The New Indian Chief Thunder Stroke 111 merged threadfest

[Kev m]

I always thought the FLHRS had better lines - I liked the cleaner fenders.

[Kev m]

As you know, I took a little 300 mile or so round trip with my little bro yesterday for a 20 minute demo ride on the new Indian.

The dealer is in Union, NJ close enough to NYC to be snarled in all directions with traffic, so it was nice that they had 4 hard working motor officers from the Union TWP police force to escort us. The blocked all lanes, intersections, etc so we ran all stop signs, lights etc. They even cleared a lane or two for us on the highways.

Sadly though it was still very congested and the group ride never REALLY allowed for us to test any limits of the bike say with handling or speed. I did get some hard acceleration in a couple of times by hanging back a little, and pushed the brakes a bit, plus tried to take very tight leaned lines at the occasional turns so I think I got enough of a feel for the basics on the bike.

Like so many bikes in my life I felt that these bikes looked better in person than in the pictures I've seen.

As I said earlier, the fit/finish/quality all appears to be there.

The brakes were fantastic, and though I got on them hard I never sensed the non-linked ABS kicking in.

Unlike say the FLD I demo'd when they first came out I never managed to scrape a floorboard, so ground clearance and lean angles seem fine for most usage (I'm sure they are comparable to the Harley touring models).

I really wanted to try the shorter wheelbase Chieftain but there were virtual cockfights when picking the bike (it was a case of a safety briefing followed by a "go get on the bike you want" and I wasn't about to run so I wound up on a pimped out Classic which in retrospect was fine.

What I think I learned the most about it was that once you get past a certain size on a bike (don't know where that is, maybe north of 600 lbs and a wheelbase greater than maybe 60") a few more (or couple hundred more) pounds and a few more inches of wheelbase don't REALLY matter.

This bike specs at something like 812 lbs wet and has a wheelbase of 68.1 inches.

To put that in perspective that's over 200 lbs heavier and 8 inches more wheelbase than my Sportster, or still a good 100 lbs heavier and another inch or so of wheelbase over the new Guzzi California Custom.

BUT like the Harley FLH series or the new Guzzi, this bike REALLY hides that weight and you don't know it is there lifting it off the stand or casually riding it. I'm sure you'd get more of a sense of the heft if you started throwing it around canyons but that's NOT what this bike is about (not that I still probably couldn't enjoy it in that situation, just that it's not really the right tool for the job at that point).

The motor had tons of torque and didn't particularly care what gear you were in (though I only managed to get it into 4th at about 60 mph on the short stretches of highway we took).

The motor was otherwise unobtrusive in the sense that it was relatively narrow, smooth, quiet, and didn't seem to be putting out any excessive heat. As I said earlier though it is visually MASSIVE (which I suspect was purposeful in its design).

At a glance it seems to take a number of technical cues from the Victory - like the starter mounted out front or the primary cover that is obviously finned for cooling (which makes me suspect the stator is mounted to the front inside of that cover).

The cast aluminum frame is a nice sight and speaks to the rigidity of the chassis. Two points of interest with regards to the frame are

1. If you look at the front of the frame just below the neck you'll see it is hollow - because THAT is the air intake for the motor. It's a clever way to ensure that the motor is making the best power available by pulling in cool/non-engine fouled air.

2. If you look right below the air intake you'll notice an oil cooler - but you have to be looking for it because it's pretty tiny and sits completely between the twin frame downtubes. I haven't seen the new FLH oil coolers in person yet, but it is about 1/3 the size of the massive (radiator looking) oil cooler found on the new Guzzi Cali 1400.

Though I didn't get to ride the Chieftain I must say that I like the look of the fairing (both the front of it, and more importantly the back of it) in person. It looks clean and like business.

A few other minor notes - clutch pull was on the firm side, moreso than I remember on most current Harleys, but it's still nothing like what Harleys used to be.

Switchgear is set-up like a standard metric. The safety briefing was funny as the guy was trying to say that without saying the term METRIC.

Fueling seemed good and the fly-by-wire throttle was fine with one possible exception - there seemed to be an on/off switch point near idle where I could feel a tiny bit of throttle lag. Could have just been me or the horrible conditions under which we were forced to demo these things, or it could have been a glitch with the bike. Certainly something I could get used to by simply not closing the throttle quite as much/quite as often - but then again I doubt I'd ever have to ride it much plodding along behind a dozen others who aren't getting out of their own way either.

All-in-all I came away feeling very positive about the bike itself with a revelation that I need not worry about the minutia of specs with these big touring bikes.

Would I buy one - that depends - honestly I already own two bikes with relatively limited dealer networks and I'm not sure I'd want to add a third. But that's no different with the new Guzzi Cali too.

I think in the end it will come down to the particulars. If I'm looking for a fairing, the Chieftain might get a nod, but if I'm looking for a Road King competitor, then I'd probably pass on the Vintage because the leather bags and fringe and spokes are a bit too much for me personally. At that point it would likely come down to an RK vs. the Cali 1400 Custom and a set of quick-detach Hepco&Becker bags.

I do think (hope) that Indian does well, because as their add campaign says "Choice is coming" and honestly, that's a good thing for the whole market. More choices, more competition, means everyone ups their game.

Now a few pics:

"Does this bike make my belly look smaller or Damn I make this bike look small"



I should have put a hand or foot in this pic for perspective, the freaking jugs look thicker than my thigh (but I guess you can see that in the previous pic)



You can see some of the tech features I mentioned - air intake, oil cooler, cooling fins on primary



The test mule - thanks Jay for the wonderful timing on this pic - "hey look at all the room I'd have for a beer belly"

[bettythebear]

thanks Kev!

[oldbike54]

Can "kitschy" be applied to motorbikes ?
Dusty

[tazio]

 ;-T ;-T ;-T

[moltoguzzi]

Hi, Kev. How's the torque feel compared to the HD or the Guzzi 1068cc ?
About engine internal noise and exhaust note?
Are the wheels sealed or tubes on the spoke ones.
Your test mule is what I would buy. Love that red, could mount a quality Shad
top box on that rack, done. What do you get for two grand more besides leather
bags and a windscreen.
Thanks for the write up chubby. Just kidding you look fine.

[jas67]

The test mule - thanks Jay for the wonderful timing on this pic - "hey look at all the room I'd have for a beer belly"

You're very welcome -- I'm here to help!    :BEER:

[Kev m]

Hi, Kev. How's the torque feel compared to the HD or the Guzzi 1068cc ?
About engine internal noise and exhaust note?
Are the wheels sealed or tubes on the spoke ones.
Your test mule is what I would buy. Love that red, could mount a quality Shad
top box on that rack, one. What do you get for two grand more besides leather bags and a wind screen.
Thanks for the write up chubby. Just kidding you look fine.

Ouch lol  :BEER:

Torque felt comparable to the new Cali 1400, so a step or 3 beyond a 2V Guzzi big block. Can't compare to current HD big twin yet, but suspect it is also comparable.

Engine noise? I didn't notice...exhaust? pleasantly muted.

Wheels? sorry, didn't ask, but was told today the new HD ones (at least on dressers) are tubeless, so maybe.

Not sure of other differences between the Classic and Vintage other than seat, windshield, and bags.

[jas67]

Torque felt comparable to the new Carli 1400, so a step or 3 beyond a 2V Guzzi big block.

 :+1 on both comments above.   I road my Breva 1100 to the demo.     The Indian definitely has heaps of torque.   It weighs about 240 lbs more than my Breva, but definitely feels like it has more torque.   Granted, the 2V Guzzi big block will rev higher, and accelerate the lighter Breva faster than the Indian, but damn, I never thought 800lbs of bike could accelerate that.   Both the Indian and the Cali 1400 have plenty-o-torque for the job.   ;-T

[LowRyter]

both bikes might have good torque but the Cal 14 runs up to 7k RPMs, whereas the Indian tops out under 5k.

[Kev m]

both bikes might have good torque but the Cal 14 runs up to 7k RPMs, whereas the Indian tops out under 5k.

Doesn't really matter how high one revs vs the other if peak numbers are higher at a lower point. More importantly a drag race isn't really what either bike is about.

They both have plenty of power to hustle their respective masses and the loads they might carry. They both handle better than you might expect.

[keithl]

Im a fan of Indian bikes, but I dont  like the giant chrome headlight shroud at all.   Im sure its a great bike, but
I think the previous incarnation looked better.

[LowRyter]

Doesn't really matter how high one revs vs the other if peak numbers are higher at a lower point. More importantly a drag race isn't really what either bike is about.

They both have plenty of power to hustle their respective masses and the loads they might carry. They both handle better than you might expect.

if you say that both bike have similar torque and one of the bikes has another 2k of revs, that's real HP.  I usually ride my Guzzi over 4k.  Now I know the Cal 14 doesn't need to be rev'd and it really goes.  That's also why the C14 will just trounce a Harley.  I was wondering if it was faster than the Indian too.

[Kev m]

if you say that both bike have similar torque and one of the bikes has another 2k of revs, that's real HP.  I usually ride my Guzzi over 4k.  Now I know the Cal 14 doesn't need to be rev'd and it really goes.  That's also why the C14 will just trounce a Harley.  I was wondering if it was faster than the Indian too.

Facts not in evidence.

Do we have a 1/4 mile time from the MCN test yet?

Don't be so sure about trouncing.

And similar torque means similar feel in the power range. That doesn't mean that power range is the same or they both pull the same at the same rpm. For all I know I might have been shifting the Cali at 1-2k higher rpm.

They might be "similar", but I haven't compared them THAT closely, and if not, then it's a huge assumption to think the Cali outpulls the 119 ft. lbs. of the Indian just because it revs more, even if it's making 20% less torque at peak (though I admit the lower weight probably makes them close).

[Kev m]

Cycle World is putting the Cali 1400 Custom at 12.48.

I see RK times anywhere from 11-14...but no times yet on the new higher output motor. If I had to guess I'd say a hair slower stock than the Cali, but Harley always leaves something on the table in that category that Guzzi doesn't.

Bet a mild tune to the RK would match the Cali, but the same to the Cali wouldn't yield much (if anything).

[Chuck in Indiana]

An 11 second Road King??  ::) JATO assist?  ;D

[LowRyter]

Facts not in evidence.

Do we have a 1/4 mile time from the MCN test yet?

Don't be so sure about trouncing.

And similar torque means similar feel in the power range. That doesn't mean that power range is the same or they both pull the same at the same rpm. For all I know I might have been shifting the Cali at 1-2k higher rpm.

They might be "similar", but I haven't compared them THAT closely, and if not, then it's a huge assumption to think the Cali outpulls the 119 ft. lbs. of the Indian just because it revs more, even if it's making 20% less torque at peak (though I admit the lower weight probably makes them close).

Kev, I thought you rode both bikes and could let us know the answers......... All I know is the Cal 14 is much better performer than the Harley.  I was hoping to know how it stacked against the Indian.  We can speculate all day long.  I'd like a bike that revs more than 5k.

[oldbike54]

An 11 second Road King??  ::) JATO assist?  ;D

1/8th mile  :D
Dusty

[LowRyter]

Cycle World is putting the Cali 1400 Custom at 12.48.

I see RK times anywhere from 11-14...but no times yet on the new higher output motor. If I had to guess I'd say a hair slower stock than the Cali, but Harley always leaves something on the table in that category that Guzzi doesn't.

Bet a mild tune to the RK would match the Cali, but the same to the Cali wouldn't yield much (if anything).

12.5 second touring bike is a freaking rocketship.  I'm not sure what you're saying about RK times but 14.5 would be typical.  Add bags to the Custom and it's still 13 second (magazine time) machine.  Seat of pants tells me the Cal14 has at least second a half on the RK.

I've ridden too many Harleys to know that they aren't in the same league.  I've ridden some scary fast "built" Harleys that are real fast- not what I'd call tourers.  Have a buddy with a $35k screaming eagle full boat tourer.  No way it will stay with a Cal 14, straight line, much less in the curves.

[Stormtruck2]

An 11 second Road King??  ::) JATO assist?  ;D

1/8th mile  :D
Dusty

and a slow finger on the watch start button, and a fast one on the stop button. :D ;)

[Kev m]

I didn't say the 11.something second RK was stock lol.

That said I think you guys are over selling the Cali.

Here are some MCN numbers

TC88 Rk - 13.94
TC96 RK - 13.44

CVO (TC96?) Fat Boy - 12.6

I don't have stock numbers for a TC103, or the new high output 103, but every Harley I've ever seen dyno'd gains significantly from intake/exhaust/tune, much moreso than a Guzzi.

So if the TC96 stock was in the 13's it would not surprise me in the slight if two motor revisions later the RK's are in the 12's which would put them square in Cali territory.

Nevemind what a stage I tune should do.

And yes from seat of the pants the Indian and Cali are comparable. Which shouldn't trouble anyone since the Indian motor is significantly larger.

[oldbike54]

I thought we did not trust MCN  :D ;)  Of course those are probably "corrected" times .
Dusty

[Kev m]

I thought we did not trust MCN  :D ;)  Of course those are probably "corrected" times .
Dusty

Trust, yet verify.

They're certainly not Bible specs, but absent anomalies they seem relatively consistent and believable.

[LowRyter]

you wouldn't want to make a trip on RK that runs in the 11.  It would beat you to death.

I don't believe any stock Harley tourers will run in the 12s.  I've never ridden a Harley tourer that was as fast and smooth as the Cal 14.  Including the Screaming Eagle Version. 

I thought you'd ridden the Indian, Harley and Cal 14? 

[oldbike54]

Trust, yet verify.

They're certainly not Bible specs, but absent anomalies they seem relatively consistent and believable.

If we use the formula for how much HP it takes to accelerate a given weight in a certain time to a certain speed down a 1/4 mile , yes , those figures are very believable . Of course the rider makes a difference also . There was an article somewhere recently where bikes from different eras and engine type and size were 1/4 mile tested . Ricky Gadson , who primarily races production bikes, beat the times of Larry Mcbride , who is the fastest , quickest T/F bike racer . Proves something about technique .
Dusty

[Kev m]

you wouldn't want to make a trip on RK that runs in the 11.  It would beat you to death.

I don't believe any stock Harley tourers will run in the 12s.  I've never ridden a Harley tourer that was as fast and smooth as the Cal 14.  Including the Screaming Eagle Version. 

I thought you'd ridden the Indian, Harley and Cal 14? 

Didn't ride the new RK yet.

[LowRyter]

Didn't ride the new RK yet.

OK, but you've ridden other RKs?  I wouldn't think there's a big diff. 

So rate what you've ridden. 

[bad Chad]

I didn't say the 11.something second RK was stock lol.

That said I think you guys are over selling the Cali.

Here are some MCN numbers

TC88 Rk - 13.94
TC96 RK - 13.44

CVO (TC96?) Fat Boy - 12.6

Well Kev you may not have explicitly stated you were refering to stock bikes, but since thats all anyone of us have been talking about you implicitaly did!

But back to merky facts, MCN puts the 1400 custom at 13.3 sec in 1/4.

I don't have stock numbers for a TC103, or the new high output 103, but every Harley I've ever seen dyno'd gains significantly from intake/exhaust/tune, much moreso than a Guzzi.

So if the TC96 stock was in the 13's it would not surprise me in the slight if two motor revisions later the RK's are in the 12's which would put them square in Cali territory.

Nevemind what a stage I tune should do.

And yes from seat of the pants the Indian and Cali are comparable. Which shouldn't trouble anyone since the Indian motor is significantly larger.

[oldbike54]

I have two friends that traded 96 inchers for 103 inchers , both say the 96 was faster . Dunno myself , too big too heavy .
Dusty

[Kev m]

Low, the older RKs I've ridden were much slower but we're talking EVOs and TC88s, pretty different from the current iterations.

Chad, anyone with the slightest knowledge of motorcycles would know a range of 3 seconds in 1/4 mile times of a single model must implicitly include non stock examples. My point was just about not assuming too much.  :BEER: