*California 1400 Merged Threadfest*

[rocker59]

Anybody think fuel economy might be a important sales point? - how much money do you want to spend filling up your tank, each day?

$100.  200.   ???

On large street motorcycles?  In the USA?  No!

Most people don't put more than a few thousand miles on in a year, riding mostly on sunny Saturdays and Sundays.

It's not even on the radar of most motorcycle "owners" that I know.  Hell!  They drive 15mpg SUVs to work everyday!

I care about it mainly because better fuel economy = fewer friggin' fuel stops on a journey.  But, that's mainly because the dang fuel tanks are so small (< 5 gallons) on most bikes...

[Amboman]

Anybody think fuel economy might be a important sales point? - how much money do you want to spend filling up your tank, each day?

$100.  200.   ???

On motorcycles?  In the USA?  No!

Most people don't put more than a few thousand miles on in a year, riding mostly on sunny Saturdays and Sundays.

It's not even on the radar of most motorcycle "owners" that I know.  Hell!  They drive 15mpg SUVs to work everyday!

+1
 
Gas-hog SUVs and pickups continue to outsell 40 mpg cars, so obviously to many in the USA fuel-mileage is of little concern.

Gas would have to be $20/gallon for it to cost $100 to fill the Ambo's tank.  ;)

[twhitaker]

That WC 120 degree V twin looks a lot like the VA10 that never made it.

[Pescara]

Just sitting here thinking about this thread...

Seems my favorite bikes have all had:

a 58-inch wheelbase.
a 26-degree steering head.
weighed 450-500 lbs.
and, had 75-90 rwhp twins or triples.

I agree that a 58 inch wheelbase (like many Guzzis) generally makes for a nice stable bike with good steering feel. Also that 80-90 RWHP is about enough.  But in my experience, each bike varies, its not paint by the numbers...

The reason the long wheelbase bevel 750 Ducati worked better than its contemporary competition was that the L-twin engine gave the bike a very low CG along with the 60 inch spread between axles.  Within the limits of frame technology at that time, the long wheelbase was good because it increased stability to almost modern levels.  In combination with the low CG that gave reasonably light steering (especially with touring bars), the bike was widely regarded as being the best handling compromise available at that time.  The Italians also used very heavy wall thickness tubing in the 70s, and it helped stiffness without adding a huge amount of weight.

I think less weight is almost always better as long as the wheels etc are lightened too.

[rodekyll]

{snippity}
Gas-hog SUVs and pickups continue to outsell 40 mpg cars, so obviously to many in the USA fuel-mileage is of little concern.

{snip}

I don't think that's obvious unless your argument is that a 40mpg car does the same job as a pickup truck and people choose the pickup anyway.  For example, I would love to have an awd minivan that got 40 mpg and hauled a ton, or a 40mpg car that did what my minivan does.  So for me it's not a matter of being unconcerned about gas mileage, it's a matter of having the right tool for the job.

[Big Block Jon]

How about a different way of cooling? Solid state heat pipe or something?

+1

Those solid-state coolers (theoretical, no doubt) on the Terblanche show-bikes were very exciting. It would be nice if Guzzi could do something innovative and different.

[Kev m]

{snippity}
Gas-hog SUVs and pickups continue to outsell 40 mpg cars, so obviously to many in the USA fuel-mileage is of little concern.

{snip}

I don't think that's obvious unless your argument is that a 40mpg car does the same job as a pickup truck and people choose the pickup anyway.  For example, I would love to have an awd minivan that got 40 mpg and hauled a ton, or a 40mpg car that did what my minivan does.  So for me it's not a matter of being unconcerned about gas mileage, it's a matter of having the right tool for the job.

Actually I know a number of guys who use trucks for work - MOST of them have been smart to get powerful and fuel efficient diesels.

The rest (and overwhelming majority) of the guzzling trucks I see are SUVs that ARE just taking a place of a car - whether that's a Ford Expedition, Chevy Suburban or BMW X3 (which gets as lousy mileage).

MOST of the people I know with those vehicles don't tow anything with it, and move ONE child around from school to soccer practice in it.

[Lannis]

{snippity}
Gas-hog SUVs and pickups continue to outsell 40 mpg cars, so obviously to many in the USA fuel-mileage is of little concern.

{snip}

I don't think that's obvious unless your argument is that a 40mpg car does the same job as a pickup truck and people choose the pickup anyway.  For example, I would love to have an awd minivan that got 40 mpg and hauled a ton, or a 40mpg car that did what my minivan does.  So for me it's not a matter of being unconcerned about gas mileage, it's a matter of having the right tool for the job.

There's a limited number of people that buy a vehicle that will haul a ton or that has a big motor because they need one for their work.   Some people do, and if they need one, they buy one, and charge the fuel cost off to their customers as part of the service or product they provide.

MOST people that are driving oversize vehicles with big motors do it because they LIKE oversize vehicles with big motors.   They're not doing anything that "requires" it, they just like the feel of it and the notion that if they HAD to do something with it, they could.  AND they can afford it.   No one else is paying for it but them, but they don't mind.   They won't mind even with $5 gas, it's still chicken feed to the gal who can afford a Trail Blazer or Expedition or Escalade or F450.

You can see that any day on any daily commute, or just poll your neighbors.   Well, maybe not YOUR neighbors up there in the Land of the Midnight Sun, but the other 300 million down here ...  :)

Lannis

[rodekyll]

It's a different reality down there then.  I do miss my '70 Corolla with the 12" wheels, 1-liter engine and 5-speed.  It just didn't pull my boat or cable spools so good.

[twhitaker]

I have a pick up because I cannot think of any other way to take my bike and my boat on a vacation. It has 4WD but the only time I use it is at the boat ramp.

[Greg Field]

They should just put this prototype from 1950 into production:





That flywheel might not pass but that is a minor detail...... 8)

That engine has attachment points and gear drive for a supercharger too!

As that post showed, Guzzi could pick virtually any engine configuration and still be within the bounds of its heritage. Why not think outside the transverse-V box?

[Kev m]

Greg, heritage doesn't mean you tried it once, it means you're KNOWN for it, that you've used it for decades...

[Greg Field]

Greg, heritage doesn't mean you tried it once, it means you're KNOWN for it, that you've used it for decades...

I believe you are confusing public image with heritage. Heritage runs way deeper and outlives people and their memories. Nevertheless, even if longitudinal-V twins and triples and fours and singles and eights weren't part of Guzzi's heritage, there's no reason to not consider these architectures for future Guzzi motors, given that there really is no positive mass-market perception of Guzzi at all.

[Kev m]

Greg, heritage doesn't mean you tried it once, it means you're KNOWN for it, that you've used it for decades...

I believe you are confusing public image with heritage. Heritage runs way deeper and outlives people and their memories. Nevertheless, even if longitudinal-V twins and triples and fours and singles and eights weren't part of Guzzi's heritage, there's no reason to not consider these architectures for future Guzzi motors, given that there really is no positive mass-market perception of Guzzi at all.

No, not confusing anything.

Just cause someone is 1/50 American Indian doesn't make that a significant part of his heritage.

Just cause a company experimented with something, but never really produced any products of a given configuration doesn't make it an significant part of it's heritage.

That's where I'm going with this.

The significance of the design as related to heritage.

AND FOR THE RECORD, you know I've never said Guzzi can't start a new branch when it comes to the heritage of their motors.

But to build say something in an all new configuration and try to point a lineage figure to a related design which was experimented with 50 years ago would be disingenuous.

IF ANYTHING I would say an all new engine design could be loosely tied to Guzzis "Hertigage of experimenting with/trying something new".

[rocker59]

Just cause someone is 1/50 American Indian doesn't make that a significant part of his heritage.

 

But, Greg is a proud native American, nonetheless...

[Kev m]

Just cause someone is 1/50 American Indian doesn't make that a significant part of his heritage.

 

But, Greg is a proud native American, nonetheless...

So am I...

...I was BORN here...


My dad wasn't...

 :BEER:

[rocker59]

[Seagondollar]

Just cause someone is 1/50 American Indian doesn't make that a significant part of his heritage.

 

Depends on the individual.

[Greg Field]

Greg, heritage doesn't mean you tried it once, it means you're KNOWN for it, that you've used it for decades...

I believe you are confusing public image with heritage. Heritage runs way deeper and outlives people and their memories. Nevertheless, even if longitudinal-V twins and triples and fours and singles and eights weren't part of Guzzi's heritage, there's no reason to not consider these architectures for future Guzzi motors, given that there really is no positive mass-market perception of Guzzi at all.

No, not confusing anything.

Just cause someone is 1/50 American Indian doesn't make that a significant part of his heritage.

Just cause a company experimented with something, but never really produced any products of a given configuration doesn't make it an significant part of it's heritage.

That's where I'm going with this.

The significance of the design as related to heritage.

AND FOR THE RECORD, you know I've never said Guzzi can't start a new branch when it comes to the heritage of their motors.

But to build say something in an all new configuration and try to point a lineage figure to a related design which was experimented with 50 years ago would be disingenuous.

IF ANYTHING I would say an all new engine design could be loosely tied to Guzzis "Hertigage of experimenting with/trying something new".

Kev:

Guzzi raced longitudinal-V twins. I'm pretty sure they won the Isle of Man TT with one. They are as much a part of Guzzi's heritage as the V8 is. Look how small a part of Guzzi's years in business that was—built five or six, only used on-track for 2 years, no championships—yet how big a part of Guzzi's heritage it is.

[Kev m]

Just cause someone is 1/50 American Indian doesn't make that a significant part of his heritage.

 

Depends on the individual.

No it doesn't,  not mathematically or statistically.

Now if someone puts undue weight or meaning on it, well that's fine personally. Juat don't try to sell it to others, cause then it would be disingenuous.

Greg,  5-6 years and a number of victories I suppose IS part of their heritage,  but I wouldn't overplay it. But yes a part.

[rocker59]

Kev:

Guzzi raced longitudinal-V twins. I'm pretty sure they won the Isle of Man TT with one. They are as much a part of Guzzi's heritage as the V8 is. Look how small a part of Guzzi's years in business that was—built five or six, only used on-track for 2 years, no championships—yet how big a part of Guzzi's heritage it is.

1933-1951  500cc GP bike, the Bicilindrica was a top competitor for 18 years!




Some info:

The 500 Guzzi twin-cylinder had a brilliant career for 18 years, from 1933 to 1951, with its Y-shaped, 120° engine. Stanley Woods rode it to victory in the 1935 Tourist Trophy. The 500 Bicilindrica was first driven in 1933, and the Guzzi brand decided to retire it from racing in 1951, even though it probably still had potential to be exploited on some racetracks.

The 500 Guzzi twin-cylinder was born from the genius mind of Carlo Guzzi, after he recognized the 1930 supercharged flat 4 engine was insufficient. Carlo only put together two engines from the famous 250 Single-shaft. This machine quickly started to race against its competitors of the time.

The first prototype had a displacement of 493.7 cc, a 68mm bore and 68mm stroke with a 8.5:1 compression ratio and developed 43.35 wheel horsepower at 7,000 rpm. The engine ran on a mixture of gasoline, alcohol and benzol, which was permitted at the time. During its first timed tests in Monza, Moretti drove it to a top speed of 186 km/h. Soon after, it reached 190 km/h, then 200 km/h in its latest developments which competed in 1950 and 1951. The Bicilindrica weighed 160 kg, and the driving had been greatly facilitated through the adoption of a rear suspension.
The first prototype has a solid frame, but the suspension was quickly adopted. Its efficiency was demonstrated with Woods’ victory in the 1935 Tourist trophy.
This machine had a lot of qualities: low center of gravity, lightweight, good handling, not to mention again its suspensions.
The Bicilindrica won its first race on December 10, 1933 at the Via Caracciola in Naples where Moretti, aged 31 at the time, opened this great machine’s long list of victories.

In 1950, a new fork was adopted. It became typical of 1950s Moto Guzzi models as it was even mounted on the 8-cylinder. The Bicilindrica was also an early adopter of useful styling elements, making this bike praised for its design, even today.

The glorious twin-cylinder lead Bertacchini to victory in the 1948 500 Italian championship and Lorenzetti in 1949.
It was also victorious in Anderson’s hands, and even surprised Lorenzetti himself as he won the Senigallia Grand Prix on August 5, 1951, beating Pagani and Milani’s 4-cylinder Gileras, Ray Amm’s Norton and Liberati’s Gilera Saturno.
At the end of the 1951 season, Moto Guzzi abandoned the 500 Bicilindrica to go worth with the development of other models, especially straight-4 powered ones.


from here:  http://www.classic-motorbikes.com/stock.asp?Ref=FC70&Lang=it

[Kev m]

Well, that's heritage, but they'd have to differentiate it from Ducati.

[blackcat]

Well, that's heritage, but they'd have to differentiate it from Ducati.

Why? The MG engine predates the Ducati twin and it is 120 degree's as opposed to the 90 degree Ducati.

[Pescara]

At the end of the 1951 season, Moto Guzzi abandoned the 500 Bicilindrica to go worth with the development of other models, especially straight-4 powered ones.

Excellent post, R59.  

The last sentence brings to mind what happened when Moto Guzzi gave up their storied air-cooled V-twin and went in another direction, with an engine designed by others!  It was a disaster...   when it happened in the early-1950s  ;D ;D ;D

The inline four was designed by an outside consultant named Carlo Gianini.  He was a car guy, and his design didn't work terribly well as a racer.  I think they won a single race with it.

[Kev m]

Well, that's heritage, but they'd have to differentiate it from Ducati.

Why? The MG engine predates the Ducati twin and it is 120 degree's as opposed to the 90 degree Ducati.

Predates means nothing when in the half century later ducati claimed it for their own in the world market.

[kevdog3019]

Well, that's heritage, but they'd have to differentiate it from Ducati.

Why? The MG engine predates the Ducati twin and it is 120 degree's as opposed to the 90 degree Ducati.

Predates means nothing when in the half century later ducati claimed it for their own in the world market.

Only Guzzi people might know, but hell, we're the only people that know about Guzzi!  Kevin's right... word has it Ducati has had a similar design for a few more recent years.  :P
-Kevin

[nick949]

How about a nice, modern lay-down air cooled triple - around 1000cc? Same layout as the Falcone x3. Nice long wheelbase like a Ducati. Nice low centre of gravity.  Unique layout in keeping with Guzzi tradition (or weirdness, depending on your point of view).  I'd go for a bacon slicer as well, but I doubt the buying public would.

Triples have a certain acceptance in the market place, so it wouldn't be too radical............ .

Nick

[AJ Huff]

Maybe Guzzi could buy the rights to the Feuling motor?




-AJ

[JohninVT`]

Only 3,000 people a year buy a new Guzzi.  If Piaggio decided they were going to sell Guzzi's with inline 4's, how many people would know any different?  Most of the people who really care about Guzzi history don't buy new Guzzi's.  They are still trying to wear out Eldorado's they bought 30 years ago.  The other two million people who buy a bike each year have never heard of Guzzi.  They have no idea what a "Guzzi" is supposed to be.    

Piaggio can introduce anything they like because the potential gains would far outweigh the loss from old-time Guzzi owners.  I'm not suggesting that is what they should do, I am just pointing out that there are maybe 100 active posters on this forum and they probably represent a large portion of the US Guzzi demographic.  That has to change if the brand is going to survive.  You can't build a business around a bunch of negative, old men.        

I think the new Cali looks great and I honestly don't care if it's liquid cooled or not.  I also think the new Norge and Stelvio are also great.  While liquid cooling seems to have a stigma attached by some Guzzi riders, the vast majority of motorcyclists don't care if a bike has a radiator as long as it's fun to ride, doesn't break all the time, they can afford it and there is a decent dealer nearby.      

[Kev m]

The problem with an L4 is the other half dozen or so companies that already make them.

You gotta give people a reason to buy a Guzzi.

So WHAT is going to be different or special.

As for this BB not 1% of US owners post here, judging from rallyes and from what I see at local bike events.

As for water cooling at least 50% of the US market chooses to avoid it currently.