Handling of standard v reduced ride height

Alan R said:

A bit of a generalization if you don’t mind me saying so. How are you aware? By your own admission you have found nothing definitive. I have a 2017 GSA and have not found the trait you describe.
It is admittedly, a big bike but I’ve always found it rock solid in all situations. It does take some getting used to after other bikes- as an example, it’s about 5 stone heavier than my previous 2011 twin cam GS and the C of G is higher as a result of the greater fuel load. It is very stable at low speeds and the clutch is smooth and allows non snatchy feathering at low speeds when needed. I will admit that I’m 6’5” and 20 stone so maybe I’m ideally proportioned for the bike. I will also admit that I tend to put some time into practicing low speed manouvering with any new bike, to get a good feel for it so it becomes second nature.
Try an extended test ride - you may be surprised by how the weight disappears when on the move.
Alan R

Click to expand...

Many thanks for all of your replies, they are all useful to read. Sorry that I’ve not been able to respond until now, but I’ve been busy with all sorts, including organising a test ride of a lowered GSA.

It seems that opinions vary with regards to whether it makes a noticeable difference. Thinking about the physics of it, dropping a 263kg bike a few centimeters has to have an effect on its CoG. I just didn’t know if it’d be that noticeable, although some say yes, others not. Well I’ve organised a test ride on one for next week so I’ll be able to compare it to mine. It won’t take long for me to notice if there’s any difference, so should be a quick decision.

Maybe I should have clarified that I currently own a 2014 GSA (obviously LC), which is standard height, and have no issues with being able to get my feet to the ground, nor have I had any ‘nearly’ moments.

Alan R, I wouldn’t really call what I’m talking about a generalisation, I’d say it’s a characteristic of the bike. It’s likely that your interpretation of my zigzag description may differ to mine though but, to be fair, I didn’t describe it in great detail.

It is something I have personally noticed, and something that others have also noticed and voiced. I’ve even watched video footage on YouTube and heard it mentioned. To be clear, I’m talking about very slight steering adjustments to keep the bike in a dead straight line, but as I said in my original post it’s only at VERY slow speeds. Yes, I know... it’s not how we ride, but to emphasise the point, I’ll bet that you can’t let go of the handlebars for very long on a standard height GSA moving at 5mph for very long! Gyroscopic stability vs weight of bike... Not many bikes would continue for very long if you did this, as they’d require constant human input to compensate for the lack of balance due to no gyroscopic effect from the slow turning wheels. Some bikes I’ve owned have been almost like pedal cycles, where they remain stable right up until stopped, which is just down to a well balanced bike. I’m not mixing up the balance of the machine with balance of the rider. Dougie Lampkin springs to mind here...

Once the speed increases, even only a few mph more, it quickly becomes much steadier. I’ve ridden a few GSA’s (all standard height) and it’s something I’ve noticed on all of them, so it’s not that my bike is faulty. Just to show that I’m not faulty either; I’ve been riding motorcycles since I was 9, I’ve raced, do track day instruction and, yes, for this post only, advanced police rider (lock stop to lock stop turns were a major requirement). And, I used to play ice hockey, so can balance quite well too.

The only reason I mentioned the steering at slow speed is because others have mentioned it too, and the rider of one review, of a lowered bike, I saw stated that he’d noticed that it didn’t tend to wander at very slow speed as much as the standard height bike! I was simply just curious to know if anyone else had noticed the same? Ultimately it must be something to do with gyroscopic stability vs weight vs CoG.

Obviously, most motorcycling tends to happen at higher speeds than the ones I’m talking about, so I’m was interested in how the lowered CoG affects general riding and cornering.

Agree re clutch, it’s superb!

I suppose my test ride next week will answer my questions, but it’s still interesting to know what others have found.

Regards

Ash

I think low speed stabilty will be affected greatly by choice of tyre.

matchbox said:

I think low speed stabilty will be affected greatly by choice of tyre.

Click to expand...

FWIW, I've found PR4s make the steering very heavy at low speed/pushing the bike around. Not forgetting steering dampers...

Hi , due to my standard (gs not gsa) being in for repair BMW supplied a loan bike for my trip to Spain.
The loaner was a lower frame one , to my initial horror i thought bollox as i was used to my standard.
Now as i had no option i followed thro with the for mention trip , and to be honest the lowered frame was great and felt as my standard frame. The only issue i had was that clearance was reduced , so to get round that i just rode in two up mode ( I only has a small bag with only a few bits in as hotels) and this pitched the nose down and arse up and did make the bike turn faster , I now run the standard in one up with luggage as well as this has the same effect.
The lowered frame to return to the original question is great and will for the shorter only be a benefit not a hindrance , also for the taller rider this would be fine. IMHO

I was thinking that tyres may play a part in the slow speed steering. Don't get me wrong, it's not a big issue it's just something I've come across and was curious about the lowered bikes and what others have found who've gone from standard to lowered.

If I needed the height reduction due to leg reach issues it'd be a no brainer, but at 6'2" I don't want the lowered option unless the pro's outweigh the cons. I'm getting the feeling that I'll end up with the standard height bike but will reserve judgement until my test ride next week.

My test ride is not to test the GSA (I already have one), it's specifically to find out whether the lowered suspension makes a difference to its handling. My biggest concern is that ground clearance will be significantly reduced when banked over in corners.

stick said:

Hi , due to my standard (gs not gsa) being in for repair BMW supplied a loan bike for my trip to Spain.
The loaner was a lower frame one , to my initial horror i thought bollox as i was used to my standard.
Now as i had no option i followed thro with the for mention trip , and to be honest the lowered frame was great and felt as my standard frame. The only issue i had was that clearance was reduced , so to get round that i just rode in two up mode ( I only has a small bag with only a few bits in as hotels) and this pitched the nose down and arse up and did make the bike turn faster , I now run the standard in one up with luggage as well as this has the same effect.
The lowered frame to return to the original question is great and will for the shorter only be a benefit not a hindrance , also for the taller rider this would be fine. IMHO

Click to expand...

Thanks for that, Stick. You're also the first person (I've read about) to mention the ride height vs steering speed. You are absolutely correct, jacking up the rear has to effect the front. You also mention ground clearance... did you get things touching down in the corners? I'm not planning to do any serious off road stuff, apart from maybe the odd dusty trail when overseas, so don't need ground clearance for rocks and uneven terrain.

cheers

Ash700 said:

Thanks for that, Stick. You're also the first person (I've read about) to mention the ride height vs steering speed. You are absolutely correct, jacking up the rear has to effect the front. You also mention ground clearance... did you get things touching down in the corners? I'm not planning to do any serious off road stuff, apart from maybe the odd dusty trail when overseas, so don't need ground clearance for rocks and uneven terrain.

cheers

Click to expand...

No problems , I did get touchdown , but was road riding as a GS not the Adv that's why I jacked the back up and it cured it.
I ride hard so this may not be the same for all . I can wear a front tyre out on 1500 miles and a set of front pads in 3500 miles , but that's in Spain and France etc , as those roads do ride well.
In the uk , would be different as not consistant hard days. Again the low frame works well.
To add , even jacked it was not as high as the standard but close , and the touchdown gave to a sense of where you were, I ride with toe on pegs so it was low.

Ash700 said:

My test ride is not to test the GSA (I already have one), it's specifically to find out whether the lowered suspension makes a difference to its handling. My biggest concern is that ground clearance will be significantly reduced when banked over in corners.

Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see what you find in the comparison.

As I mentioned in the other thread, if preload is about right and sag at both ends is using up roughly 33 percent of the suspension travel while loaded but stationary, then the ground clearance difference between the two bikes has already reduced from 20 mm unloaded to 13 mm loaded. In a dynamic situation the suspension can obviously compress more due to bumps or cornering loads, but the more it compresses, then the nearer the two bikes get to each other in terms of ground clearance, until at full compression in theory they should both have pretty much the same minimum amount of clearance. I believe the lowered bike is fitted with a stronger spring so that a given load produces the same compression in both bikes when considered in terms of percentage of available travel used.

When banked over, even ignoring the further suspension compression the cornering load would introduce, the difference in height of 13 mm when vertical translates into even less difference vertically when leaned, as the original purely vertical distance translates into horizontal and vertical components through simple geometry. As an example a 45 degree lean reduces the vertical difference between the two bikes to approx 9 mm (calculated using good old Pythagoras), and in reality that much lean would have further compressed the suspension compared to static loading, so you would be starting out with a less than 13 mm difference anyway.

Not saying this makes no difference when banked over, but I suspect it is pretty minimal and probably not a concern even for reasonably spirited road riding, though I'm too cautious a rider to have tested this theory to destruction! Of course, if you are already regularly touching down on the unlowered bike, then the lowered one will somewhat cramp your style!

stick said:

Hi , due to my standard (gs not gsa) being in for repair BMW supplied a loan bike for my trip to Spain.
The loaner was a lower frame one , to my initial horror i thought bollox as i was used to my standard.
Now as i had no option i followed thro with the for mention trip , and to be honest the lowered frame was great and felt as my standard frame. The only issue i had was that clearance was reduced , so to get round that i just rode in two up mode ( I only has a small bag with only a few bits in as hotels) and this pitched the nose down and arse up and did make the bike turn faster , I now run the standard in one up with luggage as well as this has the same effect.
The lowered frame to return to the original question is great and will for the shorter only be a benefit not a hindrance , also for the taller rider this would be fine. IMHO

Click to expand...

You won't have the option to select two-up preload mode to moderately jack up the rear with the latest self-leveling bikes. You either select AUTO which tries to maintain a set optimum ride height regardless of load, or MAX or MIN, and these two settings, as the names imply, either apply the maximum possible or minimum possible preload. I've found MAX pretty much lifts my feet off the floor, so seems quite extreme. Just something to bear in mind if expecting to be able fine tune the ride height on the latest lowered bikes.

I agree with your observation of zig zagging. I’ve had 3 gs lc 13,15,17 and only the 17 exhibits this trait. I mentioned it to my dealer but they dismissed my comment out of hand. Love the bike. The zig zagging isn’t a big issue but definitely there

The Handling of the Lowered one for me is much better, as I cannot handle the standard one at all, too tall

ukrr said:

I agree with your observation of zig zagging. I’ve had 3 gs lc 13,15,17 and only the 17 exhibits this trait. I mentioned it to my dealer but they dismissed my comment out of hand. Love the bike. The zig zagging isn’t a big issue but definitely there

Click to expand...

That's interesting - I had this issue big time with a Versys 1000 when loaded up with pillion and luggage - I think the steering got too light, and almost felt like it was developing a slow motion tank slapper at low speed, made filtering a bit stressful, but all smoothed out once speed picked up. I was specifically looking for this issue when I tested the RS and GS, and although I thought I detected a bit of instability fully loaded with the RS, I didn't experience it with the standard GS I tested. That might have been a 2016 bike, but I don't get it with the lowered 2017 GS I bought either. Is your bike a GS or GSA. Maybe it is something that only afflicts the GSA?

Ok lets clear up some misnomers

Your overall height has absolutly sod all to do with being able to get your feet down /

flat on the floor.

Its your inside leg / seat height that determines if your going to get your toes or

heels on the floor. I'm 5'5" with an inside leg of 28"

Standard GS / normal seat height in the high position and its feet off the deck and

lean it over for tiptoes. Drop the seat to its lowest position, and its still slide your

bum over and tiptoes.. Doable but not fun!

Std GSA seat in low position, forget it, feet are swinging 2" off the deck with the

bike upright. So, I ride a 2006 Hexhead... as follows

Rear suspension - wound all the way to soft , and reduce the preload

I dont weigh much, so this help loads Lowered seat. takes another 25mm or so

off the std seat height. It means i can get the balls of either foot on the floor ( at any

one time), and tiptoes if i need to paddle the bike.

The next route to take it lower would be Hyperpro springs.

Handling-

It's a big heavy bike, and at very low speeds dont you know it .

Turning the handlebars when stationary is a big heave, so forward planning at

junctions is essential Once moving its a diferent kettle of fish.

If the bike is fully fueled, its a bit top heavy, and its noticeable as you

lean it over especially at slower speeds.

I find i use a bit of throttle to pull it upright in slow corners Controllable, but a bit top

heavy. High winds on a full tank make for interesting riding at speed

However once the tank gets to about half full, you notice the

difference, its almost as if your on a small bike, the bike becomes

almost 200kg lighter and you find yourself throwing it around like a

two stroke of your youth, rather than a 1200cc barge lol.

If i could have the half tank handling all the time it would be fantastic

Changing tyres also helps - I had Karoo3's originally, now on trailriders, takes

another 10mm off the ride height

littleade said:

The factory lowered bike also has the low seat, which is probably why you feel more sat in, rather than on the bike

Click to expand...

When I ordered mine I was given the option of standard or lower seat.

fred_jb said:

It will be interesting to see what you find in the comparison.

As I mentioned in the other thread, if preload is about right and sag at both ends is using up roughly 33 percent of the suspension travel while loaded but stationary, then the ground clearance difference between the two bikes has already reduced from 20 mm unloaded to 13 mm loaded. In a dynamic situation the suspension can obviously compress more due to bumps or cornering loads, but the more it compresses, then the nearer the two bikes get to each other in terms of ground clearance, until at full compression in theory they should both have pretty much the same minimum amount of clearance. I believe the lowered bike is fitted with a stronger spring so that a given load produces the same compression in both bikes when considered in terms of percentage of available travel used.

When banked over, even ignoring the further suspension compression the cornering load would introduce, the difference in height of 13 mm when vertical translates into even less difference vertically when leaned, as the original purely vertical distance translates into horizontal and vertical components through simple geometry. As an example a 45 degree lean reduces the vertical difference between the two bikes to approx 9 mm (calculated using good old Pythagoras), and in reality that much lean would have further compressed the suspension compared to static loading, so you would be starting out with a less than 13 mm difference anyway.

Not saying this makes no difference when banked over, but I suspect it is pretty minimal and probably not a concern even for reasonably spirited road riding, though I'm too cautious a rider to have tested this theory to destruction! Of course, if you are already regularly touching down on the unlowered bike, then the lowered one will somewhat cramp your style!

Click to expand...

Excellent technical info, thanks. The figures seem to indicate that there won’t be too much difference in clearance.

stick said:

No problems , I did get touchdown , but was road riding as a GS not the Adv that's why I jacked the back up and it cured it.
I ride hard so this may not be the same for all . I can wear a front tyre out on 1500 miles and a set of front pads in 3500 miles , but that's in Spain and France etc , as those roads do ride well.
In the uk , would be different as not consistant hard days. Again the low frame works well.
To add , even jacked it was not as high as the standard but close , and the touchdown gave to a sense of where you were, I ride with toe on pegs so it was low.

Click to expand...

I ride on my toes too, always have! Love the continental roads and the vision across the bends There are odd moments when I get a bit over excited and ride in sports bike mode so decking down might happen on the reduced ride height model. I saw a standard height GSA grinding crash bars during a track day, but that was on a track.

ukrr said:

I agree with your observation of zig zagging. I’ve had 3 gs lc 13,15,17 and only the 17 exhibits this trait. I mentioned it to my dealer but they dismissed my comment out of hand. Love the bike. The zig zagging isn’t a big issue but definitely there

Click to expand...

After about 35 yrs of out and out sports bikes, which I still miss now and again but can’t justify ownership, I’m loving the boxer engine for wafting across Europe. It’s funny, I also mentioned it to my dealer and got he same response. A bit like when I asked if the heated grips were any better on the latest bikes than they were on my 2014 bike. Apparently, he’d never had a problem with them! But that’s another story...

fred_jb said:

That's interesting - I had this issue big time with a Versys 1000 when loaded up with pillion and luggage - I think the steering got too light, and almost felt like it was developing a slow motion tank slapper at low speed, made filtering a bit stressful, but all smoothed out once speed picked up. I was specifically looking for this issue when I tested the RS and GS, and although I thought I detected a bit of instability fully loaded with the RS, I didn't experience it with the standard GS I tested. That might have been a 2016 bike, but I don't get it with the lowered 2017 GS I bought either. Is your bike a GS or GSA. Maybe it is something that only afflicts the GSA?

Click to expand...

The zigzagging I refer to is just the effect of trying to hold the bike in a dead straight line at around 2, 3, 4 mph (ish). When I’m creeping forward in heavy traffic where there’s no gap to filter through I often think that the driver of the car behind must be thinking I can’t ride very well, as it feels like I’m weaving side to side trying to keep it straight... I’ve even gone off to a quiet car park and have tried everything to keep it rolling in a straight line ———, to no avail ~~~. It’s far from being a deal breaker, it’s just something I’ve not experienced before on other bikes.

I’ll report back once I’ve had the test ride and let you know what I discover re handling and keeping it straight at 3 mph.

Thanks again for all the replies, they’ve all been very useful.

Oh, I nearly forgot... I’m 34” inside leg!

Ash700 said:

Excellent technical info, thanks. The figures seem to indicate that there won’t be too much difference in clearance.



I ride on my toes too, always have! Love the continental roads and the vision across the bends There are odd moments when I get a bit over excited and ride in sports bike mode so decking down might happen on the reduced ride height model. I saw a standard height GSA grinding crash bars during a track day, but that was on a track.



After about 35 yrs of out and out sports bikes, which I still miss now and again but can’t justify ownership, I’m loving the boxer engine for wafting across Europe. It’s funny, I also mentioned it to my dealer and got he same response. A bit like when I asked if the heated grips were any better on the latest bikes than they were on my 2014 bike. Apparently, he’d never had a problem with them! But that’s another story...



The zigzagging I refer to is just the effect of trying to hold the bike in a dead straight line at around 2, 3, 4 mph (ish). When I’m creeping forward in heavy traffic where there’s no gap to filter through I often think that the driver of the car behind must be thinking I can’t ride very well, as it feels like I’m weaving side to side trying to keep it straight... I’ve even gone off to a quiet car park and have tried everything to keep it rolling in a straight line ———, to no avail ~~~. It’s far from being a deal breaker, it’s just something I’ve not experienced before on other bikes.

I’ll report back once I’ve had the test ride and let you know what I discover re handling and keeping it straight at 3 mph.

Thanks again for all the replies, they’ve all been very useful.

Oh, I nearly forgot... I’m 34” inside leg!

Click to expand...

I zig zagged on my varadero and also on my GS, its a way of keeping the bike upright, you get more stability when

you induce gyrosopic rotation. Look at trials riders!

My friend at work got picked up on his driving lessons for not putting his feet down,

he rides trials bike in his spare time. he would zigzg and counter lean at juctions

Santa-2512 said:

I zig zagged on my varadero and also on my GS, its a way of keeping the bike upright, you get more stability when

you induce gyrosopic rotation. Look at trials riders!

My friend at work got picked up on his driving lessons for not putting his feet down,

he rides trials bike in his spare time. he would zigzg and counter lean at juctions

Click to expand...

Sounds a bit like the slow bicycle races we used to have as kids - much movement of handlebars, but little forward movement! Also like the self balancing bike that Honda have developed which extends the forks to increase the rake angle, but then balances the bike entirely by moving the bars, either stationary or moving slowly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWsBRgq7pk8

The robotically controlled Honda bike doesn't follow a zig-zag course, and neither would I if I could avoid it when trying to balance at low speed, though it sometimes seems the only way to avoid putting your feet down, unless you have the robot speed reactions which allow you to balance in one spot indefinitely! Whether it happens with a human rider probably depends on speed of reactions, which get worse as you age into the GS demographic! I suspect it also depends to some extent on bike chassis geometry.

However, at the very slow speeds the OP cites, even zig-zagging is not going to rotate the wheels that much faster than going in a straight line, and so not enough I wouldn't have thought to generate much in the way of gyroscopic stabilisation, so I think it is just that zig-zagging allows you to extend the distance you travel within your lane and so maintain a bit of forward motion when you would otherwise have to be stationary more often.

It appears that some bikes are more balanced at slow speeds than others regardless of gyroscopic stability. I’m not actually talking about trying to balance at super slow speeds... more like when creeping forward in heavy traffic.

In the job it was foot, the left one, up (not feet up) as soon as you were moving; and then left foot back down as the bike came to rest - no feet dangling down the sides skimming the road surface, that would be frowned upon.

I’ve seen a rider get on his trail bike, both feet up, engine off, kick start it, engage gear, and ride off :-o

I have a lowered GSA and come from a standard GS, handling wise I would say there is no difference at all.
Riding position on a standard GSA to a lowered GSA would be the same too as the height reduction is made via the suspension
The only difference I have noticed is the pegs touching down, not all the time but only when I am cracking on a bit, usually on good dry days and decent roads
The way around this for me is to take things up one notch ie, for rider only I ride in rider plus luggage and if loaded I ride in luggage with passenger, this takes things up just enough to sort ground clearance but not too much to affect my feet being on the floor when stopped
I would imagine at your height though feet on the floor would'nt be a problem with a standard height bike
For me though the lowered suspension is a god send, so much more confidence when coming to a stop

Ash700 said:

I’ve seen a rider get on his trail bike, both feet up, engine off, kick start it, engage gear, and ride off :-o

Click to expand...

This motorcycles trials stuff always amazes me if I happen to catch some on the TV: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RngZWIe5a-M