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. 

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.   

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... 

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.