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?
got any pictures?
We can - but we measured everything. Dog bones are stock. Shock stock.
We are puzzled.
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.
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
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.
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]
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.
Easiest way to get height where you want it might be to get a set of shorter dogbones to raise it up 2". :dunno_black:
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.
Quote from: gsJack on March 16, 2013, 05:04:08 PM
Easiest way to get height where you want it might be to get a set of shorter dogbones to raise it up 2". :dunno_black:
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.
The forks have been dropped in the triple clamps? Or collapsed bearings? Bent frame/swing arm? All the bits are installed correctly orientation wise?
Forks correct.
What we see is the swing arm is not angled down as much. We have replaced everything except the swing arm :icon_eek:
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.
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.
How do you tell the early 89's from non early? I can compare mine to my wifes 89.
Quote from: PatheticPuma on March 16, 2013, 06:36:51 PM
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
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. :thumb:
Quote from: PatheticPuma on March 16, 2013, 06:36:51 PM
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.
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 2ยข
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]
Yeah that rear tire is way off the ground... Something at the rear of the bike.
- Bboy
The rear tire looks like its tucked way up under the body, like the shock is compressed.
Well, I have to say again that we measured and replaced everything. All is stock. All is correct. 11.5" for the shock. This is what is so confusing. There is nothing wrong anywhere with parts we can take off and replace. We did it.
We are left to wonder if there is something with the frame of the swing arm. As the twice removed PO said it had lowering links and it in fact had stock links, we wonder if the mount on the swing arm was modified.
Really, when you have stock shock, stock knuckle and stock dog bones there isn't much you would think could be wrong. It is simple geometry. When the geometry is wrong, that leaves the frame and/or swing arm mountings.
I will have to investigate my other frames and swing arms. I have 89's and other years. maybe time to lay an 89 frame on top of a later frame and sight down all the bolt holes for one that doesn't line up. I have an 89 parts bike with wheels on that also looks low. Time for a protractor! Swing arm angle!
I think its sharp, am curious what you find to be the difference though.
Quote from: Snake2715 on March 16, 2013, 10:30:49 PM
I think its sharp, am furious what you find to be the difference though.
I am sorry you are "furious". I think you'd want to be "curious"
Has the geometry changed on the back through the years?
I think an extremely minor change in rake in 2001 but nothing to cause the bike to be so low.
Interesting, in trying things, with 2 people, you can change out a shock in 5 minutes.
I wonder if that front end crash we were thinking that the PPPPO possibly had could have really smashed the rear and crunched it or something? I know it sounds like bologna but I am at a loss of ideas for this. :dunno_black:
Front tire is 110-70-17
What front end crash? Oh, yes, all the bailing wire and stuff.
That doesn't explain that parts bike frame that looked low, too.
Next time you're here, we'll do some careful measurements and compare. I'm not sure how a front end collision would affect the rear end.
We WILL solve this! One solution is change the dog bones. That will work. Change the shock for one that raises the rear. I might have something. There are a couple other shocks around the Cave somewhere.
Looks normal to me? Then again I own an 89 and 90 and mine are the same height as each other
Quote from: adidasguy on March 17, 2013, 12:06:10 AM
One solution is change the dog bones. That will work. Change the shock for one that raises the rear. I might have something. There are a couple other shocks around the Cave somewhere.
Yea, I will definitely look for shorter dog bones. Matter of fact I will post a WTB right now. And for the shock, I might just wait until I buy an r6 shock, unless you have one you think that would work better in the mean time.
Quote from: adidasguy on March 16, 2013, 02:45:19 PM
.....................Bike is 2" lower than normal...........................
I have wondered since the first post in this thread exactly what was the basis for the 2" lower figure, I assumed it was a measure of seat height?
A change in the rear shock length or tire size makes an almost equal change in seat height but a change in the front end height is hardly noticeable in seat height. However, both can make a significant difference in the bikes rake affecting handling. A change of !" in front or rear height makes approx one degree change in rake if my math is correct. I remember shortly after I got my first GS 14 years ago I tried a couple of rear touring tires that came in a 130/90 size because of the great tire life I got from them on my previous Hondas. The 130/90 raises the rear about 1" and makes the steering feel noticeably quicker but the GS wanted to go around corners faster than the touring tires did.
I suggested changing the links to restore the GS seat height in this case but jacob92icu has already mentioned a shock change that will affect it and there is alao a tire change possibility to affect it, we all have to change tires from time to time. A 140/80 rear tire is a preferred fit on our 3.5" rear rim width and will raise the rear almost as much as the 130/90. I've used several 140/80 rears on my GSs and they both perform and look good on it.
Someone made reference to using the right tire size recently on the GS meaning the oem size but there is really not a right size only for anything on the GS. If the Suzuki way was the only way we wouldn't even need this forum. :icon_lol:
We are going by seat height and distance from rear axle to the same point on the frame. One measurement was from rear axle to the seat lock. There was a 2" difference. We used the seat lock as a reference because it was an obvious point.
Also we noticed the distance from the top of the tire to the inner fencer.
Another point was sighting through the rear, at the top of the tire. Visually there was less distance between sighting the top of the tire a the lower part of the frame, such as the luggage rails.
I don't just want to raise the rear end completely by throwing a larger tire on it. I want to make it so there is visibly more space between the tire and the under tail. I think it looks ten times better with a more aggressive stance like that. Yesssss, I am all about looks :) Clearly I have bar end mirrors... :icon_lol:
Jacob, the shorter links then would be the best solution since they would pull the wheel down away from the inner fender thingy.
Jacob and adidas, I'm looking again at the 2 pics of the knuckles and it appears the pivot point of the knuckle in the lower pic is higher than in the upper pic, it's much closer to the screw holding the peg bracket. That would definetly raise the swingarm and lower the bike, could be where the original lowering was accomplished?
My bike is up on the centerstand with the rear wheel off waiting for a shock, link, and tire change, I'll have to take a look at that bracket situation when I go over to the garage, don't recall whether it's welded to the frame or bolted on off hand.
Maybe it's just the difference in the picture size/perspective, a measurement would confirm it.
Not picture perspective.
We have looked at everything from all perspectives and sat on bikes, too.
Measurement from rear axle to the same point above on teh frame of another (all other) bikes confirms it is about 2" low.
Quote from: gsJack on March 17, 2013, 11:01:27 AM
..................I'm looking again at the 2 pics of the knuckles and it appears the pivot point of the knuckle in the lower pic is higher than in the upper pic, it's much closer to the screw holding the peg bracket. That would definetly raise the swingarm and lower the bike, could be where the original lowering was accomplished?............................
?
Quote from: gsJack on March 17, 2013, 11:28:16 AM
Quote from: gsJack on March 17, 2013, 11:01:27 AM
..................I'm looking again at the 2 pics of the knuckles and it appears the pivot point of the knuckle in the lower pic is higher than in the upper pic, it's much closer to the screw holding the peg bracket. That would definetly raise the swingarm and lower the bike, could be where the original lowering was accomplished?............................
?
Even if this were the case jack, it would not matter because that piece that holds the knuckle on is welded to the frame. Maybe sometime in the bikes past one of the owners re-sized the hole that holds the aluminum knuckle on? I don't know. I am assuming that I should not just drill a hole in my existing dog bone because of pressure points and stress correct?
No drilling holes. It is a major safety item in the suspension. You do not want to compromise it. We have to solve this and fix it right.
Hmmm. Ill just weld an sv650 tail on :) Jkin, I don't want to ruin a good frame. I really cant think of anything but shorter dog bones, but can you even buy dog bones that raise the bike for the gs500?
After doing a search on google and popping up on one thread in particular about raising links I found this ebay offer. This specifies it will only raise the rear 1 1/4'' which could be enhanced to 2'' once I get the R6 shock. What do you guys think?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Raising-Riser-kit-GS500-GS-500-All-Years-/280368971226?hash=item41474afdda&item=280368971226&pt=Motorcycles_Parts_Accessories&vxp=mtr
Just order a set of those Burkhart links that are less than $20, they come in an infinite number of lengths. Stock links are 7 1/16 between hole centers and the ones that they sell for 2" lower are 7 7/16 between centers so you need a pair 6 11/16 between centers for 2" raise. Approx 3/8" shorter than stock.
http://burkhartcycle.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=8_18&products_id=87
I've been measuring and taking pictures.
One is a 1989 parts bike. Rear end of swing arm is 1" high.
Other is a later model. It looks just fine.
Every measurement I can see is the same.
Links, shock, everything.
Now sometimes I see what may be a 1/8" difference somewhere, that may be just to human error.
Given that 2" is only 3/8" difference is the links, a few error all in the same direction could cause a difference in height.
I am still stumped.
It will take some careful measuring to determine actually what is different. I have frames and swing arms for measuring but am running out of time today.
the 89 parks bike clearly has the same issue as jacob's bike.
So Jack, I would be safe buying the 6 11/16 links for a 2" raise?
*EDIT*
After looking at the link you posted Jack looks like you can only buy lowering links, would I have to go with the GSXR750 raising links? Or what are you seeing from that company that would work?
It's about a 5:1 ratio between the amount the bike height changes to the link length change. My notes on it:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v443/jcp8832/LinkDims.jpg
I'm running a 150/60 rear tire now which is the same OD as the stock 130/70 with 1 1/4" lowering links and a worn out rear shock with 90k+ miles on it and it fits my modified dimensions just about right. I'm about 3-4" shorter now than I was when I bought my first GS. I'm putting on a low mileage e-bay 07 shock with a 140/70 rear Roadrider and the 2" lowering links I've had for a while. Expect with the 1/2" rise from the bigger tire and the new shock it will ride at about the same height as it does now.
So then how would i go about ordering custom size for the gs500 from Burkhartcycles?
did they install the swing arm pivot point at a different point on the 89 model per chance? or is the swing arm a different length?
Quote from: jacob92icu on March 17, 2013, 05:12:13 PM
So then how would i go about ordering custom size for the gs500 from Burkhartcycles?
http://www.burkhartcycle.com/Site/extras/linktable.htm
The 6.660 or the 6.720 ones would be close enough to 6 11/16 desired length.
errr... know you said knuckle to something is same length... but the top photo... the downwards facing U steel thingy .. that the knuckle?... its longer in the top photo... about a half inch different by my eye... which .. using gsjacks 5:1 ratio gives a little over 2" .. give a take a little for not exactly half inch ..
or is the ratio only for dogbones?
Ratio that Jack gave is only for dog bones. We compared the knuckle on my bike with a stock knuckle Adidas had hanging around and it was the same size. The difference you see is probably because of the closer up picture maybe.
Quote from: adidasguy on March 16, 2013, 03:06:22 PM
We can - but we measured everything. Dog bones are stock. Shock stock.
We are puzzled.
i know. and im not doubting your skills in repairs or assy. either. just wanted to see a side shot of the bike so i could see if anything appeared different
Quote from: gsJack on March 17, 2013, 05:38:57 PM
The 6.660 or the 6.720 ones would be close enough to 6 11/16 desired length.
Are you not suggesting the 6.835 for a reason? Thats even closer to the 6 11/16th link. So your sure this will raise it two inches? Cause I think I will go ahead and buy these if they will.
Quote from: jacob92icu on March 17, 2013, 06:18:42 PM
Ratio that Jack gave is only for dog bones. We compared the knuckle on my bike with a stock knuckle Adidas had hanging around and it was the same size. The difference you see is probably because of the closer up picture maybe.
(http://www.gs500.net/gallery/data/503/this_bit.JPG) (http://www.gs500.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/116/title/this-bit/cat/503)
this is the lower photo .. with my bestest attempt with paint shop on it...
the distance between the relevant points marked by the yellow lines... zoom factor of camera or not... is longer on the original upper photo... you could fit almost another whole bolt head in the extra length of metal avail...
whether or not it makes a real world difference regarding overall length of shock??.. dunno.. could be current spring length/preload shows OAL same... but unless i am missing something obvious... the distance/length of the bit in the red circle... is not the same as the original top photo... addys bike i assume,... cos it looks like you could do a white glove inspection on most of it!? ;)
Quote from: jacob92icu on March 17, 2013, 06:32:30 PM
Quote from: gsJack on March 17, 2013, 05:38:57 PM
The 6.660 or the 6.720 ones would be close enough to 6 11/16 desired length.
Are you not suggesting the 6.835 for a reason? Thats even closer to the 6 11/16th link. So your sure this will raise it two inches? Cause I think I will go ahead and buy these if they will.
11/16=.6875 so the 6.835 would be closer. Just took a quick look at the list and missed that one. Knew you would check it. :icon_lol: A man my age shouldn't go by memory on the decimal equivelents. :oops:
Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on March 17, 2013, 06:28:13 PM
i know. and im not doubting your skills in repairs or assy. either. just wanted to see a side shot of the bike so i could see if anything appeared different
Tomorrow I will take a photo of the 89 parts bike with a 1" difference and Phenix. I will use a ruler and be the same distance away and the same distance above the ground.
Given all parts are identical now (shock, knuckle and dog bones) compared to Phenix, something is causing his rear wheel to be 2" too high. Only difference is the vintage of the frame: 1989 .vs. 1993
Still very puzzled....
So is this burkhartcycle site reputable? Is it safe to purchase online and give all your email information and everything to create an account?
Quote from: adidasguy on March 16, 2013, 10:42:36 PM
Quote from: Snake2715 on March 16, 2013, 10:30:49 PM
I think its sharp, am furious what you find to be the difference though.
I am sorry you are "furious". I think you'd want to be "curious"
yeah love working from the phone to come back later and see a mistake. At least this one was worth a laugh (at least to me).
Quote from: oldmech on March 17, 2013, 05:29:21 PM
did they install the swing arm pivot point at a different point on the 89 model per chance? or is the swing arm a different length?
Yea, from what I remember we measured them and they were all the same. Thats kinda the idea I was thinking of though.
Just bought some of those burkhartlinks. Hopefully they come soon :)
We know it takes 5 to 10 minutes to swap them with 2 people to hold everyting in place. Call and stop over when you get them.
So, I took GSJacks Advice and ordered some links that would raise the bike. Only thing is The links I bought will only raise the bike an inch if not less based on my predictions. Should Have paid more attention when buying them. My question now is, is there any shock that is an extremely straight forward swap (no drilling, no shaving of swing arm, etc...) that will raise the bike roughly an inch? I have heard that the katana shocks don't raise the rear at all, and the sv650 shocks raise the rear by like 2 inches, but you need to do some alterations. There is one shock that I am curious about that supposedly raises the rear 3/4 of an inch and is a direct bolt on, the RGV250 shock. I weigh 210 lbs with gear so that is probably not a very good choice for me. Any others that I have missed?
There was another thread I remember that talked about the 89 knuckle being made of aluminum as opposed to steel as it is in all 90+ bikes. I believe it also said that you can use an 89 knuckle on all bikes, but you can't use a 90+ knuckle with an 89 shock (or something like this). Doesn't that imply that there is something different about the 89 knuckle and shock than the 90+? Maybe if you combine a 90+ shock with an 89 knuckle you get the 2" lowering?
Quote from: jacob92icu on April 10, 2013, 07:19:40 PM
So, I took GSJacks Advice and ordered some links that would raise the bike. Only thing is The links I bought will only raise the bike an inch if not less based on my predictions. Should Have paid more attention when buying them. My question now is, is there any shock that is an extremely straight forward swap (no drilling, no shaving of swing arm, etc...) that will raise the bike roughly an inch? I have heard that the katana shocks don't raise the rear at all, and the sv650 shocks raise the rear by like 2 inches, but you need to do some alterations. There is one shock that I am curious about that supposedly raises the rear 3/4 of an inch and is a direct bolt on, the RGV250 shock. I weigh 210 lbs with gear so that is probably not a very good choice for me. Any others that I have missed?
I've only used oem GS shocks myself but do recall it has been said the Katana 600 shock would raise the GS rear so I just now looked at the Wiki and it says it will raise it 1/2-3/4" and is stiffer than the GS shock and has rebound damping. You can see in the Wiki pic it's longer.
http://wiki.gstwins.com/index.php?n=Upgrades.RearShock#katana
Which links did you buy, if it was the 6.835 ones we talked about it should raise it a little over an inch so with the Kat 600 shock it should be close to where you want it. The 6.660 or the 6.720 I was originally talking about would have raised it more being even shorter. Looking back, we weren't thinking too well on that one. :icon_sad:
Haha I know! I did do one thing right and bought the 6.720 ones. I should have just realized the 6.5 was perfect for 2''raise... Hmmm, maybe I'll have to try a katana shock. Good thing i was looking to change them out anyways. That's an interesting thought bomb squad, but i think adidas puts the aluminum knuckles on all of his bikes even the 90+ ones cause he likes the style, and he hasn't had any problems.
Aluminum knuckles are interchangeable.
The difference, as Jacob and I noted, is the lower u shape thingy on the shock where it bolts to the knuckle. On newer shocks, it is about 1/2" deeper due to the outer dimensions of the steel knuckle (I've posted pictures of both many times before). That is why an 89 shock will not fit a steel knuckle.
REMEMBER: The length of the shock - bolt hole to bolt hole - is EXACTLY the same. Newer shocks can replace 89 shocks and aluminum knuckles can replace steel ones. Steel knuckle + 89 shock doesn't fit (Coda found this out a year or so ago).
Junior and Phenix are the correct height. 1992 and 1993 frames. Both have 2009 shock and aluminum knuckle.
Next time Jacob is at the bike cave, we will do some detailed measurement and precise side photos from the same angle and distance to determine what is different. I suspect the point where the knuckle mounts to the frame is ever so slightly low (based on earlier photos).
For sureeee. I have been super busy lately. But in the mean time, any year katana 600-750 shock will work?
Quote from: jacob92icu on April 11, 2013, 11:17:14 AM
For sureeee. I have been super busy lately. But in the mean time, any year katana 600-750 shock will work?
I had to shave with my 01 750 shock from what i hear 600 you wont have to shave at all and at your weight might bw better choice
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Quote from: jacob92icu on April 11, 2013, 09:51:48 AM
Haha I know! I did do one thing right and bought the 6.720 ones. I should have just realized the 6.5 was perfect for 2''raise... Hmmm, maybe I'll have to try a katana shock. Good thing i was looking to change them out anyways. That's an interesting thought bomb squad, but i think adidas puts the aluminum knuckles on all of his bikes even the 90+ ones cause he likes the style, and he hasn't had any problems.
I noticed the 6.5" links for 2" raise you posted yesterday and should have questioned it then, stock links are 7 1/16" long between hole centers so:
(7.062-6.5)x5= 2.81" higher based on the
approx 5:1 ratio and I always try to remember to say approximately or about since this is not rocket science, working on the GS is more like tractor science.
If the links you purchased are 6.72" then:
(7.062-6.72)x5= 1.71" higher which is close to what you are seeking so why not throw them on and see how it works out. You can always throw on the Kat shock later when you find one if you want more height. Way back 60k miles ago in May 07 when I put on my approx 1-1 1/4" lowering links I just put my bike on the stand and changed them without even removing the wheel.
By the way I didn't change the rear tire and links like I was considering when I put the like new rear shock on last week, just changed the shock. It's all working nice that way and the ride height is only a tad higher with my 235# butt on board. Still haven't used those 2" Burkhart lowering links I bought a couple years ago but have them on standby if I shrink another 3" in height in the next year or two.