Hello All,
I'm about to purchase an '08 GS500E and am going to be changing out the stock fork springs and oil right away.
I tend to do a large variety of riding, including almost equal parts city riding, freeway commuting, weekend back road twisties and long distance touring. I also really love to ride on gravel and dirt roads.
I did hundreds of kilometres of gravel and dirt roads on my '08 Harley 1200 Sportster Roadster. I had replaced the suspension front and back with Progressive fork springs and rear shocks. I liked the forks with the springs and 7.5 weight fork oil. I really disliked the Progressive rear shocks, however. Way, way too stiff for my 165 lb. weight (and no, I didn't accidentally buy the heavy duty shocks).
So my question is: What fork springs and fork oil would you recommend for my GS, with a 165 lb. rider who does a big range of types of riding? I realize that dirt roads require an almost polar opposite set-up from spirited back road riding, but I would like a set-up that gives the best compromise. As another note, the city streets here in Toronto can be pretty brutally rough with large bumps, sharp manhole covers and cracked pavement.
I'm thinking Progressive springs with 10 weight oil might be a good starting point for me. I'm guessing this would result in a smoother/cushier ride for rough pavement and offroad, but would be a little wallowy for fast twisties.
The GS comes stock with 10w oil. Are you 165 with gear? If so I would suggest putting in some 15w oil and seeing if that alone makes for a good ride.
I'm 165 nekkid and probably about 175 with gear.
Will I still get bottoming with 15 wt. oil and stock springs on rough pavement?
possibly. he was implying that if you want to go cheap first.. cheapest is just the oil change.
If you really really care. Then change the springs as well as the oil. I would go with Sonic Springs and probably .80 to .85 for you. They have a calculator you can input your weight in.
I'd go with 0.80 springs and 10w oil. Like you say, a bit wallowy (is that a word??) in the fast twisties, but supple and compliant the rest of the time.
Thanks for the replies. I'm not interested in going the cheap route, just want something reasonable that works.
Anyone have comments on the Progressive springs?
I like the progressives. I weigh a good bit more than you (the number starts with a 2, and let's leave it at that), and they stopped the bottoming at the railroad tracks. That would be with 10W oil because the local dealer does not stock any high weight fork oil, and I hadn't bothered to order in heavier oil - but I don't seem to need it. I've used them in all my bikes (getting up towards 20 years, I guess) and been happy with them. But I can't say I've tried the sonics - then again, I have not felt a need to, and progressives do cost somewhat less - but cost is not the primary object, and they are not (as the stock ones are) "cheap" in the non-monetary sense.
There is a post on here somewhere from the sonic springs (high mucky-muck of some sort, I forget, could be founder/president) that naturally supports the idea that sonics are better. I'd hardly expect otherwise given the source, and it's good to believe in your product. I don't doubt that they are fine. But I doubt I'll get to trying them.
I do ride on dirt/gravel roads, but I'll admit to being a wimp about it - always wary of the ball-bearing effect of loose gravel on the surface.
Progressive is bad, you want your suspension to be reliable and as predictable as possible. Progressive sounds good on paper, but it actually ends up giving you the wrong spring rate in most cases. There is air in the forks so they are already somewhat progressive. If you are going to be the only one riding your bike I suggest the sonics springs, they are just as good as RaceTech but cheaper. If you really want a good suspension and cost is not an issue also get some RaceTech gold valve emulators. I have never tried them but I hear they make a big difference.
My GS has plain forks so I went with 15W oil. I weigh 190-200 most of the time and I should have put heavier or progressive springs in too. Next time I change the oil I will. I found out that stock springs still bottom fairly easily when they have 20,000 miles on them and you weigh 200 lbs, even with heavier oil. My stock forks don't have as much travel as the stock forks on my 1977 XS 750.
However, if I had air up front I'd start with 10psi and add 5psi at a time until I got the feel I wanted, especially if I weighed only 165. Air is cheap. If adding air doesn't do the trick then it's time for mods.
Quote from: DoD#i on February 12, 2010, 10:16:07 AM
I like the progressives. I weigh a good bit more than you (the number starts with a 2, and let's leave it at that), and they stopped the bottoming at the railroad tracks. That would be with 10W oil because the local dealer does not stock any high weight fork oil, and I hadn't bothered to order in heavier oil - but I don't seem to need it. I've used them in all my bikes (getting up towards 20 years, I guess) and been happy with them. But I can't say I've tried the sonics - then again, I have not felt a need to, and progressives do cost somewhat less - but cost is not the primary object, and they are not (as the stock ones are) "cheap" in the non-monetary sense.
There is a post on here somewhere from the sonic springs (high mucky-muck of some sort, I forget, could be founder/president) that naturally supports the idea that sonics are better. I'd hardly expect otherwise given the source, and it's good to believe in your product. I don't doubt that they are fine. But I doubt I'll get to trying them.
I do ride on dirt/gravel roads, but I'll admit to being a wimp about it - always wary of the ball-bearing effect of loose gravel on the surface.
I'll have to add "high mucky-muck" to the business card. :icon_mrgreen:
We do strongly believe that straight rate springs are better, that's why it's all we make. It's no more effort to make progressively wound ones, so it's just a matter of what works better.
That said, in the real world the difference isn't huge, and an aftermarket spring of either design will be a lot better than the stock ones. I don't generally recommend that someone who has already installed Progressive springs toss them out and put in ours, it's not enough of a difference to be worth it. The exception would be someone who's very heavy or rides very aggressively.
If you're buying for the first time though, why not use the best design?
I have a .95 front and 15 wt oil, I think. It would be too stiff. I weigh 175.
Stock at 0.65 was too soft. So 0.8 sounds like a nice compromise.
Quote from: RichDesmond on February 14, 2010, 01:52:42 PM
I'll have to add "high mucky-muck" to the business card. :icon_mrgreen:
I was looking for a place to vent and lucky me, I found this thread featuring
RichDesmond (
high mucky-muck) of Sonic Springs!
I'd appreciate getting your 2 cents worth R.D.
Here's the story. . .
I installed 0.85 kg/mm Sonic Springs on my 07 GS500F and upgraded to PJ-1, 15w fork oil.
(I am about 195 to 200 pounds dressed, on the bike).
Results of new springs: It's difficult to say. I only rode on the stock springs once before I upgraded to the .85 Sonic's so I have little to compare against.
My opinion: Albeit a tad soft, the bike feels comfortable and secure. I have been told that a little soft is better than a little too hard for a daily commuter such as me. (So I should be happy, eh?)
The problem: Even the lightest grab of the front brakes causes the bike to nose-dive. It's annoying and embarrassing. It is most pronounced at slow speeds.
Closing assumption: I'm going to guess that most of the problem is due to the poor overall geometry of the GS500. I'll also guess that installing firmer springs would reduce the annoying low-speed nose-dive issue but create handling problems when cruising the highways.
My plan is to upgrade my current Sonic Springs from .85 to .90 and regardless of the outcome, write it off as a "best second guess for a rookie" and simply live with the results.
Rich, or any others, I'd be happy to hear your input on this before I send another 99 Obama's to Sonic for yet another set of front springs.
Thanks,
-Ej-
Quote from: Electrojake on April 21, 2010, 07:34:15 PM
Quote from: RichDesmond on February 14, 2010, 01:52:42 PM
I'll have to add "high mucky-muck" to the business card. :icon_mrgreen:
I was looking for a place to vent and lucky me, I found this thread featuring RichDesmond (high mucky-muck) of Sonic Springs!
I'd appreciate getting your 2 cents worth R.D.
Here's the story. . .
I installed 0.85 kg/mm Sonic Springs on my 07 GS500F and upgraded to PJ-1, 15w fork oil.
(I am about 195 to 200 pounds dressed, on the bike).
Results of new springs: It's difficult to say. I only rode on the stock springs once before I upgraded to the .85 Sonic's so I have little to compare against.
My opinion: Albeit a tad soft, the bike feels comfortable and secure. I have been told that a little soft is better than a little too hard for a daily commuter such as me. (So I should be happy, eh?)
The problem: Even the lightest grab of the front brakes causes the bike to nose-dive. It's annoying and embarrassing. It is most pronounced at slow speeds.
Closing assumption: I'm going to guess that most of the problem is due to the poor overall geometry of the GS500. I'll also guess that installing firmer springs would reduce the annoying low-speed nose-dive issue but create handling problems when cruising the highways.
My plan is to upgrade my current Sonic Springs from .85 to .90 and regardless of the outcome, write it off as a "best second guess for a rookie" and simply live with the results.
Rich, or any others, I'd be happy to hear your input on this before I send another 99 Obama's to Sonic for yet another set of front springs.
Thanks,
-Ej-
You're basically right about the geometry. It's not peculiar to the GS though, any bike with telescopic forks has pro-dive geometry. Modern sport bikes with steep rake angles aren't quite as bad, but they still do it. The goal (or one of them anyway) with better springs is not to eliminate dive but to control it. We're trying to slow the rate of dive, and to prevent the forks from bottoming. If you still have 15-25mm of travel left when braking very hard on a smooth surface then you're in good shape.
To an extent you can fine-tune the amount of dive with the oil level. Raise it 10mm (but not above 100mm) and that will increase the air spring component of the total spring rate. Not a substitute for the right spring rate by any means, but you can make a small change with it.
The 0.85s should be the right rate for you, but if you'd like to try something else shoot me an e-mail. We don't want you buying another set. :)
Quote from: RichDesmond on April 22, 2010, 12:08:19 PM
You're basically right about the geometry. It's not peculiar to the GS though, any bike with telescopic forks has pro-dive geometry.
The 0.85s should be the right rate for you, but if you'd like to try something else shoot me an e-mail. We don't want you buying another set. :)
I appreciate the quick and forthright reply.
Considering that the .85's should be the correct rate for my weight is a tad unsettling. If what you say is true (
i.e. we are agreeing about the geometry), then going up to .90 springs wouldn't really change anything.
How-a-bout if I tell you that I have an extended wind screen and then a Laminar LIP on top of that, steel handlebar extensions, a RAM mounted GPS, additional bar-end mirrors, and a number of gauges and indicators mounted into the nose fairing that aren't on a stock "F" bike. Nothing super-heavy but it adds up, no?
And if it matters any. . .
I also run with a tank bag, saddle bags and a tail bag with tools, tire repair gear, spare fuel & water canisters, rain gear, etc. . .
(In a perfect world I would buy .90, .95, and 1.00 springs and try them all in a grand learning experience).
Can ya' tell I'm itching to pull the trigger on a heavier set of springs??? (http://mysite.verizon.net/vze2wc9e/grin47.gif)
Thanks again for the reply, it shows great customer service.
Any other suggestions or comments from the crew here would be great (even the negative kind). It's a forum... vent!
It keeps things interesting.
-Ej-
The front end dives when you use the front brake. Unless you get a leading-link front suspension (aka Earles fork), that will always be true. What the heck are you "embarrassed" about it for? It's what telescopic forks do. If it bugs you that much, go for the moron approach and only use the back brake (or perhaps only use the back brake if anyone is looking, since embarrassment is the issue.) Less grab and more squeeze might also improve your front brake perceived behavior. Grabbing should be reserved for situations where embarrassment is the least of your worries.
If you are not bottoming out the suspension on bumps, you have enough spring. Suspension travel was put there to use - if you wind it up so stiff that the suspension doesn't move, it's not working... I outweigh you (and all your add-ons) before I get dressed and progressives (effective spring rate of I forget - it's been mentioned somewhere) were plenty to take the thunk out of crossing the railroad tracks. You really don't want an unsprung front end, and every step down the road of too stiff you take is a step closer to unsprung/solid. When the front tire hops, you are not steering.
Quote from: DoD#i on April 22, 2010, 09:08:16 PM
Unless you get a leading-link front suspension (aka Earles fork), that will always be true. What the heck are you "embarrassed" about it for? It's what telescopic forks do. If it bugs you that much, go for the moron approach and only use the back brake (or perhaps only use the back brake if anyone is looking, since embarrassment is the issue.) Less grab and more squeeze might also improve your front brake perceived behavior.
If you are not bottoming out the suspension on bumps, you have enough spring. Suspension travel was put there to use - if you wind it up so stiff that the suspension doesn't move, it's not working...
I commute thru a few rather "interesting" intersections. The need to grab the front stopper while rolling forward into the meat grinder at 3 or 4 MPH occasionally occurs. The surprising part is the nose-dive reaction the GS500 responds with.
At speed, it is not an issue. Jumping on the brakes at 40 MPH is very predictable and controllable. Just don't try it at 3 or 4 MPH.
(I'm merely trying to drive home a point here)
I'm no master biker but I also have a 155cc Yamaha, and my Son has a CRF230M, and about a hundred years ago I had a KZ400 and this nose-dive thing was not nearly as prominent on the other bikes.
As it stands now, it would appear as if the only modification necessary is "me". The bike with it's .85 Sonic Springs and 15w oil is spot-on. All that's required is a modification of my low speed braking technique. If the issue cant be rectified by mechanical means, then "I" need to adapt.
You also mention the rear brake. . .
From the moment I threw a leg over a GS500 I felt the rear brake was crap. I can't feel anything. I cant modulate what I cant feel and the squeal and squeak sounds it makes are nothing more than a testament to it's pi$s poor design.
(
here come the flames)It has been "suggested" that the rear brakes on these bikes are fine it's just "me" that has the problem. On the contrary; there are entire threads on the subject of the worthlessness on the GS500's rear brake on this very site.
Additionally. . .
Recently a co-worker of mine saw me pull into work on my GS500F and walked over and said "nice bike". Then he asked (totally unprovoked) Do ya' ever use the rear brake?
I was stunned by the question. I said as a matter of fact, the rear bakes on this bike are crap. They are noisy and the pedal act as little more that an off & on switch, (no feel, no modulation, no feedback).
I asked him why of all the first things he could possibly ask me about the bike, WHY would he ask me about the rear brake???
He said he used to have an old Honda CBR and then moved onto a new GSX-R600 and he rode with a couple of buddies that had GSX-R1000's. To make a long story short; he said that moving up from the old Honda to a new GSX-R was a great experience until it came time to stop (or slow down in a hurry). And he was curious if pi$s poor brakes were a Suzuki trademark or just on "his" bike.
No... I'm no master of road-craft, but I've been tooling around on various small cc bikes since about 1973. This 2007 GS500F is more fun than words can describe and well worth the money but the brakes are, well, distinctive.
Sorry for the long post, and yes I'm ready for the GSX-R crowd to flog me, and no, I've never ridden a GSX nor do I have any interest in anything faster than a KLR650 with full hard luggage and a tall wind screen.
But it was nice to vent! :cheers:
-Ej-
I've never had any problems with the brakes, really. Have always been more than adequate in any situation. I even used to do stoppies on it in my younger days.
As far as the rear brakes, well, they're rear brakes. They're pretty much to keep your rear end from wobbling around while you're braking with the front, and assist in slowing with the front brake.
Ever try stopping a car with just a rear wheeled E-brake? Not very effective, and not as much modulation.
The rear brake just doesn't need to be as sensitive as the front brake. There's more than enough modulation between not on and locked up in any braking situation I've encountered, including emergency ones.
Maybe on cruisers there's more weight towards the back of the bike due to seating position and bike design or something and maybe that makes the rear brakes work a little better on them, never ridden one so I dunno.
Quote from: Eklipse on April 23, 2010, 04:35:03 PM
As far as the rear brakes, well, they're rear brakes. They're pretty much to keep your rear end from wobbling around while you're braking with the front, and assist in slowing with the front brake.
Ever try stopping a car with just a rear wheeled E-brake? Not very effective, and not as much modulation.
The little voices in my head tell me that if a GS500F was the first bike I ever rode and I had nothing to compare it to, I would simply accept the brakes as-is and adapt accordingly.
In the big picture, considering how low priced these bikes are, it's kind of amazing that they are made as well as they are. My negative statements are an observation of function, not a complaint on workmanship. The GS fits my needs and means rather well.
(Although it was kinda' fun to go on a rant back there)
So it looks like the final verdict is for me to stay with the .85 spring rate and to get smart and simply adjust to the nature of the bike's brakes.
Thanks for the input on this stuff. :thumb:
-Ej-
The quicker your rate of deceleration, the less effective your rear brake and more effective your front break. As a consequence of decelerating, your front tire's traction increases and your rear tire's traction decreases.
The more you brake, the less possible braking your rear brake can do.
The more you need to brake, the less you need your rear brake.
It's good enough, in other words. I don't get much sensation through my riding boots, anyway.
despite the big red warning saying this is an old topic i'll chuck a penny in to the pan myself
I am a new L plater in australia .. and have not even picked up my '06 F yet.. but that changes tmw :D
however.. a few comments up it was mentioned by electrojake that it felt fine slowing from 30-40 mph but not at 3-4 mph.
when i test road my bike 2 weeks ago.. first 50 metres along street at low speed ( less than 15kph) i spent settling onto the seat, did a few weaves to get a feel for the weight/balance of the thing and tested the brakes... and i noticed the same effect.. it seemed to have a huge amount of "dip" with only light/medium pressure on the lever.. so keeping this in mind i set off for a 15 min ride around the 'burb.. and .. at higher speed (60-70 kph) it never bothered me, sure i felt it dip but everything felt fine. i noticed the rear was a bit "thunky" over a few speedhumps but nothing a few adjustments cant help.
so.. i'm thinking, and i'm not having a go at electrojake here.. is the "large nosedive" a mental perception issue?.. like you know your only hardly moving so you expect minimal movement? and at speed with knowing you have momentum the range of movement becomes acceptable? (when i say you, i mean all of us), however the bike suspension still has its range of movement to be used to stop the momentum of the bike in any situation.
sure i know that the "kawahonduki XYZ123" doesnt have this huge low speed dive. but this "our bike" with stock/slightly modded suspension seems to.
it seems the situation has resolved with the thread, i found the info interesting and it also reminded/realised me that being aware of things like this can only help with the ongoing knowledge collection to help keep me upright and riding :thumb:
The front brake provides most of the braking power at speed, but as you slow down close to a stop (i.e., 5 mph or below), you're supposed to ease off the front and increase the rear braking pressure for the final few feet for a smooth stop. The front brake tends to be "grabby" at walking speed (like the 3-4 mph mention) and that can be bad when your front wheel's not pointed straight. At only 3-4 mph the rear brake alone is perfectly capable of stopping you in a hurry. The rear brake on my GS500 worked perfectly fine - easy to modulate, provided well controlled stopping power, NOT prone to lock-up unless I really tried to force it, and no squeak. If you're rear brake is crap, it's probably not adjusted right.
Quote from: Eklipse on April 23, 2010, 04:35:03 PM
I've never had any problems with the brakes, really. Have always been more than adequate in any situation. I even used to do stoppies on it in my younger days.
As far as the rear brakes, well, they're rear brakes. They're pretty much to keep your rear end from wobbling around while you're braking with the front, and assist in slowing with the front brake.
Ever try stopping a car with just a rear wheeled E-brake? Not very effective, and not as much modulation.
The rear brake just doesn't need to be as sensitive as the front brake. There's more than enough modulation between not on and locked up in any braking situation I've encountered, including emergency ones.
Maybe on cruisers there's more weight towards the back of the bike due to seating position and bike design or something and maybe that makes the rear brakes work a little better on them, never ridden one so I dunno.
I disagree. I feel a back break should be an effective brake for just in case. Comparing it to a handbrake (E-Brake) isn't the same as normal rear brakes on a car. E-brakes either operate off an internal shoe drum arrangement on a disc brake car, a seperate caliper on some cars or use a ratchet mechanism to operate the caliper AND THEY NEVER work as well as your normal rear brakes. Ever lost front brakes on a car and had only backs to stop with? That would be a good comparison. Unlikely as a modern car uses a dual master cylinder where each component operates one front and one diagonally opposite rear for that just in case one side gets a leak, puncture bad wears down to far and you pop the piston out of the caliper etc.
Yes a back brake shouldn't be more powerful then a front as its designed to aid the front. Where as the front should be able to completely stop a bike safely. Still the back brake should be able add some real force to braking but in its current setup it seems only good for crawling.
I also agree with EJ that the back brake doesn't work as well as it should. Its noisy for a start when it really it shouldn't be and lacks feel and range. I rebuilt the brakes on my GN250 for this exact reasons and got, only a slightly better back brake and was still disappointed.
I've not been into bikes long or modifying bikes (Cars massively). My experience is limited to half a dozen road bikes (Ninja 250, GN250, GS500F, VF750 (I think thats what is was), a dyna super glide custom (small car sized harley. Ridden it heaps) and a Fatboy) and about the same number of trail bikes.) Now the GN and GS had the worse back brakes from my experience of all those bikes and I hated the harley's but DAM they stopped good.
Now my question is What brake upgrades can you get for these beasts? That's what I'll be looking at next year after I learn to play with the suspension.
I have .95 sonic springs, 15w oil, ~120mm of air. I weigh about 240 w gear and all. Like someone mentioned earlier, as long as I don't grab aat the brake, I don't really notice much nose dive. My only regret is that I had installed the springs sooner.
I suggest an Enduro type of bike with more suspension travel. If going with the GS500F, then linear springs will have the advantage in your rough riding and on serious bumps, heavier springs are more comfy than weaker ones. The forks are damper rod designs, so you can prolly go pretty heavy on the suspension fluid to match the springs. Cripe, youve done it before on bikes that were not designed to do it...
prs
Quote from: Pigeonroost on August 23, 2010, 11:17:14 AM
I suggest an Enduro type of bike with more suspension travel. If going with the GS500F, then linear springs will have the advantage in your rough riding and on serious bumps, heavier springs are more comfy than weaker ones. The forks are damper rod designs, so you can prolly go pretty heavy on the suspension fluid to match the springs. Cripe, youve done it before on bikes that were not designed to do it...
prs
I have same idea, if you want speed over war zone pavement get a dual sport. For GS to stiffen it up, either straight springs and kat rear, or buy new used forks, but these mods don't speak to war zone pavement.
Quote from: Janx101 on August 22, 2010, 10:43:34 PM
despite the big red warning saying this is an old topic i'll chuck a penny in to the pan myself
I am a new L plater in australia .. and have not even picked up my '06 F yet.. but that changes tmw :D
however.. a few comments up it was mentioned by electrojake that it felt fine slowing from 30-40 mph but not at 3-4 mph.
Reviving an old topic is an art form.
Its something to be proud of, not apologetic about.
Anyway. . .
Thanks for the comments on the nose-dive and spring rate issues.
The truth of the matter is I'm way better at running my mouth and swinging a wrench than I am at roadcraft, hence my tendency to blather.
It seems the more miles I put on the GS500, the more I realize its me "the rider" that usually requires the adjustments.
I'm staying with the 15W fork oil and the .85 Sonic's.
BTW: Both of which I originally learned about from the great GSTwin.com crew here on the forum. :thumb:
-Ej-