ANY advantage of a Cali 1400 over a GRiSO 1100?

Hi. I've got a GRiSO 1100 with an electronic cruise control (and a waterproofed dash, and a big windscreen). There is a low-mileage California 1400 for sale near me. I know the straight-line performance capabilities of the two are similar.

Supposing I want to ride 1400 miles from Wisconsin to the Rockies and back, is there any reason I should buy the California, or would I just be stuck with an overweight turd?

I'm trying to keep myself sane here, in the plague time. By the way, I'm feeling older these days, at 71 years.

Moto

Heavier bike but much more grunt. Which version of the Cali 1400 is being offered?

Personally I would stick with the GRiSO - Cali 1400 - overweight turd, IMHO! The number of people that have damaged their feet just maneuvering around the carpark is quite astonishing, on the Calis!

kiwi dave wrote:

Heavier bike but much more grunt.  Which version of the Cali 1400 is being offered?

Yes, but according to published tests (by the defunct American publication Motorcycle Consumer News, using the same procedures, I recall), the extra grunt is essentially exactly balanced by the extra heft, and size. Same 1/4-mile time, same top speed. (This is for the 2-valve GRiSO -- the 8-value [sic] is faster.)

The offered bike is listed as a 2017 California Touring.

Moto

Oz1200Guzzi wrote:

The number of people that have damaged their feet just maneuvering around the carpark is quite astonishing, on the Calis!

Thanks! I didn't know that.

M.

Yeah the footboards have a habit of trapping your foot under them. It's probably why some find the Audace a little better - it has conventional footrests.

Oz1200Guzzi wrote:

Yeah the footboards have a habit of trapping your foot under them. It's probably why some find the Audace a little better - it has conventional footrests.

My brother had a C14 Touring.

He traded his 8v Norge for it.  

I liked the Touring better than he did.  Very much like dancing with a fat girl who was a much better dancer than I am.  

One day in the Georgia mountains, Michael was going uphill on some very tight switchback turns on a seldom-travelled back road when -- he readily admits to poor judgment -- in executing the near 180º right-hander, he found himself at a dead stop, with his boot trapped under the left footboard!

He was worried -- with cause; I reprised his ride later with my Norge -- about leaning it enough to the right to free his foot without causing the C14 to topple over on top of him and slide down into the ravine.

He literally waited almost 20 minutes for some bubbas to come by and free him!

He traded the C14 after that for another Norge.

All of that said, the GRiSO v. California 1400 is way more than merely the classic apple-orange compo.  

If your concern is cross-country LD comfort, depends on your standards for that.  I have done numerous multi-rides on the GRiSO and found it just fine.  Then again, I have been told that I must have no nerve endings in my butt.  

And, someone here did an East-to-West coasts (& back!) romp last year and found it great.

OTOH, I recall that Pete Roper rode a Touring (or Classic, the models confuse me ) in the USA for many miles and pretty much pronounced it "a pig."  

If I were doing any LD on the Eye roads, there's no doubt in my mind I go with a C14.  I try never to ride the slab.  Back roads?  Even tho, IMO, after riding my brother's, I think the C14 (but NOT the MGX! ) is mighty nimble for its fighting weight, I'd take the GRiSO every time.

As with all moto things, YMMV.

Bill

P.S. I'll turn 74 this summer.

Bill,

As always, your comments are interesting and worth meditating on, with bourbon in hand. I have taken my GRiSO out and back to the Rockies, incidentally, and my butt didn't like it one bit.

I think I just had a case of fat-girl lust after all. The C14 Touring is really a GRiSO 1100, inflated, I think.

My problems boil down to three things, namely, Minnesota, South Dakota and Wyoming. If I really want to cross them I should get a nice seat like Kiwi Roy had for his Alaska trip, or I should tow my bike. Probably the latter.

Still, it would be nice to dance with that fat girl for a while....

I'm doing pretty well at 71, per my doctor. Hope to be hanging in there for a good while longer.

Best wishes,

Moto

The Cali 1400 looks different than the GRiSO.

The Cali 1400 rides differently than the GRiSO.

The best parts of the GRiSO are the looks and the ride.

Moto,

My wife and I had a Cali 1400 Touring for a while and I was actually quite impressed with it comfort and handling-wise, but it really depends on your planned route and the length of your legs. First, I would never choose the Cali over the GRiSO on mountain twisties which is where I generally prefer to ride, but on long stretches of Interstate it might prove to be a nice choice. As for leg length, I'm kind of a short-ass, but my knees fried from those big cylinders and I didn't enjoy that one bit.

My two cents - about what it's worth.

Pete (Street)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

But you look good on that Pete!

Way back in 2013 when they were launched I bought one for one of our big tours around the US. I knew I hated 'Cruisers' but I thought, "Never say never! I'll give it a try." It was, after all, what these sorts of bikes were supposedly made for. I thought pillion comfort would be better too.

Within a day we realised we had made a hideous and costly mistake!

The motor is, within its design parameters for the bike it's in, a gem. Tiny ports and a single, large enough, throttlebody do make it delightfully torquey. The re-introduction of the face cam shock absorber in the gearbox is also nice and of course it has cruise control which is wonderful.

Apart from that it is an utter turd. It has spindly forks that flex when pushed and no adjustment. Unforgivable to me. The rear suspension is a whole new level of pathetic! Words fail me. At anything other than 'Sedate Cruising' heavily laden it was a scary, wallowing, pig.

Did anyone else mention how heavy it is? And feels? Or how the fucking floorboards will try and cut your bloody feet off! Just before we arrived at Bill's place I'd managed to *Only just* avoid breaking my ankle due to an episode where I caught my foot under a board. This resulted in a tremendous outbreak of stress induced gout in that ankle that meant all the whole we were visiting I could hardly walk. I had to be ferried to Bill's garage on a fucking lawn tractor! Really embarrassing and just wrong!

Then there are the bags? Just call me 'Mr. Stupid' but if you are going to build a bike and call it a 'Touring' you'd think it would be equipped with detachable cases! No siree, not Piaggio! Impossible to easily pack, non detachable cases which means every night at every motel you have to laboriously unpack all your crap and put it on a trolley so you can look like a Polish refugee fleeing before a Panzer division when you take your belongings to your room!

Dear God I could go on but just let it be said that on that trip not a day went by when Jude or I didn't say "I wish we were on the Mana!" And the enraging thing is that I still had my lovely Mana 850 GT in California that we could of used if I hadn't been suckered into trying Piaggio's take on a 'Cruiser'!

If you feel that pouring molten gutta percha down the eye of your wedding tackle might be a wholesome and enjoyable diversion from your sorry existence in this vale of tears? By all means, buy a Cali Touring, (Or any of them if you want my honest opinion!). Otherwise skip the idea and do it on a proper motorbike or just hire a Toyota Camry for a month. It'll be far more enjoyable.

(The opinions above are mine alone. You are not obliged to agree with them but at least allow me the right to state them without being buried under a tsunami of hate.)

It's a rare day when Pete Roper says "Words fail me." Then, again, they didn't.

I don't mind his review of the C14, but I am somewhat offended by his reference to my "fucking lawn tractor."

In fact, I think I'll put pix of him in the trailer on ebay.

Seriously, I had forgotten the nondetachable panniers. My brother used a set of inner bags from his previously owned Breva 1100, but it was still a PITA for him on overnighters.

OTOH, Michael has since left Guzzis for a Ducati Multistrada, so his opinion is worthless.

I sure agree with Moto's most recent comment about the Great Plains. Have been thinking about a "last hurrah" run to the PNW to visit grands out there, followed by a southerly return. Every time I remember driving across Flatistan, I get second thoughts and check into shipping and other options. I know there is beauty there, but not, IMO, on a motorcycle in most of the riding seson. If, I suppose, one rides in the three days that wildflowers abound, it might -- might -- be tolerable. Otherwise, it's not for me.

Bill

Gentlemen,

Many thanks. A sad mistake has been avoided. I had forgotten so many details about these bikes.

Pete R., special thanks for your patient description of the design flaws, one more time, even though I now recall you've said it all before. Never, ever will you get even a ripple of hate from me for saying what you think and backing it up with reasons.

Bill, I have ridden across those plains several times and every time the single most beautiful sight has been the slow emergence of the Rocky Mtns on the western horizon. Things are getting worse out there, with an unrelenting pall and stench of forest fire smoke from June onwards, I understand.

I think maybe a better use of funds for me would be to get one of these MoTow hitches (https://motowus.com/product/fixed-tow/):

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

My Avalon has the required load capacity and the GRiSO is light enough. Examining the web description of this carrier I see that the old problem I had of the motorcycle tucking under the rear bumper when backing is avoided. Also, the rear wheel is off the ground, good for the shaft drive. Finally, you can load and unload it single-handed, and ride off at will!

Still a bit low-rent looking compared to the toy haulers out there, but I have no space in my driveway or garage for a trailer, and this thing fits in the trunk.

Moto

Moto,

Do that and save your other pennies for new wheel bearings, steering head bearings and suspension rebuilds - all of these will deteriorate with "backwards" use. Go get a folding trailer, they take up so little space.

Oz1200Guzzi wrote:

Moto,

Do that and save your other pennies for new wheel bearings, steering head bearings and suspension rebuilds - all of these will deteriorate with "backwards" use....

Hmm. I can see that this could be believed, but I don't see the reasons to believe it, yet.

Here is an edifying clip of a bike being towed, taken from the towing vehicle:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

One can see the whole motorcycle is attached by two simple straps around the rear wheel and rim(!). The handlebars are strapped to the motorcycle frame, immobilizing the steering axis.

The bike has two rocking motions, one rotating on the rear axle, and one an apparent side-to-side flexing of the hitch which is being caused by sideways deflections of the motorcycle, transmitted via the rear wheel bearings in the same way that happens when a sidecar is mounted.

The suspension is working normally, front and rear. It doesn't seem at all apparent how the suspension would "know" that the bike is moving backwards.

So, what about your specific points that these things "will deteriorate with backwards use":

1) the steering head bearings. The bearings are almost immobile since the steering is belayed. In fact, they are doing about as much moving as they would be if the motorcycle were headed in a straight line on its own down the highway, frontwards. The applied load is less because there is no rider on board and because the angle of elevation of the rear compared to the front is not sufficient to overcome that effect. Where is the extra deterioration coming from?

2) the suspension [rebuilds]. As said, the suspension, front and rear, is just pogoing up and down as usual, but with a lower load since the rider is missing. Where's the deterioration coming from?

3) the wheel bearings. First, the front wheel bearings. The video shows them operating normally, but again with a lighter load. There is no braking going on, and no sideways torquing from steering inputs. Where's the extra deterioration?

4) The rear wheel bearings are a different story! The rocking on the rear wheel axis doesn't look like a problem to me, compared with normal use, though I suppose you could worry about a flat spot being formed with enough time passing, since the wheel is not doing its normal rotation. The side-to-side torquing, a la a sidecar setup, is clearly something the bearings are not designed for. It looks relatively harmless, but this could be deceiving. After all, when going around a corner the bearings have to do the same job of keeping the bike upright as they would with a sidecar, though the loads are smaller once again because of the absence of a rider (and sidecar).

Sorry to run on and on. To sum up, I don't see a reason to worry about (1) - (3), but (4) is a possible problem. Do you have any particular evidence to offer on any of the points?

Rear wheel bearings are cheap to check, buy, and replace, compared to the cost of folding trailers. I don't think a failure of one or the other rear wheel bearing would be sudden and catastrophic, but I suppose it could be, so a periodic check would be in order.

I'm interested in the evidence that you might have concerning "deterioration ... with backwards use," and am open to evaluating it.

Thanks for raising the points!

Moto

Cheers Moto.

The whole front end is designed for unidirectional use i.e. travelling forward.

The front wheel bearings should in theory run backwards as well as forwards - having bearings running one way only will wear them in a certain way (slow but still there), running them backwards will allow them to wear in a different way - may actually not do any damage, but I am a little anal about these things

The front suspension is designed to soak up bumps with the energy transmitted up through the suspension (at the fork angle), and through the steering head. Hitting bumps in the road will put a sideways stress on the suspension components at an angle they were never designed to go - therefore expect some damage (how fast this can/will/might happen I do not know) to the sliders and stanchions - maybe seals too?

Steering head bearing also will be soaking up unnatural bumps due to the angle, so it is expected that there will be uncommon wear in that area.

all of these are much unloaded, as you say, however the fact that unnatural forces are being implied would indicate wear and tear that would certainly not be covered under a warranty (not that this is a consideration). Back in the 60s and 70s, it was quite common to put the front wheel into the boot/trunk of the towing vehicle, leaving the rear/back wheel to follow the vehicle. Pretty sure all of these (or the photos I have seen of them) were chain drive, often with the chain removed. This simply would not work on a shaft drive.

All of this is my conjecture of engineering design principles and how it applies to normal use. I am trained in looking at things that can go wrong and how to prevent that from happening. Maybe I am too anal to accept there will be no additional damage as damage happens under normal use. Maybe overcautious to boot.

As always this is my opinion and I wouldn't do it because of the reasons above. However the end decision is yours as it is your bike! I have a trailer that carries my bike and I worry about the tying down of the front and rear suspension while towing. Not the tying down specifically but what happens to the suspension when compressed for long periods of time. It's just me...

Good discussion though - thanks for challenging my opinion.

moto wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Why would you want to tow a car behind a motorbike?

My twobobsworth...
I really wanted to like and even buy a 1400 Cali, and nearly did. But I took it for a 300km test ride. At first it seemed excellent, but as the miles passed, I couldn't find a comfortable spot to keep my feet, and it became a problem. By the time I got back to the city I was cramping, and couldn't wait to give the bike back. My pillion hated it too. Similar stuff. She was used to the back of my Norge. Its really about the ergonomics. If you hesitate to do that ride on your GRiSO, look at improving the GRiSO's ergonomics. More comfortable seat/Airhawk cushion? Modify bars, suspension, footpegs? Or take the Cali for a very long ride and decide. Cheers.

Oz1200Guzzi wrote:

Do that and save your other pennies for new wheel bearings, steering head bearings and suspension rebuilds - all of these will deteriorate with "backwards" use. Go get a folding trailer, they take up so little space.

...

All of this is my conjecture of engineering design principles and how it applies to normal use. I am trained in looking at things that can go wrong and how to prevent that from happening. Maybe I am too anal to accept there will be no additional damage as damage happens under normal use. Maybe overcautious to boot.

As always this is my opinion and I wouldn't do it because of the reasons above. However the end decision is yours as it is your bike! I have a trailer that carries my bike and I worry about the tying down of the front and rear suspension while towing. Not the tying down specifically but what happens to the suspension when compressed for long periods of time. It's just me....

Hi Oz,

Thanks for your level-headed and courteous response.

After carefully reading your latest reply in its entirety, it seems you would not object to my saying you have presented absolutely no evidence for any of your feared deleterious effects of towing the GRiSO with the MoTow. So it might have been better to have said "I worry that these [components] will deteriorate" rather than "these [components] will deteriorate," in your first post. No matter. You've cleared that up now.

I continue to think that your arguments are unconvincing, mostly because the towed motorcycle is under less load without the rider(s) and luggage, and because its front suspension is suffering a less extreme rake, than it is when on its own. But there's no need to cavil about every little thing.

Perhaps ironically, your final worry -- not directed by you toward the MoTow, but toward your own trailering practice -- is well founded and well supported by the experiences of many riders. Strapping down either the front or rear suspension too tightly can lead to blown oil seals after a long, bouncy trip on a trailer. This happened to me once. The leakage is at least messy and might lead to replacing the seals. You should be careful, therefore, with your trailer.

I said "ironically" because one of the great strengths of the MoTow design is that it circumvents this exact problem by strapping the bike down not from the frame, but by the rear wheel rim and tire. This allows the suspension to work freely, as the motorcycle's designers intended. I think this is a particularly brilliant and bold choice, since many motorcycle owners might prefer to see some burly ratchet straps going up to the frame instead (to their possible later regret).

It's been interesting to discuss aspects of the design with you, but I fear I'm talking myself into prying open my wallet. Not sure whether I should be thanking you for that!

Best wishes,

Moto

I wrote a reply to this yesterday but unfortunately it had a brain fart and wouldn't load.

The gist of it though was to query why one would tow a bike in such a silly way? Does that bike have a belt drive? No. So why not just take the chain off and tow it on the rear wheel? The reason why most bikes would have to be towed without their rear wheel rotating is simply because the gearbox pinions spin on brinze bushings that are pressure fed. The engine has to be running for them to get lubrication. If you tow one of these with the rear wheel on the ground the gearbox will eventually seize.

With your GRiSO or any other Guzzi twin with the exception of the V7-II and possibly III which have an oil pump for this purpose driven off the input shaft the gearbox and bevelbox are fed entirely by splash. In the Nuovo Six Speed most of the main shaft bearings are 2RS sealed bearings that don't even need external lubrication!

Stick the front wheel in the chock and secure the tie downs and go. The only thing I'd be worried about would be the weight and security due to lateral forces.

I also have to say that I find Tony's arguments about wear unconvincing. I can't see any season why running a simple ball race contrary to its usual direction of spin is going to harm it. Nor can I see how either the steering or suspension would be upset by working 'In reverse' as it were. What would worry me far more if towing 'Front wheel down' as it were would be keeping the front wheel locked in such a way that it would track straight. If it isn't following the same track as the tow vehicle exactly it's going to exert high forces on steering head bearings, be murder on the tyre and try to twist out of the chock. It's a horrible idea.

At least we can have a "grown-up" discussion about this. I could substantiate this by the use of diagrams, however I am a lazy git and simply haven't the time right now.

Yeah I am being anal about bearing wear - that's me though. Steering head bearings are the most likely sacrificial part, with forces almost at 90 degrees to the intended design. Hitting a solid pothole or brick will try and bend the forks, similarly to running up the back of another vehicle though in the opposite direction. We have some common agreement but not everyone sees it my way - so be it. I wouldn't do it.

I'll leave it to the various proponents to do what they will.

Hey, any thread invoking unnatural forces has promise in my book!  Galilean, Newtonian or otherwise.  Well, maybe not Aquinas...Edit: speaking for myself, of course.

First, SMT -- if I may use your first name    -- I am quite fine with St. Thomas Aquinas.  

Second, Moto, not sure what your towing or fiscal constraints are, but have you considered a "real" (albeit open) trailer?

I have one of these -- [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] -- and like it. Lots.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]


Seriously, even my little POS '93 base Toy pickup can tow it. Can't find one quickly with my GRiSO on it, but that was taken when I picked up my brother's V7 in Georgia.

Speaking of "lots," lots of those for sale on web if interested, though the price differences between some of those and new are not much.  One almost suspects they are of the "But, Honey, I AM trying to sell it" sort.  

Heck, I know we are at some distance, Moto, so the offer may be impracticable, but you are most welcome to borrow mine for that trip.

As it's all aluminum, it is very light, c.500#, yet stable on the road.  I added a spare tire and Condor chock.  Kathi installed the latter, so no warranties and you'll have to sign a release if you borrow it.  


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]


Bill

I have mixed feelings about the one wheel tow hitch thingy and can see both sides of the coin on this one. In my opinion, this would make a great emergency motorcycle recovery method for those of us that don't have a trailer. It's small enough that the wife could manage to load it and bring to the rescue should one get stranded.
I wouldn't want use it to drag my bike for a planned long distance trip. with a trailer, you can see your bike behind you to monitor the straps etc. and other vehicles have a large object to focus on as opposed to the front profile of a motorcycle. This would ease my mind about getting the bike rear ended ( or is it front ended?) while travelling.

Dear All,

I am somewhat overwhelmed with the latest set of helpful responses. But let me deal with some that can be quickly dispatched:

Tony (sorry about the "Oz" earlier, it was only a matter of inattention), and SMT []: I was JUST thinking of invoking (sorry, Bill!) Thomas Aquinas when SMT mentioned him. I was about to tell Tony that as long as there would be no actual evidence involved, any further discussion would seem too much like disputing the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. I wouldn't be able to cope with that, and the best diagram in the world wouldn't help me at all. Give me data, says I, the old statistician.

I am very close to Chris's overall opinion. But I want to give a longer, hopefully somewhat thoughtful, reply to Pete R's excellent points and question, and I don't seem to have the mental juice to do it right now. So please consider this a "stub entry" as Wikipedia would call it, and I'll get right back as soon as I can (and I will aim to be concise).

As for Bill's wonderfully magnanimous and totally in-character offer, words fail me. At least for now. But regarding his photo of Kathi, his WIFE, installing a MOTORCYCLE CHOCK on a MOTORCYCLE TRAILER, I can only urgently direct his attention to the blues song lyrics, "Women be wise. Keep your mouth shut. Don't advertise your man!" (Genders adjusted, of course.)

Moto