I said that I’d post my findings after a test ride of the lower ride height option of the GSA, so here they are...
It’s quite long so hope it doesn’t get too boring and hope that maybe it helps anyone else with the same thoughts.
This is the follow up of my previous thread; http://www.ukgser.com/forums/showthread.php/469112-Handling-of-standard-v-reduced-ride-height
Firstly, I’d just like to clarify a couple of things. I’m 6’2” and have inside leg of 34” so have no physical need of the lowered height option. My interest in this comparison is purely about me wanting to know if there’s a difference in handling between the lowered bike v standard height bike.
The second thing, which many of you will probably already know, is that the difference between the bikes is specifically the suspension ride height. The handlebar, footrest and seat positions are identical on both bikes except for the option of a slightly differently padded seat. Apparently, bikes are mostly ordered with the standard seats by customers opting for the lowered ride height. The bikes are absolutely identical apart from the fact that the lowered bike literally sits lower on the road.
Many of you will already know that the standard height GS handles slightly better than the standard height GSA. The seat height on the standard GS is 840mm, and the seat height on the standard GSA is 890mm. The low option on the GS takes it down to 800mm and to 850mm on the GSA. The lower centre of gravity of the GS, 840mm compared to 890mm of the GSA, is likely to be what gives it its handling advantage. The GS is a tad lighter than the GSA but I’d say that a fully fuelled GS with a bit of luggage to make up the difference in weight would probably still have a slight handling advantage over an unladen GSA. I’m not talking about big differences, just slight advantages.
Back to the GSA comparisons... I’ve read quite a few comments where people have detected no difference in the handling between the standard height bike and the lowered version. To be fair, they were probably not looking at the test purely from a handling point of view, as many of those who choose the lowered option do so for leg reach reasons.
I was curious and also believed that physics would surely play a part in making a difference. Drop a 263kg motorcycle a couple of inches (a reasonable proportion of its total ride height and suspension travel) and it will affect its centre of gravity.
The test ride - I’ll keep it short, no pun intended! The first thing I did was to ensure that the suspension was set to solo rider, no luggage, normal, and Road mode selected. I put the seat in it’s high position. The bike was identical to mine apart from colour and ride height. It even had the same Pilot Trail 4’s fitted.
I started by riding as slowly as possible and trying to keep the bike going straight, as if riding along a chalk line drawn on the ground. The bike felt a little easier to hold on a straight course than my standard height bike, but the difference was only slight. I then headed off to some country twisties with national speed limits. I have to say that the bike carved into turns better than mine and held it’s line better. It wasn’t long before I was getting my sports bike head on and deliberately being aggressive; using full acceleration, braking late and hard, tipping it in gassing out of the bends, rolling quickly from one to another. Pegs grazed a couple of times and left toe as I got my boot in position for a gear change whilst still banked over. I know it’s generally how these bikes are ridden but I wanted to know how the lowered GSA handled.
I concluded that the handling was better; I was able to steer a more accurately chosen line in the bends, change direction and line mid-bend, as well as flick from one side to the other with generally less effort. It wasn’t miles better than my standard height GSA, but there was a difference. Enough of a difference to put a smile on my face. The only problem was ground clearance, but it is lower! I stopped and set the suspension up as high as it’d go and resuming the same riding style the bike still felt just as good despite the slight increase in height, but with slightly better ground clearance. I think on a track, the ground clearance would be more of an issue. I know that these bikes aren’t race bikes but I know that they are extremely capable in many scenarios. The standard height GSA is superb, it’s just that the lowered bike felt a tad better and slightly more precise mid bend.
Can I trade off ground clearance for the slightly better handling??? One other thing... I prefer the look of the tall, standard height bike - it just seems to have more presence. But that could be just because, over the years, I’ve got used to seeing how the standard bike looks - yeah... high... because it’s an adventure bike! Mmmm, time for a think.
Either way, it’s hard to go wrong, as the differences are thankfully only slight. Swings and roundabouts...
It’s quite long so hope it doesn’t get too boring and hope that maybe it helps anyone else with the same thoughts.
This is the follow up of my previous thread; http://www.ukgser.com/forums/showthread.php/469112-Handling-of-standard-v-reduced-ride-height
Firstly, I’d just like to clarify a couple of things. I’m 6’2” and have inside leg of 34” so have no physical need of the lowered height option. My interest in this comparison is purely about me wanting to know if there’s a difference in handling between the lowered bike v standard height bike.
The second thing, which many of you will probably already know, is that the difference between the bikes is specifically the suspension ride height. The handlebar, footrest and seat positions are identical on both bikes except for the option of a slightly differently padded seat. Apparently, bikes are mostly ordered with the standard seats by customers opting for the lowered ride height. The bikes are absolutely identical apart from the fact that the lowered bike literally sits lower on the road.
Many of you will already know that the standard height GS handles slightly better than the standard height GSA. The seat height on the standard GS is 840mm, and the seat height on the standard GSA is 890mm. The low option on the GS takes it down to 800mm and to 850mm on the GSA. The lower centre of gravity of the GS, 840mm compared to 890mm of the GSA, is likely to be what gives it its handling advantage. The GS is a tad lighter than the GSA but I’d say that a fully fuelled GS with a bit of luggage to make up the difference in weight would probably still have a slight handling advantage over an unladen GSA. I’m not talking about big differences, just slight advantages.
Back to the GSA comparisons... I’ve read quite a few comments where people have detected no difference in the handling between the standard height bike and the lowered version. To be fair, they were probably not looking at the test purely from a handling point of view, as many of those who choose the lowered option do so for leg reach reasons.
I was curious and also believed that physics would surely play a part in making a difference. Drop a 263kg motorcycle a couple of inches (a reasonable proportion of its total ride height and suspension travel) and it will affect its centre of gravity.
The test ride - I’ll keep it short, no pun intended! The first thing I did was to ensure that the suspension was set to solo rider, no luggage, normal, and Road mode selected. I put the seat in it’s high position. The bike was identical to mine apart from colour and ride height. It even had the same Pilot Trail 4’s fitted.
I started by riding as slowly as possible and trying to keep the bike going straight, as if riding along a chalk line drawn on the ground. The bike felt a little easier to hold on a straight course than my standard height bike, but the difference was only slight. I then headed off to some country twisties with national speed limits. I have to say that the bike carved into turns better than mine and held it’s line better. It wasn’t long before I was getting my sports bike head on and deliberately being aggressive; using full acceleration, braking late and hard, tipping it in gassing out of the bends, rolling quickly from one to another. Pegs grazed a couple of times and left toe as I got my boot in position for a gear change whilst still banked over. I know it’s generally how these bikes are ridden but I wanted to know how the lowered GSA handled.
I concluded that the handling was better; I was able to steer a more accurately chosen line in the bends, change direction and line mid-bend, as well as flick from one side to the other with generally less effort. It wasn’t miles better than my standard height GSA, but there was a difference. Enough of a difference to put a smile on my face. The only problem was ground clearance, but it is lower! I stopped and set the suspension up as high as it’d go and resuming the same riding style the bike still felt just as good despite the slight increase in height, but with slightly better ground clearance. I think on a track, the ground clearance would be more of an issue. I know that these bikes aren’t race bikes but I know that they are extremely capable in many scenarios. The standard height GSA is superb, it’s just that the lowered bike felt a tad better and slightly more precise mid bend.
Can I trade off ground clearance for the slightly better handling??? One other thing... I prefer the look of the tall, standard height bike - it just seems to have more presence. But that could be just because, over the years, I’ve got used to seeing how the standard bike looks - yeah... high... because it’s an adventure bike! Mmmm, time for a think.
Either way, it’s hard to go wrong, as the differences are thankfully only slight. Swings and roundabouts...