Bike is LOW - All parts stock - We gave up for the day. Oh, well....

[adidasguy]

He is here. We took off dog bones. STOCK! rear shock: STOCK! Knuckle: STOCK.
Bike is 2" lower than normal.
1989 early vintage frame.
Stock size tires.
We are stumped!
any ideas?
We want to fix this. No idea what was done.
Were there shorter dog bones in q989?

[yamahonkawazuki]

got any pictures?

[adidasguy]

We can - but we measured everything. Dog bones are stock. Shock stock.
We are puzzled.

[Badot]

I would take two pictures from the exact same angle of this bike and another and overlay them in something like photoshop. If your picture angles are good it should be immediately obvious what the difference is.

[BockinBboy]

Stock shock extremely worn?  Doubt it would lower it by that much though...

Spacers and springs in the forks stock setup?

How about tire sizes?

- Bboy

[adidasguy]

Tire size stock.
Everything measures correct.

HOWEVER--- We hadn't looked at the front! Will report back....


front shocks: 29.5" top to axle bolt. Same on other bikes.

All we can not think is maybe 3/16" difference in shock length could be it? He was told by PO that the PPO put on lowering links. Removed dog bone and it is stock. Even appearance, color, finish is stock.
Shock measures 11 - 3/8" where new shocks are 11.5".

We are still puzzled. Comparing bare 89 frames and his bike to all rthe others.

[adidasguy]

Side view. We see knuckle at a differenrt angle.
That only depends on frame and shock. Both bikes on center stand.
It is a simple triangle: shock on frame. Shock on knuckle. Knuckle on frame.



[attachment deleted by admin]

[catch2otwo]

Install a different shock, different set of dog bones and a different knuckle.  That should rule out your hard parts.  I understand you measured everything, but I've had instances where things just did not fit together correctly. 

[gsJack]

Easiest way to get height where you want it might be to get a set of shorter dogbones to raise it up 2".   

[adidasguy]

We checked dog bones. They were stock. No question on rthat. I  have a pile of them - stacked them up and all the same.

Shock: Put on a 2009 shock. No difference.

We are stumped on this one.

His frame is the early 1989 which doe not have the access hole for the upper shock bolt.

Any difference in the early frames? I have a parts 1989 bike. Has the same appearance of being low.

[adidasguy]

Easiest way to get height where you want it might be to get a set of shorter dogbones to raise it up 2".   

That may be what we have to do.
Somehow there is something different in either the swing arm or frame. I do have early 89 frame for comparison. Somehow when we measure points, sometimes we get 1/2" difference and other times we measure OK. Must have a black hole floating around that is distorting space/time.

For now, we put on a 2004+ side stand so he can use a side stand.
He will post more of what was done. Busy day today and he leaves with a SS chain guard, too.

[slipperymongoose]

The forks have been dropped in the triple clamps? Or collapsed bearings? Bent frame/swing arm? All the bits are installed correctly orientation wise?

[adidasguy]

Forks correct.
What we see is the swing arm is not angled down as much. We have replaced everything except the swing arm 

Still is low.

The 89 parts bike I have is also low. part numbers are the same for old years on dog bones. Onlt the frame has a different part number for 89, 90 and 91+

We are stumped at the moment.

[gsJack]

I looked in the 1989-99 GS500E Shop Manual and the specification for seat height was 31.1" for 89 bikes.  Also I have a copy of the first GS500E road test published in the May 89 issue of Cycle Magazine and the spec is also 31.1" for seat height so it was intended to be the same from the beginning.

[PatheticPuma]

How do you tell the early 89's from non early? I can compare mine to my wifes 89.

[codajastal]

How do you tell the early 89's from non early? I can compare mine to my wifes 89.

The month is on the Vin

[gsJack]

Adidas said the early ones didn't have the access hole for the top shock bolt the later ones have.  I learn something new everyday around here.   

[adidasguy]

How do you tell the early 89's from non early? I can compare mine to my wifes 89.

There is no hole on the left frame to access the upper shock bolt. I believe that was all 1989. Then the wiring, the fuse is under the seat in a little square pill box with the real and the spare fuse.

[oz353]

I think (not positive)  the difference is the knuckle. My 89 seemed low compared to my 92, I swapped the 89 knucle to the 92 and then it seemed lower.  Also noted that the 92 knuckle would NOT fit the 89.

My 2¢

[adidasguy]

The difference in the knuckle is only outer shape. The 91+ being steel have more metal. The shock was changed in 91 to have a longer lower bracket to fit the steel knuckle. The specs for the holes and spacing on the knuckles is  the same. The 89-90 shock will not fit a steel knuckle. The 91+ shock will fit the steel knuckle as well as the aluminum knuckle.

I put aluminum knuckles on my bikes - no difference. Phenix has aluminum and is correct height.

Front forks were correct distance from top of triple to axle.
I guess we didn't check   the size of the front tire. Rear is stock.

We gave up for the night. Here is a side view of the bike.
All we know is the 2nd previous owner said that lowering links were put on. as mentioned, links are same and shock was same but we did replace them anyway - just because - to see.

We can only suspect that someone modified the dog bone mount on the swing arm. I have a few bare frames and a parts 89 bike so I will compare dimensions. if the dog bones, knuckle and shock are correct then something must be different on the frame or swing arm.

WE ARE OPEN TO MORE SUGGESTIONS

[attachment deleted by admin]