– Motorcycle News, Editorials, Product Reviews and Bike Reviews

Motorcycle News, Editorials, Product Reviews and Bike Reviews

MD First Look: Motus MST Sport-Tourer

When I hear the phrase “new American motorcycle,” I usually roll my eyes and groan—how many chrome-laden, raked-out customs does the world really need? But when I saw pictures of the new Motus MST I knew there would be no eye-rolling here—unless it was from the ecstasy of being punched back in my seat by the 161 horsepower and 122 ft.-lbs. of torque promised by its unique V-Four powerplant.

Katech Engineering, a supplier of top-shelf racing engines, designed the KMV4 motor. It uses pushrods and a V configuration, but that’s where similarities between this bike and any other motorcycle built in the USA end. Sure, it’s dripping with good ol’ USA traditions—it’s essentially a scaled-down (and chopped in half) version of the famous LS7R motor from the GT1 Corvette, complete with two-valve per cylinder heads with hydraulically adjusted lifters and the aforementioned pushrods—but it’s also packed with 21st-Century high tech. Fueling is by direct injection—something becoming more common in cars but not seen before on a production motorcycle—which means fuel is sprayed directly into the cylinder head for optimum power and efficiency. Displacement is 1650cc, and the very compact mill weighs in at just 130 pounds. The power peak is at 8000 rpm (blame the pushrods and hydraulic adjusters, but with that much torque, who’s complaining?) and I’m going to go out on a limb and predict a particularly orgasmic exhaust note.

The chassis is also something not often (okay, ever) seen on American bikes. Developed by the uber-engineers at Pratt and Miller (developer of many winning racecars and engineers to aerospace and military clients), it’s a Ducati-ish chromoly steel trellis design that uses the KMV4 as a stressed member. With dual counterbalancers to smooth out secondary vibrations, it should be smooth as butter pudding, which means a lighter frame, which means a lighter bike. In fact, the bike should be around 550 pounds with its six-gallon fuel tank topped off. The wheelbase is a sporty 58 inches, and final drive is by a good ol’ chain. Suspension is fully adjustable, and brakes are monstrous rotors with radial-mount, four-piston calipers. An MST-R will also be available with full Öhlins suspenders and Brembo brakes. And carbon-fiber bodywork, of course.

Speaking of bodywork, the Motus’ is minimalistic, but functional. It’s enough to keep the wind off the rider, but not enough to conceal what may arguably be the coolest motorcycle powerplant ever made (suck it, Morbidelli!). There’s also a pair of big Givi sidecases and a wide, scooped-out saddle that’s extra-narrow at the front to let any rider firmly put both feet down.

So this looks like good news and bad news. The good news is it may be the ultimate sport-tourer for all us aging gearheads. Smooth, torquey, good-handling and packed with cool details. It’s the kind of motorcycle I’d imagine airline pilots would ride. With ergonomics “almost identical to Yamaha’s FZ-1,” according to  Motus co-founder Brian Case and that giant gas tank (which should provide a genuine 300 mile range, if the claims of great efficiency are to be believed), the MST may be hard to beat as a sport-tourer.

The bad news is that it’s not really a mass-market bike. According to a New York Times blog post about the bike, Case says Motus will build just “hundreds of bikes per year, not thousands.” Bad news for those of us looking for performance and comfort. I’m guessing the bikes won’t be cheap, either. Nor should they be. It’s pretty clear that demand for a truly American sportbike is small, which means small numbers and big prices—just look at Erik Buell Racing, Roher and Fischer.

Case and Motus President Lee Conn will now be taking the bikes around the country to drum up public support and possibly some dealers. Let’s hope MD gets offered some seat time when they reach the West Coast.


  1. Mackle says:

    I like it. It’s a start. Motus: get a hold of Mackle, send me one of these like the one in the picture and we’ll get you selling these.

  2. Frank B. says:

    You either like it or you don’t. I like it and would like
    it more if it had belt drive. I’m sure they will address
    the heat factor or they won’t sell any. But, it would make
    night and cold day riding more enjoyable. For the hot 90°+
    days, I’ll stick to anything air-conditioned anyway. I’m
    glad that not everyone likes it, because otherwise we would
    all be riding the same thing, how boring would that be?
    Or there would be a long waiting list like Packers season tics.
    The real question is: what will it cost and will it be
    durable enough to stay out of the shop.

  3. JN says:

    Nice bike! But if it is a limited production (thousand per year), they may as well shut it down. For 20K a pop, I can see the new 2011 BMW R/K series is more appealling. The livelihood of getting parts and after-market support is zero; thus, the life expectancy of the bike is very much short. It is a fail business model from the start. They may as well do custom chopers.

  4. Tom Barber says:

    After taking a second look at this, my thought is that even given the starting assumption to use this particular engine, I would have been strongly motivated to try and make it work with the engine rotated the other direction. Given the intent to use a chain drive and the need for the transmission to be oriented transversely, the 90-degree bevel gear between the transmission and the engine would have been avoided if the engine had likewise been oriented transversely. The torque reaction effect “flywheel effect” would also have been avoided. And it just looks to me like this would have allowed the transmission to move a little further forward, tucked alongside the crankshaft and kind of in under the rear pair of cylinders, with the exhaust plumbing routed over the transmission.

    • MikeD says:

      WEll, if they intend to keep it chained or belted…yes, by all means Transversal.
      Only thing i see it would be a bear could be the HOT exhaust rauting off the rear bank and the Shock location (a longer swing arm to house the routing and shock ?), A WHOLE different frame…meh…maybe is one of those ” let’s not open another can that “could be full” of worms” case thats best to leave it alone as is now.

      • Tom Barber says:

        Well yes, the frame would have to be different, and the swing arm might change, and the shock. Don’t know if it would be hotter. Maybe. But the chassis was designed around the engine and the decision was likely made early to orient it this way, and to orient the transmission the other way, and put a 90-degree bevel gear between them. It would be interesting to know their reasoning when they made this decision. It just looks to me like the transmission is located a good bit further to the rear than it would be if the engine had been turned the other way.

  5. Glenn says:

    the front end kind of resembles the old boxer R1100RS

  6. Vanson1200R says:

    USA! USA!

  7. Home Skillet says:

    Finally, an American motorcycle manufacturer that is not stuck to a V twin engine.

  8. Irv H says:

    The chain drive is probably a temporary measure until they get emissions, fit and finish sorted out. The basic idea is good: GM spent billions on engine design, and the parts are sitting on a shelf waiting to be used. If they had started with a single cylinder dual-sport/ scrambler concept(or parallel twin), they could have got to production much sooner.

    • MikeD says:

      WOW, NO…is not like that. It’s components are similar but not the same to the point as to go to any GM dealer with a GM Part# and ask for “drop-in” replacements.

      • Irv H says:

        so Motus is going to redesign the piston, conrod, valves and pushrod? Why not start from scratch? Anyway, this is nothing new. V-twins based on pushrod v8s have been around for a while. This is what HD should have done instead of going to Porsche for a new v twin.

        • MikeD says:

          They started from scratch (it just so happens that the KMV4 SHARES a “similar” architecture to the LS Engines) like the one used on the LeMan Winning Corvette tricked by KATECH (who happens to design/build the KMV4 for MOTUS).

  9. John H. says:

    A “New American Motorcycle” in 2011, to be produced in limited numbers, and sold at a premium price… that runs on gasoline. If you want to build an American motorcycle, it should burn cng. Love the bike, but I’m not going to buy a new one that runs on gas. It’s not like you’re going to produce a boatload of these things at the start. You could probably sell them all in California and still have a waiting list. After a year or two, everyone would want one.

    If someone doesn’t do it soon, HD will eventually stumble onto it… then we’ll be stuck with another 100 yrs of cruisers.

    • Charlie says:

      CNG requires a fuel tank shaped like a hotdog – one large enough to give any meaningful range would dominate the design of the vehicle. I really don’t want to ride a motorcycle that looks like the Oscar Mayer “Weinermobile”, no matter who builds it.

      I guess you could have a normal motorcycle and carry the tank on a sidecar frame – the passenger could just straddle the tank like Slim Pickens straddled the nuclear bomb in “Dr. Strangelove”. 😉

      • John H. says:

        My point is, if you’re going to hire a team of “uber-engineers” to design and build a “New American Motorcycle” from the ground up, why aren’t you building it to burn cng? Yes, there are challenges, but it’s certainly not impossible.

        Gas is getting more expensive. We’re at peak oil and demand is still increasing. CNG is the future of transportation fuels in the US. You’d have to be a fool to buy a new vehicle that runs on gas. The used motorcycle market is saturated with lightly used and holdover gas-burning bikes. Why buy a new one? Because the exhaust note sounds cool? How’s that working out for HD lately? I like the Motus, and I don’t mean to unfairly call it out and not other bikes. But if you’re going to build a NEW AMERICAN MOTORCYCLE, you better be bold enough to build it for the new American future.

      • Blackcayman says:

        Charlie – a good laugh…just what I needed! Thanks for a great post!

    • Old town hick says:

      And WHERE would one get a fill up for this outside the big city limits?

  10. Tom says:

    8000 rpm? My 25 year old Honda Nighthawk 700 with hydrualic valves revs higher than that.

    • sliphorn says:

      So, your point is…………What? It revs higher? That’s it? That’s all you got? Wow.

    • MikeD says:

      It’s a sport-tourer not a SuperSport replica.
      1650cc, 160HP and 120 TQ…no need to rev it to the moon to get things going.
      Revvving to the moon and all its related noise and racket gets really old after a while and it’s kind of pointless on this segment, plus im almost positive it won’t help in longevity and fuel economy matters.

      No, i don’t want a Harley. Just in case someone goes there.

      • denny says:

        You have good point here: indeed why to rev to the moon? Part of getting out HP, of course. If HPs are getting out thru massive torgue, the equation is kept alive with less noise and consumption. I like that thinking, it makes snse.

  11. Paddy C says:

    I hope the price isn’t $20k+
    The Motus looks like it has potential but, I would like to see:
    1) Instead of a chain, how about a belt drive? Lighter than a chain and no parasitic
    power loss or swing arm movement like a shaft. I don’t know if a belt can handle
    the torque of 120+ ft.lbs. but a belt would give us long distance guys a break
    from lubing our chains once or twice a day while on long trips.
    2) Some serious thought has to be given on shielding the rider’s knees from
    those hot engine heads…Insulated pants? Dunno, but after printing the Motus
    photos, enlarging the photos and establishing a scale, then calculating where my
    knees will be in relation to the seat height and peg location, this design puts
    my knees right next to the heads. Ouch!

    > I realize this is a prototype, and Honda figured it out on the ST1100/1300’s
    and I’m sure these guys will do the same.

    • Norm G. says:

      check this video of the bike from a day or 2 ago in daytona. the hot heads don’t seem to be a problem any more than a guzzi…? for what threat their is/was, it seems they’ve wisely turned to the miracle of carbon fiber. light weight, super-insulating, and “purrty”. why, that’s a tri-fecta… 🙂

      • Paddy C says:

        Thanks for the link Norm. I’m a bit tall@ 6’3″ with a 34″ inseam, it appears that the rider in the video is 6′ or a bit under, anyhoo if my diagram and scale is even close to being accurate (it is) my numbers don’t lie.

        My knees will be right next to the aluminum sides of the heads (not the cf cover) We shall see. Cheers!

  12. burt says:

    It is different enough and has enough plusses,
    so it seems like a good thing for Americans to
    be doing with their time and money, both the
    makers and the purchasers, and those of us entertained
    by reading (and writing) about such bikes.
    Italians haven’t let small markets, high prices,
    and exclusivity stop them. I say we Americans
    can only benefit from going ahead with our
    two-wheeled passion–tiny markets needn’t be
    damning. This kind of thing gives me hope for
    motorcycling’s future, especially since it is
    a “lowly” sport-tourer and not some kind of pure
    sport/racing exotica, not that there isn’t room
    for those too.

  13. Norm G. says:

    just watched some more youtube videos on motus (go specifically to their dedicated channel). it’s time now for the sobering, $64,000 dollar question (that all good CPA’s and IRS agents would ask)… where’s the money coming from…?

    russians don’t take a dump without a plan and a firm like P&M doesn’t “hop to” based on a customer’s good looks.

  14. Dave says:

    Nice bike. Always good to see something new in the pipeline. It’d make a great addition to the garage, but I’m sure it’s gonna come in North of the $20k mark. Too bad…I’d love to see an American motorcycle company rise to dominate the market like HD dominates the cruiser niche.

  15. Theo says:

    Here’s a deal-breaker: C.A.R.B.

  16. bikerrandy says:

    Since I can’t read all the 100 comments right now, there’s something else missing….a centerstand.

  17. cory says:

    2nd that Ruefus.
    The thing sounds awesome in the promo vid.

  18. Danny says:

    Demand for a reliable and affordable, truely American sportbike is not small. No one has ever produced such a bike.

    • Norm G. says:

      hey hey, easy with that kind of talk. let us not devalue the labors of erik the past 20 years. as the wise men say, “you can always spot the pioneers, they’ll be the ones with arrows in their backs”.

  19. Wilson R says:

    No shaft drive makes this a losing proposition.

    • Ruefus says:

      Says you. I find the lack of shaft drive quite appealing.

      Screw conformity.

    • Fuzzyson says:

      Absolutely agreed!

    • Stinky says:

      I’m not that big a fan of shafts, but this motor spins the right direction for a shaft and to spin a chain a different direction just added inefficency and complexity.

    • bipedal says:

      Chains rule 🙂

    • MikeD says:

      Ok, since we all are being picky let me have a Concentric System like what Husqvarna and BMW use on their dirt bikes. No funky torque reaction and no loosening and tightening of the belt(cause i want a BELT, no DIRTY MESSY CHAIN)=no adjustments (at least for a really long time).

      P.S: Shaft drives are cool(when not leaking), i have fixed some leaking ones and it is a pain if it ain’t something u do for a living and have the right tools. Belts have the best of both Shaft and Chain. Just this man’s opinion.

      • Stinky says:

        I own shaft, belt, chain. Like the belt best. Chains are a pain, but they are cheap, in the short term. This motor should be turned if they’re gonna use belt or chain. I like it like it is and it needs a shaft. I’ve not experience the leakage problems but with a motor spinning this direction you have to change direction in the box with space constraints or outside where it can be worked on if need be. My Beemers have missed repairs so far, first 25 years.

  20. toad says:

    Very nice looking bike. It’s a shame it’s planned for limited production. If it works as good as it looks what a waste it will be for less than 1% of motorcyclists to be able to afford it.

  21. Zombo says:

    The president should get one of these . Just so people can say look there goes the POTUS on his Motus !

  22. Gary says:

    Interesting that it is not shaft-drive. The motor is oriented in a way that shaft would make sense.

    Unless they can scale production up with higher demand, I won’t be able to afford one.

    • rapier says:

      I wonder if this is a first? The first longitudinal cranked bike that isn’t shaft drive. It looks like having to make that tranny output shave do a 90 degree turn takes up quite a bit of space. I suppose all in all an easier job than designing the shaft drive chassis. For all that HP and the intended purpose shaft makes more sense but engineering is always compromise. Shaft has it’s own compromises and limitations.

      If it were me I’d make it a twin 750 to 1000 with a belt drive super charger in the V.

    • Norm G. says:

      from that center pick (sans gearbox), is it possible they’ve designed this engine in american V-twin/automobile fashion to be modular…? albeit for a slight weight penalty, this V4 reciprocating assembly could be mated to 2 different transmissions. one supporting chain/belt final drives, then another supporting a shaft final. they could also support 2 different mounting orientations. longitudinal mounting (as shown) or the sportier transverse mounting. that would beget 4 transmission options in total and allow them to spin off a myriad of completely different vehicle/motorcycle designs. if they’ve done that (by the powers invested in me), i will bestow upon them the title of “genius”. 🙂

  23. deweyd says:

    I am more than willing to concede that those Motus guys are engineering whiz kids. Can’t they, then, find a way to engineer those urine sample jars off of their prominent perch on the bars? Man, I really hate that look.

  24. Zuki says:

    Basically about the same amount of power as the BMW K1600 GT but minus about 95 lbs. of engine weight, and a lot more weight overall.

  25. Charlie says:

    I predict that the engine will outsell the bike 3 to 1 – there are a lots of folks interested in it and there is already development going on pushing the output to 200 + bhp.

    Overall, I’m very impressed with what Motus has achieved in such a short period of time.

  26. Zuki says:

    I hate to be one to write up a huge ranting paragraph or two or three but here it goes! (Nothing negative about the Motus).

    The negative comments on the valve actuation make me wish for more consistent nomenclature. If referring to the pushrods then start referring to other methods of valve actuation in a similar way. For example:

    A typical sport-bike or other engine should be called a “bucket-tappet” engine. I guess “finger and screw” works for engines using screw-type valve-lash adjustment.

    A Ducati has a “lever-tappet” engine.

    Alternatively, one could continue to designate dual over-head camshaft engines as ‘DOHC’, or in the case of a single camshaft, ‘SOHC’, but adjust the focus and apply the same sort of designation for “pushrod” engines as ‘CIB’ (cam-in-block) engines. Either way, both designs are ‘OHV’, despite only one being labeled as such.

    If stating “pushrod” engines are “old tech” then realize over-head camshafts are “old-tech” too and stop spreading misinformation. DOHC and 4 valves per cylinder was around in the 1920s… a technological solution made obsolete by metallurgy advancements in the modern world. What’s better, simplicity or sophistication? Even the OHC designs of yesteryear didn’t rev that high due to limitations of the materials used.

    GM’s DOHC/32-valve “bucket-tappet” Northstar 4.6 liter V8 is physically larger and heavier than it’s own 7.0 liter LS7 CIB/16-valve “pushrod” V8. With those disadvantages, does a design like the Northstar have any advantages over the LS7 (or any LS series V8)? Let’s find out… Does it rev higher? No. The LS7 revs to 7100 rpm thanks to metallurgy (titanium pushrods and intake valves, even the connecting rods are titanium). Even the standard LS engines without the titanium stuff can rev just as high or higher than the Northstar. Okay, so does the Northstar get better fuel economy? Not really. Despite the relatively large displacement of the LS7, it gets just as good fuel economy. Its long stroke helps it develop usable power at low rpm so the revs can be really low in top gear (somewhere between 1500 rpm and 2000 rpm on average) which in turn gives excellent fuel economy given the performance specification for the engine. 30 + mpg on the interstate is typical and not bad at all for an engine capable/rated at 505 horsepower! Don’t believe me? The Corvette is the ONLY supercar that doesn’t have the federal gas-guzzler tax applied to it. Is DOHC superior when it gives you a bigger, heavier, more complex engine with no advantages in the real world? They cost more to produce, maintain and upgrade too. Also, the very low hood line and perfect weight distribution in the Corvette would be more difficult to produce with a bucket tappet engine.

    I find it funny that the Jenny Green Gores haven’t thought about a long-stroke “pushrod” engine as being the best “green” internal combustion engine of the future. It uses less materials to produce and allows the best fuel economy. Direct-injection for gasoline engines is an old idea/technology that is finally being pursued with modern advancements. It’s just the icing on the cake here. Not only does it help lower emissions and improve economy, it benefits performance too! Dropping the revs down on the interstate (or anywhere for that matter) seems a better solution than using a wheezy small engine revving its guts out to make power. If the engine doesn’t need to rev high to produce strong power then why go to all the effort to make it way more complex and expensive? Corvette certainly proves that even in racing applications, CIB and pushrods is the technology of the future. The Motus engine could be developed for automotive use as well! It’s most certainly under-stressed producing what is already a very healthy power output. Imagine a supercharged version! Imagine the ease and fun of tinkering on this engine.

    On that note – I really love the Motus! Beautiful design both technically and aesthetically. It is currently my favorite new bike on the horizon. I even love it way more than the new Buell!

    • sliphorn says:

      Thanks for this.

    • kpaul says:

      Thanks Zuki very interesting! 🙂

    • MikeD says:

      I just want to throw this out there…EVERYTING depends on the color of the lens thru wich you are looking.
      Yours seems CIB + Pushrods “Color”, did all that came from a Corvette or Classic American Muscle Car owner by any chance ?. NOTHING wrong with that. Ur opinion backed by very good facts…BUT terminal to the theme is NOT.

      That been said, mine is DOHC with VVTL-i “Color”… (^_^ ), “similar” to what the C14 tried but still came out SHORT(some lame intake cam phasing, why not BOTH CAMS ?) the thing is a pig already as it is, another cam phaser wouldn’t kill it.

      No one is “wrong” specially when backed by TRUE Facts, is just down to w/e tickles ur pickle.

    • MikeD says:

      P.S: What im truly impressed about is the Direct Fuel Injection. Kudos to them for being the first to implement it on a “regular” motorcycle. If im wrong somebody step in and correct me.
      Really wishing all the other major OEMs follow it SOON. More power and less emissions sounds like music to my ears.
      How much more could its introduction rack up the MSRP on new products ? $500 ? $1k? Beats me…honestly i don’t care cause if i want it i’ll look for a way to buy it.

    • todd says:

      A “small engine revving its guts out” is typically a more efficient design than a large engine with very small throttle openings. In fact, it is best for thermal efficiency of any size motor to be at or near its peak torque output as often as possible. This will achieve the best fuel economy and lowest emissions. Yes, OHC is now pretty much a marketing tool for sophistication since modern metallurgy and the typical rpm range of your average car make it unnecessary. A cam-in-head design does allow a greater rev range (i.e. more horsepower) for an vehicle that is limited in capacity for racing purposes. Beyond that it’s just for cool sake.

    • Tom Barber says:

      Some of this makes perfect sense; some of it makes no sense at all.

      I like the fact that he wrote, “usable power at low rpm”. I just get so tired of the way that most people equate torque simplistically with low-rpm performance.

      However … as for …

      “Dropping the revs down on the interstate (or anywhere for that matter) seems a better solution than using a wheezy small engine revving its guts out to make power.”

      This is utter nonsense. The words used to describe a small engine that runs at comparatively high rpm “wheezy small engine revving its guts out” are clearly evidence of extreme prejudice. Engines do not have guts, so they cannot possibly rev them out, and if “wheezy” is a reference to air moving through the engine, then it is good that they do this, for reasons that presumably are obvious.

      This comment started off on a strong note, but quickly deteriorated into nonsense and utter nonsense and blatant nonsense. Too bad.

      • Zuki says:

        Tom Barber, look up colloquialism in the dictionary.

        I do have prejudice against using a small engine when a large engine makes more sense in the particular application. What’s wrong with that?

        In generalization, engines do have “guts”. The guts are the reciprocating parts, the internals that make it work. With your logic, animals shouldn’t have “guts” either but only a gut. Gut is in the dictionary. You’re free to look it up. Wheezy made sense to me because small engines don’t necessarily “breathe” efficiently at low rpm, do they? Small engines are designed to breathe well at very high rpm so I call them wheezy although maybe technically incorrect. When a human is wheezy they tend to try to breathe in a lot more rapidly to get enough air to perform the same as a non-wheezy human.

        Always have technical perfection in the popcorn gallery or don’t comment at all or it’ll be labeled “nonsensical”, nonsense, utter nonsense, or blatant nonsense by the internet engineer popcorn gallery expert.

        Mike D.,

        My current “new” bike is a SV1000S bucket-tappet V2 with four over-head camshafts and eight valves and I think the engine is superb so I don’t see engines with a certain “color”, although I do appreciate simplicity in design that achieves the same goal as well or better than a more complex (sophisticated) design. I like engines of all sorts and admire engineering that utilizes technology well-suited for the application.

  27. Norm G. says:

    hmmmn… a lil’ bit country… a lil’ bit rock-n-roll.

  28. denny says:

    Not to be critical but: why not shaft drive? Layout is prepared for it. Chain does not make sense in this case, not to mention with this size of engine.

  29. Denver says:

    As an avid touring rider who likes to ride “spirited”, I’m holding my support until I see a price tag. I can get an equally attractive BMW R1200RT with ABS, electronic cruise and windshield, and heated seats and grips for around $20k. This better be in line with that, or I’ll still be an avid BMW fan…with fondness for a bunch of other equally attractive makes including this one.

  30. Chris #2 says:

    I hope they ride their prototypes enough to work out the bugs before going into production. If this bike can attain near Japanese reliability, and not cost too much more than the Honda ST, then they’ll be very successful. With the dollar crashing in value, this could be a major success in Europe I’d think.

    How much do you guys think is a fair price for this? $20k? I sure hope they don’t go the boutique, ultra limited production route- follow Buell’s model Motus- don’t woos out.

  31. MadMax says:

    The brilliance is that it uses regular fuel, has hydraulic lifters, and the absence of the lower fairing will (hopefully) solve heat issues. I’d forgo the euro 6cylinder, and trade my ST13 for one.

    Less is more.

  32. Charlie says:

    “what may arguably be the coolest motorcycle powerplant ever made (suck it, Morbidelli!)”

    I’ll argue with that – the Morbidelli is still way cooler – DOHC, 4 vpc, V8! And then there’s the Guzzi V8 which is cooler than either.

    • Grafight says:

      Good point! the Ottocilindri was one of the all-time great classics! Wouldn’t it be fun if Guzzi decided to revive the concept in a new production bike?

  33. says:

    They missed the chance to call it the Motus Operand i (for injection!)

  34. Grafight says:

    We need more American bike choices. Harley and Victory plus a few customs is just not enough!
    This looks like a nice beginning. Sadly (or fortunately?) its competition is fierce. There is the Kawasaki Concours with its amazing 1400 engine and all the comforts, or the new BMW K1600GTL. Yamaha is due for a revision of the once-best sport-tourer, the FJR. Honda has no problem selling STs and Goldwings. Suzuki may finally decide to listen to customers and stick a ‘busa engine into a bike in this category. In Europe you also have the Norge and Triumph Sprint ST. Plus BMW itself has several other excellent tourers.

    With so many options it may be difficult to find a niche for this bike, even if it turns out to be fantastic. It will, no doubt, be expensive, and when it comes down to spending the cash, there are many formidable, tried-and-true as well as brand new exciting options for a lot less. And lastly, people who buy “only American” tend to be cruiser, rather than sport-tourer riders.

    I do wish them luck, despite all the competition. This Motus better be fantastic!

    • sliphorn says:

      There are a lot of sport touring riders that would love to buy American but your choices are, well, you know the choices. There Ain’t any!!

      The Motus will change that.

  35. Old town hick says:

    An interesting and tantalizing proposition, this bike. Hard to imagine, however, that meaningful production numbers could ever see the light of day given the economic climate.

    Querry: Since a chain and sprockets seem anachronistic for its mission, yet there is clearly some anti-shaft sentiment lurking out there, would a belt-drive be appropriate/possible on a machine like this?

  36. Nick says:

    I think it’s terrific. I hope it is successful, and I hope I get to ride one one day. That said, I prefer the red valve covers to the carbon fiber ones.

  37. MarkF says:


  38. PN says:

    I like it, but I’m guessing it will be closer to 30 grand than the 15 I would like. It’s interesting that this is a design Honda already used in its ST1300. If only the ST1300 looked like this, with its Guzzi-like engine heads and Ducati-like frame and Ninja-like snout, wow!

  39. aussie mike says:

    Beautiful. The designers at Moto Guzzi should look at this bike and then look at the Norge. Then they can redesign it. Shame this bike won’t make it to Oz. We do get HD and Victory as well as Fischer.

  40. Craig G says:

    Love it! Now if someone will mass produce it, bring the price down and get something American other than Harley out there…

  41. odd comment time: too bad no bash plate. Ya know? Just add a bash plate so it can go down a gravel road with some protection. That’s all I ask. I don’t want a GS or KLR, just this bike as it is. What a cool ride. I’m about to sell a vintage bike and if I get enough I may go this route. I can always fab a bash plate I guess.

  42. Dean says:

    Come on Lottery ticket!!! Looks like a good start to me… Sure some things may need to be tweaked, but on paper it sure sounds like a fun ride! Guzzi meets ST meets Corvette… Mmmmm.

    Chain drive is capable, and easier to design that to come out of the gate with a shaft drive design. Serious (comfort) touring, maybe it is not… SPORT touring… I think so!

  43. Jason B says:

    As stated, it’s nice to see an American motorcycle manufacturer do something besides the crap that HD churns out. The problem I see is that these guys made the same mistake Motoczysz did, they built their dream bike first. The cost of this unit is going to be a big issue in this segment, especially when you look at what the more established competition are currently offering. A high MSRP will mean limited sales and thus limited capital to reinvest into new product. I hope the venture pans out but they’ve got a long, hard road ahead of them with this first entry into the market. Personally, give me the new Ninja 1000 with Givi bags and put the rest on a few epic road trips over the next two to three years.

  44. RedFZ1 says:

    Wow….the riding position of an FZ1….the motor of a ST1300 re-do….and the price of a Goldwing. My prediction: You won’t see one of these on the street.Wake up Motus….the bubble burst.

  45. Craig says:

    Love it!

  46. Kjazz says:

    Why no shaft drive?? Too heavy…..? Naw they’re using push rods, so ultimate performance isn’t the issue. The shaft would have been a real maintenance saver. And when it tips, will it crimp those pipes so you cant ride it home? I hope the mirrors are effective, ‘cuz they sure are ugly. Still, I’m quite glad to see this come to reality. Now start correcting a bunch of stuff…..

    • Kagato says:

      I used to feel the same way about the shafties versus chain until I had to change a tire on my shaft drive V Star–what a pain. Modern chains are just about zero maintenance, especially if you pay a bit more and get the good ones.

      • Kjazz says:

        That’s true about chains. But they can still be messy. My Concours’ comes off pretty quickly, but the designers must have given some thought to maintenance ease.

        • J$ says:

          Get a high quality chain and wipe it down with a dry rag very few weeks and hit it with some of the Dupont brand teflon dry lube. Absolutely clean, simple, and effective solution. And you still get to choose your final gearing. I just went down 2 teeth on my rear and couldn’t be happier.

          • Mickey says:

            I’ll agree that neither system is totally maintenance free, but a shaft system is less maintenance by a bunch. My ST 1300 is at 25,000 miles and I’ve changed the 5.2 oz of rear end oil twice which is more than the factory recommends for a total of $6.00. My FZ-1 is also at 25,000 miles and has been cleaned and adjusted a bunch of times. At this point it is due for a new chain and sprockets to the tune of $250. In another 25,000 miles I’ll most likely have spent $12 on the shaft driven ST and $500 on the chain driven FZ. Many ST 1100/1300 enthusiasts have over 200,000 miles on their bikes and have never done a thing to their shafts other than change fluid. How many chain and sprocket sets would you replace in 200,000 miles on a chain drive bike? 8 sets costing maybe $2000.00

            It’s be nice if chain maintenance were as simple as you make it sound, but if you truly tour then you know in a one week tour you’re going to get 2 days of hard rain and on a 2 week tour at least 4 days of rain. You may get caught in a lot more. After each day in the rain that chain must be wiped down and relubed. Nada for the shafty.

            Chain systems are initially cheaper to design and produce which is why they are usedon so many motorcycles

            FWIW I personally have never, in 45 years of riding, altered the gear ratio on a bike I have ridden. Just never had a problem with them as they come from the factory.

  47. bikerrandy says:

    Daytona James, apparently you have not ridden a newer, well sorted shaftie. What your concerned about is no longer an issue. Even my shaft driven `91 VX800 Suzuki has none of the drawbacks you’re concerned about.

    How this Motus handles, none of us know yet. I read in a video the Motus bike owners are riding 2 prototypes all over the USA starting right now @ Daytona. That’s good. They’ll be able to see what needs to be improved along the way(if anything).

    I have a chain driven bike and have taken it 1,900 miles on a cross state trip. I use chain wax for lubrication, which is fine for day trips. But when you put in over 400 mile days, the chain shows it’s limitations. All my other rigs are either shaft or belt driven.

    • sliphorn says:

      I’d like to know what “chain limitations” you’re referring to. I do 15 to 20 K a year on my Triumph Sprint ST (chain drive) and there are no limitations whatsoever. Modern chains are easy to care for with minimal fuss.

      • Mickey says:

        Not so much a limitation but an inconvenience. I too own shaft drive and chain drive sport tourers. I like the shaft better becuase I don’t have to carry wrenches for adjusting the chain, (the FZ-1 calls for 108 ft lb of torque, so you need a BIG wrench plus one to hold the other side, plus 2 for the chain adjuster nuts) and chain lube for lubing the chain which slings all over the wheel and the bottom of your luggage. The shaft is just a non maintenance, not worry way to travel. Why do you think they put them on cars? Honda used to have a chain drive sports car, but I don’t think you’ll find a chain on one these days.

        And even though modern chains are superior in every way to the chains of old, most are endless these days so if there is trouble you would need to either take off the mufflers, shock, swingarm etc (I know beause we just replaced the chain on mt brothers Triumph) or carry a chain breaker and rivet tool. Although chains are superior on a race bike, they are inferior on asport touring bike.

        • sliphorn says:

          Shaft drives are not maintenance free! A chain breaking is an extremely rare occurrence whereas a shaft drive system developing a problem is more common.
          My single sided swingarm Triumph Sprint is easy as pie to adjust the chain.

        • Tom Barber says:

          You need those big wrenches only in the case of chain-driven bikes that do not have concentric adjusters. Look closely at the pictures and you’ll see that this bike has concentric adjusters. You probably only need one little baby wrench.

          • Mickey says:

            Being unfamiliar with concentric chain adjusters I looked up the procedure for adjusting the chain with these:

            Best Answer – Chosen by Asker
            Loosen the axle nut.
            Loosen the swingarm pinch bolts.
            Put an allen wrench or socket wrench in each adjuster.
            Turn both wrenches and rotate the 2 adjusters at the same time.
            Tighten the pinch bolts.
            Tighten the axle nut.
            Install a new cotter pin.

            it appears you need wrenches for loosening the axle nut and the pinch bolts. Can this be done with the allen wrench or do you need to carry other wrenches to perform those duties?

          • Tom Barber says:

            If this procedure is correct in general for concentric adjusters then what I wrote is incorrect, because this procedure says that you still have to loosen “the axle nut”. I have not actually owned a bike with concentric adjusters, but when I look at the pictures, it looks dead simple to me. There probably is a nut that has to be loosened or removed if you want to remove the axle from the concentric adjusters. But it is apparent that adjustment of the fore/aft location of the axle involves only the rotation of the concentric adjuster, i.e., the round part that is clamped within the swingarm ends. And it looks to me that this only involves loosening one, maybe two pinch bolts on each side and then rotating the thing. If you rotate one side, the other side will probably rotate along with it since otherwise the axle would have to twist and bend. But it might be necessary to apply force to both sides simultaneously to get it to turn, depending on whether you have loosened both sides adequately. I think that if you have loosened both sides adequately it should not be necessary to turn both sides at once, but I may be naive on this. And even the likes of a allen wrench is needed to turn the thing, that is a small tool, and the only tool of any significance that should be needed is the wrench sufficient to loosen and tighten the pinch bolts, assuming again that it is not necessary to loosen any axle nut. If that were necessary, the whole thing would really not offer very much advantage at all over the old style adjuster where you turn a screw that enters the fork from the end and that sets the fore/aft location of the axle.

  48. sliphorn says:

    I really like it. It’s a brilliant design and it kind of looks like a pissed off locust. Go Motus!!!

  49. mike's bikes says:

    I belive the hydraulic lifters will be in the engine v, not in the heads if it is modeled after the LS chevy engine.

  50. WillieE says:

    Looks like it may be a leg toaster!

    • steveinsandiego says:

      and, inferring a purchase price, a “bread” toaster….may i have one now?

  51. DaytonaJames says:

    Interesting yet odd choice of final drive. You already lose some efficiency by changing the drive axis before the countershaft sprocket so it would be equally efficient to put a shaft on this bike and you wouldn’t have the mess issue. Don’t get me wrong… I’m a chain guy through and through but in this instance, it makes no sense.
    Also, no offence to you Moto Guzzi guys… or BMW boxer guys for that matter but the through-chassis wind-up torque is an odd thing to have to come to terms with. You can bet that the flywheel effect coupled with a 1600cc capacity in a transverse crank configuration will have an enormous wind-up to contend with. This point may be less of an issue for sport-tour guys but strictly from a functional perspective, it is something to be considered. My advise… ride it first… then check your wallet.

    • Tom Barber says:

      Someone else (Goose) said much the same thing and I choked on it as well. Yeah, the transmission shafts are rotated 90 degrees from the crankshaft. But the transmission is transverse, and given that it is, a chain is more efficient. For a shaft to be more efficient, you talking not just about replacing the chain with a shaft, but rotating the transmission so that it is oriented longitudinally, like the crankshaft. And even if you did that, you’d still have the 90-degree turn in the wheel hub, which you do not have with the chain.

      I had difficulty at first understanding what you were saying in the rest of it. By scratching my head, I was able to realize that you’re talking about counter-torque. Yeah, this is certainly an issue with all bikes that have the engine oriented longitudinally. The net angular momentum of the bike, about the roll axis, wants not to change. In fact, an externally applied force is needed for it to change. When the engine spins up, its angular momentum increases, and has to be compensated either by an equivalent change in the opposite angular direction by the chassis, or else opposed through the application of an external force.

      • sliphorn says:

        A shaft drive would also increase the 58 inch wheelbase beyond 60 inches on the Motus. That would make it a sport TOURER instead of the SPORT tourer that it is intended to be.

        • Tom Barber says:

          Yes, it would get a lot longer, not so much because of the shaft per se, but because rotating the transmission would cause the driven end of the shaft to move further the rear.

          The point is that the logic that was presented here and previously by Goose does not make sense. Granted there are losses in the 90-bend between the engine and tranny, but you can’t make that go away unless you rotate the tranny, and unless you do that, replacing the chain with a shaft will only add another 90-degree bend, as opposed to eliminating the one that is already there. Not only will it not eliminate the 90-degree bend that is there, but it will add two more 90-degree bends, on at each end of the shaft. So it just doesn’t make sense unless you are talking about turning the tranny the other direction. Then it is a completely different ball game.

          The thing that I would criticize, were I inclined to do so, is the way that there is so much additional package under the crankshaft. Perhaps the shaft with the cams that drive the pushrods is located below the crank. If so, that is really, really dumb. Whatever reason, this is obviously a handicap in the design of this bike, and is what I would point to if I wanted to identify its inherent compromises.

  52. Hitcher says:

    Shame about the chain drive. Otherwise this looks like something Honda should have done with the dreaded ST1300.

    • sliphorn says:

      All you anti-chain guys make me laugh. There’s nothing shameful about a chain driven long distance sport tourer. Modern chains will easily last 20 to 25 thousand miles with MINIMAL maintenance. It takes all of 60 seconds for me to wipe down my chain and hit it with a quick blast of Dupont dry lube. No fuss, no muss, no mess.

      You can also change the gearing by swapping out a front sprocket for one with more or less teeth. I’ll take the simplicity, lightweight, and strength of a chain any day over a HEAVY shaft drive bike. Shafts are for cars.

      • Tom Barber says:

        I’ve changed my mind about this a couple of times, preferring shaft shortly after I stated riding back in the early ’80s, then preferring chain for a period, but more recently developing a preference for shaft once again. The maintenance for a chain is indeed minimal. But most manufacturers recommend adjusting the chain once every few hundred miles. Based on my experience this interval is appropriate. For many touring riders it means adjusting the chain at least daily, and for some, more often than that. It is not a big deal on a bike that has concentric adjusters, since that avoids the need to loosen the axle. On a bike without concentric adjusters, it becomes necessary to carry along a big long wrench for loosening and tightening the axle nut. I’ve decided that any chain-driven bike should have concentric adjusters, and if it doesn’t, that’s a big strike against that bike as far as I’m concerned.

        Lo and behold, it is apparent in the pictures that this bike has concentric chain adjusters. It would seem that they thought of just about everything.

        • sliphorn says:

          My chain rarely needs an adjustment. About 500 miles after putting on a new one and then it’s good for thousands of miles. Again, chains are easy.

          • Tom Barber says:

            Your chain is magical. Or maybe it is an unusually strong chain in relation to the tension that it has to withstand. On bikes that do not provide prodigious amounts of power, where the wheel torque and chain tension is correspondingly smaller, then as long as the chain is heavy, it would not surprise me for a chain to go a few thousand miles with no need for readjustment. But on my CBT1100XX, chain adjustment was needed about every 500 miles, and I expect the same is true for most bike with similar, high levels of power and wheel torque.

  53. Robbo says:

    I love the look of this thing. Motor, fairing, it’s all good to me.


    They need to at least throw on ABS as an option to compete with the other sport tourers though. And a sport tourer has to be reliable and have a network to back it up so that you’re not stuck for parts on a road trip. This could be an obstacle. Rich guys who buy full-bling Ducatis for track days and coffee runs can wait around but if you’re on the road trip of your life you need to keep it moving. An exotic, expensive sport tourer, with questionable parts availability just doesn’t compute for anybody.

    IF they can do this bike for the price of a MultiStrada (which I’m considering) and assure support, then I would definitely be interested.

    Bring on the naked! Now that would rock…

  54. blackcayman says:

    New performance figures at company site pushes horsepower up to:

    “Minumum 161bhp @ 7800rpm; 165Nm (122lb-ft) @ 4500rpm; 8000rpm redline”

    Some of the beauty is in the way it will perform. Take the fairing – a little blunt/steep like the KTM Adventure Bikes – But it will give you a calm place for your upper body and HEAD. Form follows function, its an ST. If you want a street legal one liter race bike there are five great choices all for 13-15K – this isn’t trying to be that or look like that.

    I love the look / design of the motor. By the way, have you heard the thing yet?? Youtube the motor before you talk about it. Makes all the Moto Guzzi dudes smile.

    Light weight and all the “ST” comforts = all day riding with near Sport Bike performance in a comfy ST package. I must be the target demo because I am starting a planning process of owning one – maybe a second or third year model.

  55. Ron says:

    It is indeed a very nice motorcycle. I hope it does well and gets some of the aftermarket support that it will need.

    At 1650cc’s, I am curious what kind of mileage this machine gets. I have a first generation 2005 FZ1 and I have rolled off 225 miles and not gotten a reserve light. That equates to better than 55mpg.

    Would love to see a price and a spec sheet for this.

  56. Martin says:

    Katech are an Indy racer engine company, and know all about high end horse power. Luckily, they also know about mid range torque, which is where traveling bikes spend 90% of their time. Two valves and low maintenance pushrods will do fine here. The displacement provides the power, the tight design provides the lightness, the high tech direct injection ensures smooth reliable performance with maximum economy on a long haul. The wind protection should ensure rider comfort, even the seat is smart.

    This is the best American design I have EVER seen.

    • kpaul says:

      Well said. 🙂

    • sliphorn says:

      +1, and I’ll add that they were very wise to go with Katech because they are as good as it gets.

    • Tom Barber says:

      I sometimes think it is lamentable that when James measured the rate as which that horse was able to perform work, that he did not use a mule instead. That way, instead of seeing the word “horse” tossed in for no apparent reason every time just about anyone on any automotive or motorcycling forum refers to power, we would see the word “mule” tossed in for no apparent reason instead. Just imagine. Everywhere you look, people are talking about how much mule power they have. Or he could have done it with a dog, in which case people everywhere would be talking about dogpower. But this would only apply to the peak performance of an engine, because as is surely obvious to everyone, its midrange performance has nothing at all to do with dogpower, but only with torque.

  57. Jaded1 says:

    Oh boy, another uber-trick hand-built motorcycle with dreams of finding investment so it can sell a handful of crazy-expensive bikes in a niche market segment. *rolling eyes*

    Looks like an older KTM Adventure w/ Ducati-ish lines and the obvious Guzzi-inspired transverse engine.

    If I had a nickel for every fantasy bike idea like this I’ve seen in the past 20 years….

    Yuck & Dream on!

  58. Goose says:

    Wow, even less efficient then a shaft (the 90 degree turn between the engine and transmission) but a touring bike with all the mess of a chain drive. All the cost and limitations of a push-rod valve train but two valves per cylinder. Direct injection is interesting but it will be very expensive and it is here to solve what problem? I have to wonder what they are thinking.

    I love the idea and I wish them well. However, the engine seems like a mess of unrelated parts thrown together after a long herbal smoking binge. Add a slowly recovering economy to what will be a very high price and I fear this will join the long list of failed motorcycle companies. I really hope I’m wrong but I will not be buying any stock.



    • Norm G. says:

      smells like teen spirit. after watching the youtube video (though i could be wrong), i get the impression the people involved with this project are car guys (who happen to ride motorcycles)…? rather than the other way ’round…? not that that’s bad, but the end result of pure motorcyclist thinking rarely results in such “mechanical gumbo”. though far from the worst design i’ve ever seen. they appear to have labored to produce a boss hoss without the weight penalty… a “mini-hoss” if you will. 🙂 they’re based in birmingham, so it’s not unreasonable to think they have paid MANY-a-visit to barber for muse/inspiration. works for me, been there 4x myself.

      • sliphorn says:

        Actually, the president and vice president of Motus (founders) are hard core sport touring riders, NOT car guys. They went to P&M and Katech because they’re the best there is and were willing and able to see it through.

  59. Jay Mack says:

    I guarantee it’s going to be $45K-$65K.

  60. Jason says:

    I believe this motor is actually putting out more like 160hp, if I remember right. With the benefits of super low maintenance and some serious engineering firms behind this whole project, it seems like a real winner. Glad to see publications are picking up on this story and the response to the bike seems positive. I mean, huge torque and power, 550lbs soaking wet, lightweight sport wheels and chain drive, and that gorgeous looking engine and chromoly tube frame. Love the conservative, sophisticated looks of the fairing and high-tech hotrod looking engine and headers. Oh, and look up the teaser film on Youtube. The sound is UNBELIEVABLE. That’s the main reason I want it

  61. jasonvoorhees says:

    If I see one of these I’m gonna steal it.

  62. endoman says:

    Push rods?

    • kpaul says:

      Push rod engines are simpler and more compact but can’t rev as high as overhead cam engines and suffer from valve float. But for a sports tourer it’s a good design. No valve adjustments and good reliability. Torque is what’s really important and the specs look great for this bike. Corvette use the LS series of push rod V-8s. The popular and high performance Chrysler Hemi engine is also push rod. So old technology is not necessarily a bad thing.

      • todd says:

        Yeah, torque is great. I can crank out well over 120 ft-lb on my bicycle and it scoots me along real quick like.

        • kpaul says:

          :O 🙂

        • Tom Barber says:

          And that’s only the torque at the crank. To find torque at the wheel, multiply that number by the rotational speed ratio between the wheel and the crank, the same as the sprocket teeth ratio. Then to find the force to which the equation F=MxA is applicable, divide that by the wheel radius.

      • Tom Barber says:

        The oft-heard advisement that “torque is what’s really important”. On various occasions I have asked people to explain precisely what they mean by this, i.e., whether they mean that (a) peak torque per se is perfectly correlated with low-rpm performance notwithstanding that it often occurs above the midpoint of the operating range, or (b) performance at a particular rpm is represented in a linear manner by actual torque at that rpm rather than actual power at that rpm even though the genuine facts say that the reverse is true, or (c) me likes mid-range performance and me likes to call it torque.

        • Tom Barber says:

          I inadvertently left out choice (d): I read in some lame-brained article that I found on the Internet that owing to the mundane fact that within a given gear acceleration remains in a fixed ratio with engine torque, that power is just some sort of mathematical abstraction of torque that isn’t meaningful and doesn’t have anything to do with what a driver feels, blah blah blah.

          • kpaul says:

            “We didn’t focus on maximum horsepower; we focused on heightening the rider experience. To us, that means tons of torque over a wide RPM range, low vibes, high efficiency and bulletproof durability. Enter the KMV4, a liquid cooled V4 with DI,” said Brian Case, Vice President / Design Director at Motus. .”

          • Tom Barber says:

            But why not “tons of power over a wide rpm range”? Given that the actual measurable performance at any rpm is in proportion with power and that this proportionality is the same at any instant no matter which gear is selected, whereas the proportionality between acceleration and torque at a given instant is different for each given gear, what sense does it make to attribute actual performance at some given, actual rpm to torque expressly, in lieu of power? And why does it have to be “horsepower”? Why can’t it just be “power”?

  63. Bud says:

    I hope this bike is successful beyond their expectations. It looks like a terrific package.

  64. Greg says:

    Very nice. I likey. Good to see a company putting real effort into a platform like this. We all win. Even Sheen is a winner.

  65. BillBillBill says:

    Gosh another great looking ride few will be able to afford….just what we need !

  66. Dennis says:

    That’s one very interesting looking machine. If they can bring it to market at a competitive price, along with dealer support, it would be a great bike to have.
    But that’s a tall order.
    I sure wish them luck in this.

  67. kpaul says:

    I’m in love. Everyone knows the V-4 is God’s favorite engine configuration 😉 Seriously, I love the looks and the V-4 is mounted Moto Guzi style. This bike won’t have the expensive valve adjustments right? Thanks for the eye candy Gabe! Me like.

  68. mikedard says:

    Sweep the exhaust back at the engine instead of that forward cant, add and drop the bottom of the faring down more-don’t cover that engine, little bit larger windshield. Hang the sidecases lower helping with the center gravity and so you don”t kick them with your foot. I’ll take mine in any color! Let’s get a price and order form.

  69. Bocker says:

    That is one butt-ugly front fairing, I don’t care what anyone else says. From that point back the bike looks great. It’s truly inspiring to see such an innovative engine, but I don’t anticipate much longevity for a niche bike sold at very high prices in exclusive numbers. Perhaps I’ll be proven wrong.

  70. Jose Barreira says:

    Hi America

    GO FOR IT! That’s a GOOD looking bike and there’s no reason why you can’t built something diferent from cruisers. GO FOR IT and sell it to Europe too!


  71. bikerrandy says:

    Now all it needs is crashbars and a belt or shaft drive. I’ve been riding Guzzis for over 20 years.

  72. Tommy See says:

    Cross of Ducati, Moto Guzzi and a KTM nose! Plus liquid cooling! Built in America by Americans. Yes!
    I want this ride if it could be no more than 20 to 25 Gees wish-full thinking.
    Good luck Motus and GB America.

  73. Syt says:

    Easily the most beautiful sport tourer I’ve ever seen. If it were even nearly affordable, I would be gaining a debt. I second Roxx’s “Wow!Just Wow!”

  74. Jake R says:

    Have a silver ST 1300; Honda, are you looking at this? Awesome bike. Makes my 700+ pound ST seem a little porky . . . and, with the engine, a little pokey too.

  75. ROXX says:

    550 pounds wet.
    120 ft. ilbs of torque.
    58 inch wheelbase.

    Wow! Just Wow!
    God Bless America and shove your e-bikes!

  76. Mickey says:

    wow to think my ST 1300 could look something like that. That would be awesome.

    Nice looking motorcycle. Reminds me of a Guzzi in many ways.

wordscape cheatgun mayhem 2 unblocked games