The New Indian Chief Thunder Stroke 111 merged threadfest

[Kev m]

Yeah that would be cool . Compare lap times . Of course most potential buyers have no idea what the streets of willow are . As opposed to the famous willow loop in the Texas hill country where the average speed is what 35 mph ?
Dusty


Sent from a submarine in Oklahoma .

I would suspect the Guzzi would come out on top...












and again, MOST BUYERS in the category would give a flyingmothercumfukt hrougharollingjelly donut.

[redrider90]

BECAUSE 99% of buyers of ANY of those three bikes don't CARE about that, they're not gonna be racing twisties.

If they were there are about 50-100 other current model year bikes they could buy that would be better than all three buy a significant margin...

WAY MORE than the rch that the Guzzi squeaks out in this comparison.

I did not say anything about "racing" in the twisties. I said spirited riding in the twisties. Just because you are buying a cruiser does not exclude spirited riding in the twisties. They considered agility and sportiness in the article and Guzzi won on both of them. I bet zero percent of HD buyers consider handling important  or will even ride their bike in a spirited manner. The bike is incapable of it. I would expect Indian customers do not consider handling high on their list either but probably higher than HD owners. It may even win over some HDers because the Chief blows away the Harley.  Guzzi buyers I would bet 75% of them consider handling very important and not only that they will ride their bike in a spirited manner. They are buying a cruiser and they understand they are giving up handling compared to a lot of other bikes. But the 1400 is a great handling cruiser and that is the deal maker for a lot of 1400 Guzzi owners.

[Kev m]

I did not say anything about "racing" in the twisties. I said spirited riding in the twisties. Just because you are buying a cruiser does not exclude spirited riding in the twisties. They considered agility and sportiness in the article and Guzzi won on both of them. I bet zero percent of HD buyers consider handling important  or will even ride their bike in a spirited manner. The bike is incapable of it. I would expect Indian customers do not consider handling high on their list either but probably higher than HD owners. It may even win over some HDers because the Chief blows away the Harley.  Guzzi buyers I would bet 75% of them consider handling very important and not only that they will ride their bike in a spirited manner. They are buying a cruiser and they understand they are giving up handling compared to a lot of other bikes. But the 1400 is a great handling cruiser and that is the deal maker for a lot of 1400 Guzzi owners.

And having ridden them (except the Softail, screw that, there are MUCH better handling Harleys), I'm telling you that IF YOU'RE NOT RACING the differences are bullshit...they are rch's.

That's essentially what these normally sportbike riding guys are saying.

Again, I've run down, or out run sportbikes on lowered Harleys or touring models...it's about the rider more than the bike on the street.

And "Guzzi" buyers make up what 0.01% of the market? That's what I'm saying, the vast majority of buyers of this type of bike will never give a crap about the slight differences in performance.

[redrider90]

.And "Guzzi" buyers make up what 0.01% of the market? That's what I'm saying, the vast majority of buyers of this type of bike will never give a crap about the slight differences in performance.

OK so you made your point. How many 1400 owners on this list? I wonder if they are reading this thread. How many considered handling?
I am not a great rider so a better performing bike is going to make me a better rider.  You are looking at this from the elite rider's perspective and I am looking at it from the guy who does not drag his pegs through every corner. So a really good rider can take a mediocre bike and blow off the road a mediocre rider on a great sport bike.
I had a piece of crap HD and it almost killed me. I moved over to a 750 Ducati and all of a sudden I thought my last name was Cathcart.
I hear so many guys talking about the handling of the 1400 and you make it sound meaningless. I do not believe that for a second.

[Kev m]

OK so you made your point. How many 1400 owners on this list? I wonder if they are reading this thread. How many considered handling?
I am not a great rider so a better performing bike is going to make me a better rider.  You are looking at this from the elite rider's perspective and I am looking at it from the guy who does not drag his pegs through every corner. So a really good rider can take a mediocre bike and blow off the road a mediocre rider on a great sport bike.
I had a piece of crap HD and it almost killed me. I moved over to a 750 Ducati and all of a sudden I thought my last name was Cahtcart.
I hear so many guys talking about the handling of the 1400 and you make it sound meaningless. I do not believe that for a second.

No, my point of the opposite...that most riders are not elite, nor are they likely to need a bike that is.

You had ONE bad Harley, it almost killed you? REALLY? why? Cause you bought a model that was particularly for show and over rode the go?

[redrider90]

No, my point of the opposite...that most riders are not elite, nor are they likely to need a bike that is.

You had ONE bad Harley, it almost killed you? REALLY? why? Cause you bought a model that was particularly for show and over rode the go?

I did not say most riders are elite so we are in agreement. This is what I said: "You are looking at this from the elite rider's perspective". This is an elite rider's speaking "I've run down, or out run sportbikes on lowered Harleys or touring models...it's about the rider more than the bike on the street". And this is an elite rider talking " IF YOU'RE NOT RACING the differences are bullshit. That's essentially what these normally sportbike riding guys are saying".
  I would not ask a "normally sportbike guy" or someone who can run down a sport bike on a lowered Harley about the differences in handling between these bikes. You/they couldn't tell me anything. You/they live ride with a much better skill set than I do. So your perspective is not going to help me decide.
It is not why I bought the Harley or if I over rode it (which can also be done on that wonderful Duck) it's the "concept" that a better bike made me a better rider.  With the Duck  I could ride at the same speed or even a faster speed with the same skill set because I was riding a better handling bike. And you freaking criticize me with a made up story for overriding a show bike. No it was not a show bike and it was in the early 70s. I bought the Harley before the Ducati's had hit the show room floors and I didn't even know what a Guzzi was.  It was only a year later that I realized I want more performance even if I was not going to drag my pegs. I still say from what I have read in the threads on this list that handling is important to the guys who have bought the 1400.  :beat_horse  :beat_horse   I am sure you could not tell the differences I made in my Mille.... bitubos, Wirth progressive front springs, lowered narrower bars, euro jetted carbs, large caliper brakes.  I  am sure you would still out run me on your lowered Harley no matter what I did to my bike.  But I can say that it handles much better and I am a better rider for the modifications I have done. No doubt that is bullshit to the sportbike guys but I am not interested in what they think of my riding skills unless they are trying to help me be a better rider.

[LongRanger]

In my experience, the "better handling" bike enables you to have more confidence in your skills. You discover that you can ride it faster, smoother, etc., than the ill-handling bike. You chalk up your newfound prowess to the superior bike. I submit that if you now jump back on the ill-handling bike, you'll be able to ride it at a much higher level than you could before. Confidence is key.

[redrider90]

In my experience, the "better handling" bike enables you to have more confidence in your skills. You discover that you can ride it faster, smoother, etc., than the ill-handling bike. You chalk up your newfound prowess to the superior bike. I submit that if you now jump back on the ill-handling bike, you'll be able to ride it at a much higher level than you could before. Confidence is key.

No question confidence is a key and that riding a better bike will make you a better overall rider. Although I will say if I had experienced some significant exposure to a dirt bike I would be a much better roadie today. The HD I got into trouble with was no showie. I traded in a Full Dresser Pan head on a new "sleek" 72 FX Super Glide which was basically  a striped down 74 c.i. with a sportster front end.  It was AMF time at HD in those lean years. I put 12K miles on it in the 8 riding months available in central Illinois. It should have been labeled unsafe at any speed. I was following a 650 Triumph on some tight twitisties and we both got going to fast. I ground my clutch cover and it stated bouncing around. It had no brakes so that was not an option except to ride it out. After one particularly down hill decreasing radius lefty we both pulled over. Even Bob with his upsweep pipes and gobs of ground clearance said let's bring it down a notch or two. I remember taking my motorcycle endorsement on the Ducati when I moved to Georgia. The LEO doing the test said he had never seen anybody handle the test course with such ease. My reply was it's the bike not me.

[rocker59]

Hold up a second, "way slower"?

I disagree, almost a second may mean something on a drag strip, but it generally means jack dyke to how these bikes are ridden.
 

Maybe, but at the end of the quarter mile, the Guzzi would be 117 feet ahead of the Indian, according to the numbers posted on the previous page.

That's practically the next zip code.

[Kev m]

I think you're taking my comments the wrong way, let me try and explain it again...

I did not say most riders are elite so we are in agreement. This is what I said: "You are looking at this from the elite rider's perspective". This is an elite rider's speaking "I've run down, or out run sportbikes on lowered Harleys or touring models...it's about the rider more than the bike on the street". And this is an elite rider talking " IF YOU'RE NOT RACING the differences are bullshit. That's essentially what these normally sportbike riding guys are saying".
  I would not ask a "normally sportbike guy" or someone who can run down a sport bike on a lowered Harley about the differences in handling between these bikes. You/they couldn't tell me anything. You/they live ride with a much better skill set than I do. So your perspective is not going to help me decide.

NO, I'm FAR from an elitist with regards to my skills. I've been on the other side of that equation too, handily outridden a member of this board while I was arguably on a more capable machine.

My point was speaking to the capability of the average rider vs. the capability of the average machine, i.e. that MOST bikes today are FAR more capable than the riders.

There's no way that more than maybe a percentage of riders out there can use 10/10ths of a modern sportbike or even the top sport touring bikes.

And even if they could, do you think people should be riding that way in the street?

The types of bikes we're talking about (cruisers and tourers) are arguably the LEAST performance oriented bikes around these days, yet the bikes in this test review (even the largest and "slowest") are putting down 12 to 13 second 1/4 mile times, THAT'S WRX STI territory. That's as fast as some of the top dog muscle cars of the 60's.

Yeah, it's not all about a straight line, but how fast do you need to corner (see previous comment about sport bikes).

And if cornering speed IS your priority, then a Cali 1400 is just as much the wrong choice as the Harley or Indian.

Hell if SPEED is your priority, then a Cali 1400 is JUST AS MUCH THE WRONG CHOICE, because a SPORTBIKE today means 9 and 10 second 1/4 miles, maybe 11's for some of the SLOW ones.

If a second difference of the Cali is murdering the Indian, then the Cali shouldn't even get out of bed if you want to talk real speed.

With regards to the rider-not-the-bike. I don't think many people are going to argue that if you want to become a more skilled rider, you do that on a less capable, not MORE capable bike. The more capable the bike the easier it is to use the bike to make up for lack of skill. It's not just confidence, it's that it is just plain easier to go faster on a bike with better motor, better suspension, better brakes.

And personally I think TOO EASY to get a false sense of security with your speed relative to the environment around you. Most of the corners around here are blind, so how much do you want to risk on each of them. I mean if you can ride a slow bike at double that silly yellow "recommended" corner speed, do you REALLY need an even more capable bike to take it up another 10 or 20 mph in cornering speed?

My point about the differences between the Cali and Indian being BS is because EVEN the Indian is more capable than MOST riders and MANY sportbikes of decades ago.

It is not why I bought the Harley or if I over rode it (which can also be done on that wonderful Duck) it's the "concept" that a better bike made me a better rider.  With the Duck  I could ride at the same speed or even a faster speed with the same skill set because I was riding a better handling bike. And you freaking criticize me with a made up story for overriding a show bike. No it was not a show bike and it was in the early 70s. I bought the Harley before the Ducati's had hit the show room floors and I didn't even know what a Guzzi was.  It was only a year later that I realized I want more performance even if I was not going to drag my pegs. I still say from what I have read in the threads on this list that handling is important to the guys who have bought the 1400.  :beat_horse  :beat_horse   

Anyway, I wasn't criticizing you regarding the Harley, unless you think pointing out you over-rode the go is being critical. That said, you're talking about AN ANTIQUE, something that was built when I was in diapers. Seriously is everything you think about Harleys based on experience from LONG before my wife was even born?

Trust me, they're not the same anymore. SURE some are particularly low and for show (that includes the Softail from the article). But they're not all that way. And even the worst is still DECADES ahead of the 72 you referenced.

The Cali 1400 handles great, but it's still an RCH in the real world when compared to a lot of other cruisers and tourers, and it's still miles behind what a Sportbike or Sport Tourer is capable of.

And my point is IF YOU'RE THE TYPE OF GUY TO RIDE A CRUISER OR TOURER, then MOST LIKELY (sure there are exceptions) the RCH difference between the Indian and the Cali is going to mean nothing to you. And I think the market bears that out, the 0.01% of which are guys who currently chose the Cali 1400 being the exception, not the rule.

[Gary]

Putting the bike origins aside, it is still easy to understand how the writers came to their conclusion. As many of you, I have ridden them both and that of course is the only way to realistically compare them. I don't put much emphasis on stats; I don't even know how quick any of my past motorcycles covered the quarter mile. If it mattered, I suppose I wouldn't have bought my first California. If you want to brag about your ride, by all means pore over those stats until you're blurry eyed. That way they will be on the tip of your tongue when you are bench racing. If it is about the riding experience, then it is very personal and subjective. If handling was a priority to the testers, they probably would have (and should have) chosen something other than the HD Softail to test.

I was impressed with both the California and the Indian. I think I could be happy with either one. Having said that, a couple of short demo rides are hardly sufficient for me to fully understand and qualify the nuances of each of the bikes. Even so, to me the 1400 seemed a bit more like a big sports bike than a cruiser, except for the floorboard dragging of course. I never touched the Indians floorboard's on the 30 minute test ride. It was smooth, comfortable and it was apparent that it had a very stiff chassis. Between the two, it would be my choice for a touring cruiser. For local riding in the N. GA mountains, maybe I would give the 1400 the nod.

I suspect my pre-ride expectations factored into my opinion somewhat. Though I was very impressed with my demo ride on the Guzzi, I expected as much based upon previous ride reports. I was impressed but not really surprised. Prior to my ride on the Indian, I really did not have very high expectations. I expected it to be merely a footnote in my riding experiences. It was way, way more than that. I hope to ride both again this spring - who knows?

[rocker59]

And "Guzzi" buyers make up what 0.01% of the market? 

I think it's more like .001 !!!

[youcanrunnaked]

I question whether H-D makes better-handling Big Twins than the Softail.  In my experience, the solid-mount Softail frame is stiffer and handles directional changes better than the rubber-mount Dyna and FL models.  Where it falls down in handling is poor lean angles due to a lack of clearance.  The FL and Dyna bikes have a bit more cornering clearance, but it's not a huge difference.  So, IMO this is a case of six of one, half a dozen of the others.  The Softail feels less wiggly and holds a line better than the Dyna and FL models; the Dyna and FL models heel over just a bit further (which is still not much) but feel more vague while doing it.  I actually like the Softail chassis better, but, bottom line, in stock form they all handle like crap.  There is no Harley Big Twin that can come close to the handling of the California 1400 Custom. I think the complaint that this test involved a Softail instead of a Road King or some other Big Twin from H-D is a red herring.

I also think the difference in handling between the Harley and the Moto Guzzi is enough to be a selling point to a majority of riders in this category, if they would simply open their minds to the possibility that just maybe Harley-Davidson is not the only motorcycle on the planet worth owning.  It is way too easy for a rider of even meager abilities to out-ride the capabilities of H-D's bikes.  If H-D buyers didn't know or care about this, why is there an aftermarket for Harley suspension upgrades?  Regardless of riding abilities, if given the choice, who would not want a better-handling, quicker-turning, shorter-stopping, more comfortable-riding motorcycle?  The feeling of security and being in control of the machine (not to mention the fun factor) is so much greater on the California 1400 Custom than on any Harley Big Twin that I cannot imagine an honest A-B comparison resulting in any rider saying, "Nah, I don't need all that capability; give me the Harley."

Having not yet ridden the Indian bikes, I have no opinion on how they compare.  If Polaris has managed to make a bike that can hang with the Moto Guzzi, despite being 2" longer and 100 lbs. heavier, then they are to be congratulated.

[Kev m]

I also think the difference in handling between the Harley and the Moto Guzzi is enough to be a selling point to a majority of riders in this category, if they would simply open their minds to the possibility that just maybe Harley-Davidson is not the only motorcycle on the planet worth owning.  It is way too easy for a rider of even meager abilities to out-ride the capabilities of H-D's bikes.  If H-D buyers didn't know or care about this, why is there an aftermarket for Harley suspension upgrades?  

By that logic BMW and Guzzi suspensions are all shit too. Hell, there are plenty of guys on the Ducati board who upgrade there suspension.

The only thing that tells us is that no matter what the OEM provides, some people are going to be dissatisfied.

You obviously know I already disagree about the handling comparison. And I'm not talking about feel or preference, but actual performance, what it CAN or CANNOT do.

And in that sense, I think the current Dyna and FL both handle fine, and better than the Softail (and I think the differences in lean angle are not insignificant).

Hell, the Softail they chose is the 5th least capable of leaning bike that Harley builds (better only slightly than the Superlow, and a bunch of other Softails, and even then only by about 1 degree of lean):

(degrees lean left / right)

Softail Deluxe - 25.8 / 26.7

vs.

Road King - 33 / 31

Meanwhile EVERY SINGLE Dyna and FL offer from 5-7 degrees more lean angle, that's about 20-26% more lean angle.

[youcanrunnaked]

Kev, I almost deleted the line about aftermarket suspension bits, because I knew you wouldn't let me get away with it.  Still, on H-D forums, is it not the consensus that their bikes are grossly under-sprung and lack suspension travel and cornering clearance?  My impression is that the spring weights they select at the factory can barely hold up the weight of their bikes, sans rider.

As for the Softail vs. Road King comparison, I stand by what I wrote.  Handling is not just about lean angle.  I find the Softail chassis substantially stiffer and more confidence-inspiring than the wet-noodle feeling I get whenever I ride an FL bike (even an '09 or newer bike).  The lean angle differences are marginal IMO because I scrape floorboards on either bike -- at moderate to slow speeds, just by making a turn at an intersection.  I will admit that on paper, a 20% difference seems like a lot.  Out on the street, I don't feel it.  Maybe because I would not want to lean a Road King to its limit, given how wobbly it feels while doing so, whereas I would lean a Softail to its limit with more confidence.

[Kev m]

Lol

On the suspension, I think Harley prioritizes (and balances) low ride heights and comfort, neither of which really benefits cornering. But under sprung or more often improperly adjusted?

I still say you're talking preference and not capability with regards to the FLH/FXD vs FXST cornering comparisons.

And I won't question your preferences.

[rocker59]

MOST BUYERS in the category would give a flyingmothercumfukt hrougharollingjelly donut.

I agree.

I only want the lap times for my own personal curiosity.

[redrider90]

  once you ride them, it's no contest  :bike

So what are your impressions (if you already posted them I missed it) as to the no contest.

[LowRyter]

So what are your impressions (if you already posted them I missed it) as to the no contest.

I have posted quite a bit.  I don't own a Cal 14 but would like to.  I've ridden the new Indians, some Victories and most Harleys.  I've ridden both the Cal Custom and the Touring model with my wife.

When I said no contest, it was based on riding experience, meaning the Cal is much sportier:  More power, smoother, faster, better handling, better balance, more maneuverable and better brakes.

I've written all over about my impressions.   :beat_horse

[Thunderbox]

I suppose, the big distinction with HD, Ducati, and Guzzi vs Indian, Norton, etc. is that they've been in business continually and still occupy thier original factories.  (though HD has grown well beyond Milwaukee).

Polaris is getting ready to knock a home run with Indian.  So, despite no ties to Springfield, the brand has an identity and will be successful on its own level with the Polaris clout behind it.

So a Triumph isn't a Triumph because they didn't make a bike every year.  Nortons are not Nortons? I don't remember reading on Wiki that a manufacturer had to build in every year to keep the name.  You only need look at the new ones to see they are all Indian.

[rocker59]

So a Triumph isn't a Triumph because they didn't make a bike every year.  Nortons are not Nortons? I don't remember reading on Wiki that a manufacturer had to build in every year to keep the name.  You only need look at the new ones to see they are all Indian.

Geez, man.  This argument goes round and round.

Bloor bought Triumph out of bankruptcy, licensed production of Bonnevilles to a 3rd party between 1983 and 1987, while building a new factory to build new bikes, which started in 1988 on a limited basis.  Personally, I believe Triumph does have an unbroken lineage, though many people disagree.

Norton is not Norton.  The current Norton is the brainchild of an American named Greer who ended up selling his company to some Brits.  Sure, they own the name, but the current Norton is not directly linked to the original.  Really kick-ass bikes, though.

Indian.  Really?  You want to talk about the Polaris Indian like it has lineage to Springfield Mass?  Polaris have done a bang-up job with the new bike.  It's going to be very successful.  Does the company have a lineage to the original.  No.  Other than the name, there is no direct lineage.  Great tribute, though.  I'd ride one.   ;-T

[segesta]

How many 1400 owners on this list? ... How many considered handling? 

At least one, and I did.

But for me it wasn't about 'twisties' handling--I live in Illinois, for god's sake; drive one mile, turn 90 degrees, and repeat--but neutral handling at very low speeds. Because I'm going to be in a parking lot trying to turn my 700 pound beast more often than I'm scraping the foot boards around a sweeper. And I refuse to 'duck walk' my motorcycle. Anyway, guess what: at walking/parking lot speeds, the California 1400 handled far better than the competition, namely the Road King, Softail Deluxe and Triumph Thunderbird. Giggle derisively if you want, but that was one of my criteria; this is the real world.

For what that's all worth...

[redrider90]

At least one, and I did.

But for me it wasn't about 'twisties' handling--I live in Illinois, for god's sake; drive one mile, turn 90 degrees, and repeat--but neutral handling at very low speeds. Because I'm going to be in a parking lot trying to turn my 700 pound beast more often than I'm scraping the foot boards around a sweeper. And I refuse to 'duck walk' my motorcycle. Anyway, guess what: at walking/parking lot speeds, the California 1400 handled far better than the competition, namely the Road King, Softail Deluxe and Triumph Thunderbird. Giggle derisively if you want, but that was one of my criteria; this is the real world.

For what that's all worth...

As a formed Chicagoan I can attest the drive one mile turn 90 degrees drive another 2 miles turn 90 degrees. For those you of not familiar with C-Town it is set up on a 90 degree grid. Every thing is nothing but rectangles except for what 4-6 diagonal streets running out to downtown in opposite directions from each other It is the Anti-Washington DC. You get lost in Chicago you are stupid.

[Stormtruck2]

 You get lost in Chicago you are stupid.

I don't know about being stupid if you get lost in Chicago, but I do know that in a semi you can't get there from here. A 13' 6" trailer in Chicago, and your destination is always on the otherside of a 10' 6"overpass.  An even if the overpass says 13' 7", DON"T BELIEVE IT!  Chicago is great at repaving the road and not changing the clearance signs.  Now that I yank a tank insted of a reefer, I don't hate driving Chicago as much as I used to.  ::)

[cruzziguzzi]

I don't know about being stupid if you get lost in Chicago, but I do know that in a semi you can't get there from here. A 13' 6" trailer in Chicago, and your destination is always on the otherside of a 10' 6"overpass.  An even if the overpass says 13' 7", DON"T BELIEVE IT!  Chicago is great at repaving the road and not changing the clearance signs.  Now that I yank a tank insted of a reefer, I don't hate driving Chicago as much as I used to.  ::)

Yup, been there done that!

Sure your rig'll clear... at the front of the trailer - you just can't always transition once engaging the decline on one side and the incline on the other. We used to call it "low centering" like "high centering" off road.

Is it in point of fact 13' 6" from the road to the bottom of the overpass? Sure, at least before the last 7 re-surfacings. Can you get a 53' (let alone our old 40 footers) trailer under there? Nope.

[oldbike54]

I am always lost in Chicago , or DC , or NYC , or pretty much anywhere . Makes life more exciting , adds an air of uncertainty . Hey , how did THAT get here .
Dusty


Sent from a submarine in Oklahoma .

[Triple Jim]

I grew up a few miles outside of DC and never really got the hang of navigating that city.  Every time I started to do well, they'd make another street 1-way.  I remember once being able to see the building I was trying to get to, and by the time I followed 1-way streets for a while trying to get there I was about a mile away and lost.

[rocker59]

It's not just Chicago.  This underpass on North Gregson Street in Durham NC claims quite a few victims!   :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzkWTcDZFH0

http://11foot8.com/about/

[Lannis]

It's not just Chicago.  This underpass on North Gregson Street in Durham NC claims quite a few victims!   :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzkWTcDZFH0

http://11foot8.com/about/

That's pretty funny.    Some of the guys pulling campers didn't even stop when the bridge peeled off the top of their camper ... just made the next left and rolled on.

On the other hand, what else do you do?   I expect that going back and picking up the pieces out of the roadway would be neighborly ....

Lannis

[Kev m]

I wonder if the new Indian would fit under that bridge... 8)