I bought an 07' GS500F about 6 months ago and I'm starting to do some mods to it. I was wondering if anyone knows wats the biggest rear wheel you can put on without have to do that many changes. I saw the post for the 06' katana wheel but i want to refrain from doing that right now. if any one knows, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

That is the easyest swop by far

I have a 96 Bandit 600 wheel.17x4.5 running a 160-60-17 tire.The GS spacer with small flat washers stacked on the ends to take up the width difference.I used stainless steel washers to space the rear sprocket.Not a big deal,since the wheel will be off to get a larger tire.It's easiest to set it up with no tire.

Im running a 150/60-17 tire on my stock gs rim

Quote from: ben2go on January 20, 2008, 03:32:35 PM
I have a 96 Bandit 600 wheel.17x4.5 running a 160-60-17 tire.The GS spacer with small flat washers stacked on the ends to take up the width difference.I used stainless steel washers to space the rear sprocket.Not a big deal,since the wheel will be off to get a larger tire.It's easiest to set it up with no tire.

Any pics?

Did you have to bend the brake rod? Any other clearance issues?

Quote from: ronaldramos317 on January 20, 2008, 02:55:54 PM
I bought an 07' GS500F about 6 months ago and I'm starting to do some mods to it. I was wondering if anyone knows wats the biggest rear wheel you can put on without have to do that many changes. I saw the post for the 06' katana wheel but i want to refrain from doing that right now. if any one knows, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

The 98+ Kat 4.5" rear wheel requires the least amount work for any wheel swap.

Quote from: mach1 on January 20, 2008, 03:54:59 PM
Im running a 150/60-17 tire on my stock gs rim

what kind of tire and any mods needed?

A Metzeler Sportec M-1 and no. Im shure your going to have split opinions from this board about going the wide on a stock rim but It feels fine to me and when I used the stock tire size in the canyons and I leaned the bike over enough the bike would get unstable but with the wider tire it gives me more room to lean over farther with more stability. But thats just my opinion. If you wanna go the proper way with the stock rim than a 140 is fine.

Quote from: mach1 on January 20, 2008, 08:52:27 PM
A Metzeler Sportec M-1 and no. Im shure your going to have split opinions from this board about going the wide on a stock rim but It feels fine to me and when I used the stock tire size in the canyons and I leaned the bike over enough the bike would get unstable but with the wider tire it gives me more room to lean over farther with more stability. But thats just my opinion. If you wanna go the proper way with the stock rim than a 140 is fine.

are you running radials front and rear?  can you mis and match or use one in the front while you wait to wear out the back?

Im running M-1s for both front and rear Im sure you can mixmatch but I just didnt want to. But I would wait for GSJACK to chime in he know more about tires than I do.

It is VERY dangerous to mix radials and bias plys.  It is some what ok to mix tires of the same construction but fomr different manufacturers.  If you have bias in the front you should have bias in the back.  Same thing goes for radials.  DO NOT MIX THEM!!!

My main concern is about bending the brake rode.

When you do this do you have to make sure the brake calliper is still in alignment with the rear disc?

The M-1 is the narrowest of the 150 radials measuring only 143 mm wide on a 4.0 rim and would be about 5 mm narrower than that on our 3.5 rims.  Would require no alterations.  It's a 150/60 supersport.

I ran a bias 150/70 Lasertec and a st radial 150/70 RoadAttack both about 6 mm wider than the M-1 and the Lasertec just cleared the brake torque rod and the RoadAttack just touched it.  I bent the brake rod so it would clear any 150/60 or 150/70 tire on the stock 3.5 wheel including the Avon Storms and the Bridgestone BT021 which are the widest of the 150s.  They will all clear the chain and guard on the other side.  Quick and easy to do.

A radial front with a bias rear is a no-no but a radial rear with a bias front can be OK.  I've run a couple different bias fronts with 3 different radial rears and was OK except for one that was a bit questionable in handling. 

dadsafrantic, why do you want a 150 rear, for looks or for performance?  A sport touring radial will give the best combination of tire life and handling.  I recall you have a 06 F model you use mostly for commuting.  You can get the Roadriders or the BT45 in the 150/70 size if you want. 

I got about 8-10k miles from bias rears, about 10-14k miles from sport touring radial rears, and 17-30k miles from rear touring tires.  Generally speaking the longer the life, the less the grip and handling you get from them.

My favorite mix was a 110/80 Lasertec bias front with a 150/70 RoadAttack sport touring radial rear.

Quote from: galahs on January 20, 2008, 10:11:33 PM
My main concern is about bending the brake rode.

When you do this do you have to make sure the brake calliper is still in alignment with the rear disc?

I ran the RoadAttack for some miles with it touching the brake rod so it was marked a bit when I took it off to bend it.  I put it on a 2x4 with the marked side up and beat it right on the mark with a 40 oz BFH and it flattened a bit and also bent in the right direction to give more clearance.  Put it right back on and had no problem with caliper alignment. 

Some here have heated the rod to bend it and then sanded it and painted it but mine works fine just like it is.  Matches the rest of the bike after a few winters of splashing thru the salt water.   

Here's a lousy pic of the bent rod and the RoadAttack clearance.  Will wash the bike again in the spring:

wow, thanks for all the replies. they all seem like great ideas. i think i'm a try a 150/60/17, if not i'll just do a swap with the katana rear wheel. thanks a lot.

I still don't understand how bending the rear brake rod wouldn't upset the rear callipers alignment 

Quote from: gsJack on January 20, 2008, 10:30:56 PM
The M-1 is the narrowest of the 150 radials measuring only 143 mm wide on a 4.0 rim and would be about 5 mm narrower than that on our 3.5 rims.  Would require no alterations.  It's a 150/60 supersport.

I ran a bias 150/70 Lasertec and a st radial 150/70 RoadAttack both about 6 mm wider than the M-1 and the Lasertec just cleared the brake torque rod and the RoadAttack just touched it.  I bent the brake rod so it would clear any 150/60 or 150/70 tire on the stock 3.5 wheel including the Avon Storms and the Bridgestone BT021 which are the widest of the 150s.  They will all clear the chain and guard on the other side.  Quick and easy to do.

A radial front with a bias rear is a no-no but a radial rear with a bias front can be OK.  I've run a couple different bias fronts with 3 different radial rears and was OK except for one that was a bit questionable in handling. 

dadsafrantic, why do you want a 150 rear, for looks or for performance?  A sport touring radial will give the best combination of tire life and handling.  I recall you have a 06 F model you use mostly for commuting.  You can get the Roadriders or the BT45 in the 150/70 size if you want. 

I got about 8-10k miles from bias rears, about 10-14k miles from sport touring radial rears, and 17-30k miles from rear touring tires.  Generally speaking the longer the life, the less the grip and handling you get from them.

My favorite mix was a 110/80 Lasertec bias front with a 150/70 RoadAttack sport touring radial rear.

do you think i will need to modify the brake rod with a roadrider 150 on the back?

Quote from: galahs on January 21, 2008, 12:35:36 AM
I still don't understand how bending the rear brake rod wouldn't upset the rear callipers alignment 

The brake is kept in alignment by its hanger. The brake rod only keeps the caliper from rotating.

Quote from: dgyver on January 21, 2008, 04:59:43 AM

Quote from: galahs on January 21, 2008, 12:35:36 AM
I still don't understand how bending the rear brake rod wouldn't upset the rear callipers alignment 

The brake is kept in alignment by its hanger. The brake rod only keeps the caliper from rotating.

Thankyou 

Quote from: galahs on January 21, 2008, 05:18:21 AM

Quote from: dgyver on January 21, 2008, 04:59:43 AM

Quote from: galahs on January 21, 2008, 12:35:36 AM
I still don't understand how bending the rear brake rod wouldn't upset the rear callipers alignment 

The brake is kept in alignment by its hanger. The brake rod only keeps the caliper from rotating.

Thankyou 

Exactly, but not quite I think.      The caliper is mounted to a bracket that is mounted to and located by the axle so it should remain in alignment with the rotor all the time even if the wheel is a bit out of alignment.

But some members have reported and I have experienced rear brake squeal being affected by axle position.  It has been induced or elimanated by r & r of the wheel or by a simple chain adjustment.  If the caliper and rotor are just a tad out of alignment one pad touches on the leading edge and the other on the trailing edge resulting in squeal with light brake application which goes away when pressing a little harder on the brake.  Probably just a matter of the clearance between the mounting bracket and the axle.

Look at the brake torque rod on the more expensive sport bikes.  They are below the swing arm and much thinner and lighter to reduce unsprung weight.  They take the braking torque load in tension while our cheapo brake rods are above the axle and must be stouter to take the load in compression.   

Also note the sport bike rear brake rotors are all smaller in diameter than our GSs to reduce brake lockup induced by their powerful dual front brakes.  With our good but modest single front brake we can get more out of the rear brake when properly used. 

My rear EBC HH pads squealed badly for a long time but now have quieted down completely and I hesitate to touch the rear axle alignment.  Don't even loosen the screws to r & r the rear wheel and very carefully move exactly the same amount on both sides for occasional chain adjustment.