*California 1400 Merged Threadfest*

[bad Chad]

VA, how can you  be comfy tossing the new Cal under the buss before ever taking it for a spin?

[bpreynolds]

Been there, done that, moved on.

That said the wet weight on a Jackal is probably around 600 (especially accessorized), so the difference is probably 150, but feels like less due to center of gravity.

And though I'm enjoying smaller bikes a lot, I never had a problem around town with a Road King.

My point still stands.  The old Cali is a fantastic all around, all purpose machine, that is actually capable of being a very "fun" motorcycle.  I've read enough about this new bike to know it's a different kind of beast. 

And I'm not saying the new bike wouldn't work for me.  Who wouldn't want one.  It's gorgeous, has lots of new ponies, more comfortable, smoother, and many more features than ye old model.  And you are probably right about those numbers on the loaded Jackal.  This being said, I just can't believe a bike that will be pushing close to 800 pounds won't present more challenges in given situations than the old Cali.  And I've had too many owners of such bikes tell me the same.  That weight and fuel consumption too, is nothing to brush off.  I don't even remotely question Kevin Ash's who got about 28-30 US mpg, that's about what I figured the bike would get.  These things plus the heat issue that has been mentioned by just about every person who HAS actually ridden it, then my Jackal starts to look nicer and nicer to me parked out back.   Taken individually, none of those issues with the new Cali bother me much, but when I start to put them all together, and then look at my own bike, well then I gravitate to what I view as the positives of my bike.  Someone else will very justifiably prefer the new Cali for the new features mentioned. 

[moltoguzzi]

Was wondering if the US dealers had heard from Piaggio about prices and dates.

[Lannis]

Tennessee Yellow Jackets.

I remember that guy!   Bassist for DEVO, right?

[VA Sean]

VA, how can you  be comfy tossing the new Cal under the buss before ever taking it for a spin?

I just think it is butt-ugly.
Sorry, I won't ride a bike that I don't like the looks of.
But who am I? 
I've got the Christmas tree of Guzzis!

[Lannis]

I just think it is butt-ugly.
Sorry, I won't ride a bike that I don't like the looks of.
But who am I? 
I've got the Christmas tree of Guzzis!

And it's beautiful for sure.   In some cases, though, beauty is in the function, and even though I consider my Stelvio ugly, I still like it.

But once I'd looked at the 1400, read off the weight and dimensions, etc., I don't need a test ride to know I'll never buy one.

Lannis

[VA Sean]

And it's beautiful for sure.   In some cases, though, beauty is in the function, and even though I consider my Stelvio ugly, I still like it.

But once I'd looked at the 1400, read off the weight and dimensions, etc., I don't need a test ride to know I'll never buy one.
Lannis

yeah --- then there's that!

[youcanrunnaked]

^^^^^  I'm a big fan of the Cali 1400, but even I was taken aback by his description of the bike as "one of the great motorcycles of the last 100 years."  Rats!  Just as I had talked myself out of getting one.

But wait! There's more:  "Piaggio’s truly appalling sales and service arms, and the company’s utter contempt for its customers, will ensure that the California will become a financial disaster...."  Ahhh... that's better.

[rocker59]

Just my humble opinion, but Moto Guzzi should have done up the Coppa Italia like this:



BTW, this isn't a PhotoShop job. Looks a lot like Christmas candy. Frikkin' gorgeous.

Nice find, Carl!   :+1

[T in NC]

Was wondering if the US dealers had heard from Piaggio about prices and dates.

I had a few minutes between calls this afternoon. so I stopped by at Matthews Fun Machines. They said 19k.

[Kev m]

I had a few minutes between calls this afternoon. so I stopped by at Matthews Fun Machines. They said 19k.

Is that a guess or the official word?

And which model, the stripped one or?

[Dean Rose]

I had a few minutes between calls this afternoon. so I stopped by at Matthews Fun Machines. They said 19k.

My EV is looking better every day.


Dean

[nick949]

From the Matthews blurb:

"Attention that makes every Moto Guzzi California a unique piece, able to marry and to emphasize the strong personality of a passionate and exclusive clientele."

Doesn't that make you feel special folks? 

Nick

(PS. the whole blurb is a wonderful example of Google translate's best).

[pauldaytona]

Mathews has a page up with the 1400's details .... looks like the base unit they are showing, but call for price.... (and don't spread bad rumor$)

http://www.matthewsfunmachines.com/showcaseproductdetail.htm?id=18129121&brand=1701&type=&pos=32

 well they have a touring page too:
http://www.matthewsfunmachines.com/showcaseproductdetail.htm?id=18129228&brand=1701&type=&pos=29

[T in NC]

Is that a guess or the official word?

And which model, the stripped one or?

I would guess the base model, but I wasn't really specific, I just threw out 17 and he shot back with "19 or at least that's the plan", we'll see. I also asked when he "spring" to which I said "what year?" lol I don't think they understand Guzzi time. But it will probably prove accurate.

[moltoguzzi]

Unless Piaggio adds road side assistance to the nearest dealer they will have build the best mouse trap that only the mice will appreciate as they chew on them for years to come in warehouse and show rooms.
Even 17K will be too high for the stripped down models. Look at thewhat competition sell for with better networks and parts availability. I hope the big P doesn't "fudge" this bike up by trying to recoup the big investment in the first year of sales.

[dddd]

Just wondering if I'm the only one who finds the market the new California pitched at confusing. When I first heard about it I was quite intrigued by it, I assumed they would take advantage of the technology they had over the traditional big heavy cruiser / touring end of the market ie overhead cams four valve heads the ability too design decent frames, suspension and brakes and come out with a higher revving / powered cruiser with taught agile handling and reasonably light weight for its class.

They could have built a very unique bike, a cruiser with forward controls that goes handles and stops complete with Italian styling, You can be sure Ducati would never go there and its dynamics would be far superior to the likes of anything Harley is putting out.

Instead they aim it directly at the Harley Road king, a market that has enormous brand loyalty to Harley and understandably so. For that market you need enormous capacity long stroke engines,(which MG doesn't have) 2 valve push rod engines are perfectly suited (no advantage in OHC and 4 valve heads here).

 Just look at where the torque peaks at in at on the new California (2750) hell not even Harley produces it that low, and yet despite their efforts to engineer this smaller capacity, shorter stroke higher revving engine to produce torque down low  it wont produce anywhere near the torque of that  enormous capacity, long stroke Harley engine and as such in this class of bike will be considered to small a capacity engine lacking torque

On top of that they give it huge wheelbase, much bigger than the Harley and as if that weren't enough they kick the steering angle out to extreme levels to the point where I wonder if it will actually handle any better than the road king. Yes it is a bit lighter than a road king but in this class of bike they simply don't seam to care about weight

It may just be me but I just can't help but feel they have lost an opportunity to tap into what could have been a new market, and have instead gone after the most copied and heavily occupied segment there is, armed  with engineering that is not suitable for that class of bike

[rocker59]

merged.

who knows what they were thinking?

basically, they're bringing a big cruiser to the big cruiser market.

we don't know what thier benchmark was, though some have speculated Road King.

this has been discussed ad nauseum in the many posts above...

[Guzzi-Guy]

Just wondering if I'm the only one who finds the market the new California pitched at confusing. When I first heard about it I was quite intrigued by it, I assumed they would take advantage of the technology they had over the traditional big heavy cruiser / touring end of the market ie overhead cams four valve heads the ability too design decent frames, suspension and brakes and come out with a higher revving / powered cruiser with taught agile handling and reasonably light weight for its class.

They could have built a very unique bike, a cruiser with forward controls that goes handles and stops complete with Italian styling, You can be sure Ducati would never go there and its dynamics would be far superior to the likes of anything Harley is putting out.

Instead they aim it directly at the Harley Road king, a market that has enormous brand loyalty to Harley and understandably so. For that market you need enormous capacity long stroke engines,(which MG doesn't have) 2 valve push rod engines are perfectly suited (no advantage in OHC and 4 valve heads here).

 Just look at where the torque peaks at in at on the new California (2750) hell not even Harley produces it that low, and yet despite their efforts to engineer this smaller capacity, shorter stroke higher revving engine to produce torque down low  it wont produce anywhere near the torque of that  enormous capacity, long stroke Harley engine and as such in this class of bike will be considered to small a capacity engine lacking torque

On top of that they give it huge wheelbase, much bigger than the Harley and as if that weren't enough they kick the steering angle out to extreme levels to the point where I wonder if it will actually handle any better than the road king. Yes it is a bit lighter than a road king but in this class of bike they simply don't seam to care about weight

It may just be me but I just can't help but feel they have lost an opportunity to tap into what could have been a new market, and have instead gone after the most copied and heavily occupied segment there is, armed  with engineering that is not suitable for that class of bike

All the ride reports I have seen including one by our own Vasco de Gama say this thing handles.  With more ground clearance than the other cruisers & great power delivery.  I'll keep on drinking the koolaid until proven otherwise.

[Vasco DG]

I didn't have the opportunity to explore its handling potential.

Pete

[youcanrunnaked]

Just wondering if I'm the only one who finds the market the new California pitched at confusing....

I assumed they would take advantage of the technology they had over the traditional big heavy cruiser / touring end of the market ie overhead cams four valve heads the ability too design decent frames, suspension and brakes and come out with a higher revving / powered cruiser with taught agile handling and reasonably light weight for its class. They could have built a very unique bike, a cruiser with forward controls that goes handles and stops complete with Italian styling, You can be sure Ducati would never go there and its dynamics would be far superior to the likes of anything Harley is putting out.

You must be confused, because what you say the nuovo California is not, is exactly what it is.

Every commentator who has seen the bike praises its uniqueness, its high-tech features, and its Italian styling.

All ride reports to date praise the nuovo California for its class-leading handling.

"Heavy" is a relative term.  The nuovo California weighs 100 - 200 lbs less than competitive touring cruisers.

Since when is a 1400cc engine not high capacity?  That's 85.4 cu. in., close enough to H-D's iconic twin cam 88 that the difference is insignificant.  It's smaller that 1600 or 1800cc, but consider performance, to wit:

The 8V 1400cc engine puts out 90 ft./lbs. of torque.  How is that "nowhere near" the 100 ft./lbs. that the current H-D 103 cu in engine makes?  (Earlier Harley big twin engines made less than 90 ft/lbs. of torque.)  In addition to making that torque sooner, the engine puts out 90 hp, about 20 hp more than the H-D 103 engine.  Twenty more hp, plus peak torque 500 rpm sooner, plus 100+ lbs lighter = brisker performance.

Your last sentence is internally inconsistent, contradicts the premise that you started with, and makes no sense to me.

[rocker59]

Since when is a 1400cc engine not high capacity?  That's 85.4 cu. in., close enough to H-D's iconic twin cam 88 that the difference is insignificant.  It's smaller that 1600 or 1800cc, but consider performance, to wit:

 

Since everyone went to 95, 103, and 110 cubic inches.

Guzzi's 80 cubic inch engine is "mid sized" in the cruiser world.

Tonti Californias have always been up against this.  Someone asks "what size is the motor?" and they lose interest very quickly when you respond with "1100".

[youcanrunnaked]

^^^ Not 80; 1400cc = 85.4 cu in.  Hey, either size matters, or it doesn't.  Plus, there are probably still more TC 88 engines in circulation than all of the 96, 98, 101 and 103 engines, combined.

[dddd]

^^^ Not 80; 1400cc = 85.4 cu in.  Hey, either size matters, or it doesn't.  Plus, there are probably still more TC 88 engines in circulation than all of the 96, 98, 101 and 103 engines, combined.

That may well be the case but living in the real world the new California is up against the new road king which has a 1700cc engine with 134 nm torque compare that to a 1400cc and 120nm ,and I fear the person in that market only looks at engine capacity and will walk away

I'm not suggesting that guzzi has done a bad job of building a heavy tourer, I feel they have done well especially the torque for such a small motor.

Its just that I believe a smaller stroke/ capacity engine as the 1400 would have been put to better use in a more sporting lighter platform and to hell with the heavy touring class (which is totally dominated by Harley anyway)

Me I'm waiting for them to put this engine into a new Norge with a higher state of tune ie much bigger throttle body, more aggressive cams, more compression and all with traction control WOW

[rocker59]

^^^ Not 80; 1400cc = 85.4 cu in.  Hey, either size matters, or it doesn't.  Plus, there are probably still more TC 88 engines in circulation than all of the 96, 98, 101 and 103 engines, combined.

The 1400 is not 1400cc.  It's more like 1380, which is more like 84.21 cubic inches.

But it doesn't matter.  Cubic inches matter to the average pirate, and the new California doesn't measure up for those who place importance on displacement.

The TC88 is dead.  It's in the past.  80 cubic inches was the HD standard for many years.  It's also dead and gone.   

[Kev m]

But it doesn't matter.  Cubic inches matter to the average pirate, and the new California doesn't measure up for those who place importance on displacement.

GUYS GUYS GUYS - WHO CARES about the "average" Harley rider. Guzzi is never going to pull the majority of Harley riders away from the brand anyway - no matter what the CC or performance or look or ________________.

Guzzi is HOPING to pull a percentage, a small one for HD, the fringe riders who have additional priorities.

And maybe a few BMW riders who are fed up with BMW.

And maybe a few GW riders who are looking for something with more flair.

Etc.

A SMALL percentage of Harley sales alone would be a boon to Guzzi.

[rocker59]

Agreed.  A few hundred sales per year in the USA will be a homerun for Mandello.

Guzzi will not pull hardcore owners from any brand.  It may pull a few non-committed owners and potential owners from across the spectrum, though.

[Gary]

Seems like a lot of gnashing of teeth for a motorcycle only a couple of us have even seen in person. I think it will be one of the best selling Guzzi's ever. That is merely my personal opinion. Everyone makes and sells a cruiser style M/C with different degrees of success. Most more successful than Guzzi in the past 10 years. Honda, Kawasaki, Yamaha, Triumph, Suzuki, Victory, ...where did those sales come from? The average HD rider? I don't think there is an average HD rider, at least the ones I know. I used to ride one.

The existing California hasn't been a viable modern bike for the past several years. Yes I say this even as I own one. Nothing really up to date here in my opinion. The new California 1400 appears to be a clean sheet modern design, at least for it's genre. It should appeal to many riders of all of the above makes riding or considering cruiser style bikes. It may appeal to those with touring bikes, i.e. Goldwings, Concours, etc that are looking for more relaxed ergos. Guzzi will get a piece of the pie, a filling helping for them if the price is competitive.

Now I realize many base their buying decisions on the mag "experts" and their reviews and recommendations. I think the Guzzi will acquit itself well, but who knows. They can be the difference in large numbers of sales.

Will I buy one? It is on my list of possible future purchases, but so are 6-8 other diverse models. I like change.

[bpreynolds]

GUYS GUYS GUYS - WHO CARES about the "average" Harley rider. Guzzi is never going to pull the majority of Harley riders away from the brand anyway - no matter what the CC or performance or look or ________________.

Guzzi is HOPING to pull a percentage, a small one for HD, the fringe riders who have additional priorities.

And maybe a few BMW riders who are fed up with BMW.

And maybe a few GW riders who are looking for something with more flair.

Etc.

A SMALL percentage of Harley sales alone would be a boon to Guzzi.

+1 The bike is not my cup of tea but imagine several years ago if nobody decided to go after GS sales.  Now the market is loaded with bikes in the "adventure" class.  Whether the market is sustaining all of these different bikes, I dunno, but I daresay Ducati is happy they sure did some Beemer chasing.  I dunno if this California is gonna be the new Multistrada to
Harley's dominance of the big cruiser class, but as noted, it doesn't really have to be.  I daresay even a smidge of that market would be significant for MG.

[moltoguzzi]

"Tonti Californias have always been up against this.  Someone asks "what size is the motor?" and they lose interest very quickly when you respond with "1100".  

Just tell them the hp and torque figures and they will understand.

"A few hundred sales per year in the USA will be a home run."  

Piaggio has invested heavily in the 1400 trying to get a percentage of the American cruiser market, a few hundred won't cut it. The 1400 wasn't designed for the European market where gas taxes bring a gallon of gas to 10 plus dollars and weight and good handling are appreciated. Besides the average European rider is probably 160lbs Vs the average American rider at probably 220lbs, pillion rider are probably double that of Europe. Just sayin.........