wheel, and had a top speed of over 160mph. It is also much lighter than a griso 1200 (which was not built for racing). That said, 6 years ago it might have been competitive in certain racing classes, but not in the big ones where it counts (superbike) today it'd have a hard time keeping up with the 600s.

I realize it can't keep up with many 600 superbikes, but it won in the twins division and that means something.  Yes it does count.  We all know a 600 multi can beat any Guzzi, but not everyone wants a multi otherwise the other twins would be dead.  There's something to say for making a fast twin like Guzzi did.  It was great to see Guzzi race again, and the bike has gotten a lot of attention since that time.  Neither Aprilia nor Piaggio capitalized on it is all I wanted to point out.  Also wanted to say the engine didn't suck (keeping on topic).
-Kevin

[Murray]

I'm no authority on the MGS-01 but if you strip away the looks, was it really much faster than a Griso 8Valve?  It also wouldn't make much sense to have 4 different shaft drive systems(CARC, new Cali, small block and an MGS-01).  They were too expensive to produce and sell before the financial apocalypse... so they are definitely too expensive now.

Yes and Yes. The MGS 1225 cc motor made something like 125 hp at the rear wheel, and had a top speed of over 160mph. It is also much lighter than a griso 1200 (which was not built for racing). That said, 6 years ago it might have been competitive in certain racing classes, but not in the big ones where it counts (superbike) today it'd have a hard time keeping up with the 600s.

I realize it can't keep up with many 600 superbikes, but it won in the twins division and that means something.  Yes it does count.  We all know a 600 multi can beat any Guzzi, but not everyone wants a multi otherwise the other twins would be dead.  There's something to say for making a fast twin like Guzzi did.  It was great to see Guzzi race again, and the bike has gotten a lot of attention since that time.  Neither Aprilia nor Piaggio capitalized on it is all I wanted to point out.  Also wanted to say the engine didn't suck (keeping on topic).
-Kevin

Actually the MGS-01 chews up and spits out pretty much every 600 supersport available on the market. The litre bikes it simply isn't fast enough and nor when compared to Ducati's current superbike. Its handling is significantly better than the Griso in the handling department plus its lighter with more power and obviously its a lot more expensive. The big difference is the Griso will pass emissions the MGS has no hope even with a proper muffler system fitted.

[Kev m]

I remain intriqued while growing ever more cautiously optimistic  :BEER:

[Gabe EV]

I remain intriqued while growing ever more cautiously optimistic
Thats the same way I feel Kev, except I prefer a glass of Italian mellow red table wine ;-T 

[rocker59]

It would be nice to get a couple of side shots of both.

We know both have an 18" front wheel, so scaling off that should do the trick.

This image is interesting, though!

[rocker59]

Yeah.  The angle, and all.

You know, I'll bet you that the nuovo California has a longer wheelbase than the current California.

Cal Vintage is listed at 61.4-inches. 

I wouldn't be surprised if the new bike was more like 64-inches...

[kevdog3019]

As I stated in an earlier response here:  If we could just get people to take a ride on this bike they may never have heard of... 
Here's from a thread just posted by somebody else from the Triumph board.  Is it really the engine that's not selling Guzzi's??
Enjoy:

When the conversation switches to Guzzi on the TriumphRat site, we'll often move it off-forum to private emails. Here's one to me from a UK rider who owns a Griso and a Falcone.  I found it pleasant to read such a positive Guzzi post:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm telling you now, Bob. If you take a 1200 Griso out, you will have to buy one. Hell, I just took one for a spin out of curiosity, and out came the cheque book! There is a lot of talk about the performance at higher revs. This is a fact, and is most un-Guzzi like. It is almost like a turbo in the way the engine responds! huge fun, and highly addictive. Of course, the rest of the bike is just as good. Take one out by all means, but be prepared to lay waste to your wallet!!! All the best,

[Kev m]

You know, I'll bet you that the nuovo California has a longer wheelbase than the current California.

Cal Vintage is listed at 61.4-inches.  

I wouldn't be surprised if the new bike was more like 64-inches...

Which basically means it would change from a Sportster wheelbase (60.1") to a Road King or Dyna wheelbase (63.5"-64.2") give or take.  :BEER:

[rocker59]

You know, I'll bet you that the nuovo California has a longer wheelbase than the current California.

Cal Vintage is listed at 61.4-inches.  

I wouldn't be surprised if the new bike was more like 64-inches...

Which basically means it would change from a Sportster wheelbase (60.1") to a Road King or Dyna wheelbase (63.5"-64.2" give or take).  :BEER:

Exactly!   ;-T

Which would be a good thing...  For passenger comfort, leg room, etc...  On a touring cruiser...

The Bassa I picked up recently has a seating position amazingly similar to a mids-equipped Sportster...  The current Calis are not big bikes, which explains some of the "passenger comfort" issues people mention...  A 64" wheelbase would put it into the full-size cruiser-tourer category...  Right now, it's sorta like a Dodge Dakota/Durango.  An in-betweener...

[Greg Field]

Hi Greg.
Good to have you back on WG.
I do really appreciate your point of view and agree that Guzzi need something new to pay the bills (a diesel, electric, I dunno...)

Now, would you please care to clarify some things for me, that I don't quite get:

How come that guzzi is a failure compared to other iconic aircooled engines: The Harley, BMW boxer and Ducati L-twin (you can even throw the Triumph twin in, if you like).

You once stated, that Piaggio needs to learn the motorcycle business. What do the other brands do right, that Piaggio doesn't?

I think that the Guzzis are getting there in terms of performance. Now they just need to shed 100 lbs  ;D

/Steffen, Denmark

Thanks. It's enjoyable to check in once in a while.

Why is Guzzi a failure compared to those other twins? It's a huge subject that would take many pages to do minimal justice, but here's a distillation to 200 proof in one paragraph:

The Guzzi transverse-V twin isn't, or wasn't, anyway, a failure. As an engine, it was simple, robust, reliable, durable, and easy to maintain. It cooled extremely well. It had great torque and decent horsepower. And it had character. Unfortunately, though, its architecture greatly compromised proper design of the rest of the motorcycle because the jugs were in the way of designing the rest of the bike for optimal rider comfort and weight distribution. The jugs are not in the way on the Harley, Ducati, and Triumph, and other engines. It is less true for the BMW engine. I know this reason doesn't resonate here and it would take many pages and diagrams to adequately explain it. If you want to understand it, put your own body on your Guzzi and picture moving yourself forward or lowering the seat height, and you might get a better idea of what a challenge it becomes and why the Guzzi engine has become a handicap in this day of low seat heights, short chassis, and forward weight distribution. Water-cooling the transverse-V engine will only make this trait worse. It's why I believe it folly to think such an engine will reverse Guzzi's fortunes. It's just my opinion, though.

The motorcycle business. Another huge subject. I'll try to get to this and the rest later.

[Lannis]

Hi Greg.
Good to have you back on WG.
I do really appreciate your point of view and agree that Guzzi need something new to pay the bills (a diesel, electric, I dunno...)

Now, would you please care to clarify some things for me, that I don't quite get:

How come that guzzi is a failure compared to other iconic aircooled engines: The Harley, BMW boxer and Ducati L-twin (you can even throw the Triumph twin in, if you like).

You once stated, that Piaggio needs to learn the motorcycle business. What do the other brands do right, that Piaggio doesn't?

I think that the Guzzis are getting there in terms of performance. Now they just need to shed 100 lbs  ;D

/Steffen, Denmark

Thanks. It's enjoyable to check in once in a while.

Why is Guzzi a failure compared to those other twins? It's a huge subject that would take many pages to do minimal justice, but here's a distillation to 200 proof in one paragraph:

...... and why the Guzzi engine has become a handicap in this day of low seat heights, short chassis, and forward weight distribution.

That last is one part I don't understand.   What is driving "low seat heights", "short chassis", and "forward weight distribution"?     Those aren't necessarily good things, and aren't necessarily performance enhancers.   They're just styling issues ... hang onto ANY of your old clothes long enough, and they come back into style.   

Maybe "next day", those things will change ....  ???

Lannis

[JohninVT`]

Since the 30's, every truly great handling, sporting mototcycle has been right around 400 lbs and had a 55 inch wheelbase.  Shorter than 55 inches is too twitchy and longer than 55 requires steeper steering geometry which is also too twitchy.  It doesn't matter if you're talking a BSA Goldstar, a Ducati 851 or a 2011 CBR1000RR, they all have  a wheelbase right around 55 inches and weigh close to 400lbs. 

To make a motorcycle turn fast, the weight needs to be pushed toward the front wheel.  It also helps if it's got a low polar moment.  The traditional Guzzi has neither.  The shaft drive also further screws up the weight bias.  Around town or on a commuter-tourer a 50/50 weight bias is great.  On a sportbike it's usually more like 60/40 front to rear.  Modern bikes have longer swingarms to help hook up.  If you put a long swingarm on a Guzzi you end up with a 60 inch wheelbase like the Griso, Norge and Breva's CARC.  You can build a 55 inch wheelbase with an L twin or a parallel twin or inline 4 or singles or V twins and still have a normal riding position that doesn't put your ass over the rear wheel.  That isn't as easy to do on a Guzzi twin because your knees hit the cylinders unless you're riding an MGS-01 with rearsets that are as cruel as a GSX-R.       

Some of the latter points concerning weight bias and long swingarms could be construed as "fashion" but the 400lb/55 inch wheelbase isn't.  I may be crazy but it's my "golden rule" for winnowing great handling bikes from good ones.

It's why Harley has never made a truly great handling bike with any sporting pretense and why British bikes wiped the floor with the world for decades before the Japanese and Italians figured it out.  Just my .02     

         

[Pescara]

224 lbs minus fuel.

Also 93 HP - they work pretty well.

[JohninVT`]

224 lbs minus fuel.

Also 93 HP - they work pretty well.

As long as you're 4'8" and have a 16" inseam...LOL.  I'd still like to try one though.     

I was talking streetbikes. 

[rocker59]

Since the 30's, every truly great handling, sporting mototcycle has been right around 400 lbs and had a 55 inch wheelbase.  Shorter than 55 inches is too twitchy and longer than 55 requires steeper steering geometry which is also too twitchy.  It doesn't matter if you're talking a BSA Goldstar, a Ducati 851 or a 2011 CBR1000RR, they all have  a wheelbase right around 55 inches and weigh close to 400lbs. 

To make a motorcycle turn fast, the weight needs to be pushed toward the front wheel.  It also helps if it's got a low polar moment.  The traditional Guzzi has neither.  The shaft drive also further screws up the weight bias.  Around town or on a commuter-tourer a 50/50 weight bias is great.  On a sportbike it's usually more like 60/40 front to rear.  Modern bikes have longer swingarms to help hook up.  If you put a long swingarm on a Guzzi you end up with a 60 inch wheelbase like the Griso, Norge and Breva's CARC.  You can build a 55 inch wheelbase with an L twin or a parallel twin or inline 4 or singles or V twins and still have a normal riding position that doesn't put your ass over the rear wheel.  That isn't as easy to do on a Guzzi twin because your knees hit the cylinders unless you're riding an MGS-01 with rearsets that are as cruel as a GSX-R.       

Some of the latter points concerning weight bias and long swingarms could be construed as "fashion" but the 400lb/55 inch wheelbase isn't.  I may be crazy but it's my "golden rule" for winnowing great handling bikes from good ones.

It's why Harley has never made a truly great handling bike with any sporting pretense and why British bikes wiped the floor with the world for decades before the Japanese and Italians figured it out.  Just my .02     

         

I agree with you until the end.

HD's various KR and XR motorcycles were hot in thier day.

Google "Cal Rayborn Daytona" sometime.  He won the '68 and '69 Daytona 200 on an HD KRTT.

[JohninVT`]

Since the 30's, every truly great handling, sporting mototcycle has been right around 400 lbs and had a 55 inch wheelbase.  Shorter than 55 inches is too twitchy and longer than 55 requires steeper steering geometry which is also too twitchy.  It doesn't matter if you're talking a BSA Goldstar, a Ducati 851 or a 2011 CBR1000RR, they all have  a wheelbase right around 55 inches and weigh close to 400lbs. 

To make a motorcycle turn fast, the weight needs to be pushed toward the front wheel.  It also helps if it's got a low polar moment.  The traditional Guzzi has neither.  The shaft drive also further screws up the weight bias.  Around town or on a commuter-tourer a 50/50 weight bias is great.  On a sportbike it's usually more like 60/40 front to rear.  Modern bikes have longer swingarms to help hook up.  If you put a long swingarm on a Guzzi you end up with a 60 inch wheelbase like the Griso, Norge and Breva's CARC.  You can build a 55 inch wheelbase with an L twin or a parallel twin or inline 4 or singles or V twins and still have a normal riding position that doesn't put your ass over the rear wheel.  That isn't as easy to do on a Guzzi twin because your knees hit the cylinders unless you're riding an MGS-01 with rearsets that are as cruel as a GSX-R.       

Some of the latter points concerning weight bias and long swingarms could be construed as "fashion" but the 400lb/55 inch wheelbase isn't.  I may be crazy but it's my "golden rule" for winnowing great handling bikes from good ones.

It's why Harley has never made a truly great handling bike with any sporting pretense and why British bikes wiped the floor with the world for decades before the Japanese and Italians figured it out.  Just my .02     

         

I agree with you until the end.

HD's various KR and XR motorcycles were hot in thier day.

Google "Cal Rayborn Daytona" sometime.  He won the '68 and '69 Daytona 200 on an HD KRTT.

A KRTT wasn't a streetbike.  It wasn't a streetbike anymore than what Rossi is riding next year for Ducati in MotoGP is a streetbike.  That Rayborn won Daytona had a lot more to do with Cal Rayborn than the machine he was riding.  As for the KR's and XR's...they couldn't keep a BSA in sight on a crooked road.  Ride a well set up A10 sometime and then ride any Sportster.  There is no comparison.