Handling of lowered GSA vs standard height, part 2

Ash700

Active member
UKGSer Subscriber
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
289
Reaction score
12
Location
Epping Forest
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 :eek: 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...
 
Yea, I run a lowered GS and always thought the handling was great, having come off a standard height 2013 GS. But , bought it for the extra security while standing and moving about.
 
Yea, I run a lowered GS and always thought the handling was great, having come off a standard height 2013 GS. But , bought it for the extra security while standing and moving about.

Exactly the same and very content with it.
 
Why didn't you just post this in your first thread?!?!?

Sorry Fred, I thought that it would give a more focussed discussion because my original thread was actually a question re the differences. No other reason.
 
It reads to me like you expected it to feel better and you felt like it did....Quelle Suprise!
Sorry but without telemetry a "seat of the pants" test like this is meaningless.....but as long as you had fun.
 
Just out of interest did they both have the same tyres on with similar wear? FWIW I've just got my 2nd lowered standard GS and the bike seems more balanced and neutral with the latest ESA even with the A3's on it so are you comparing bikes with the same ESA too, i.e. self levelling or not?:beerjug:

Edit: Oh and I chose the lowered version as I'm a short arse. :D
 
I run a Std GS, with a low seat,

I may look to go suspension lowered next year,

its the leg down vs reaction thing at the moment ;)
 
It's worth trying it fully laden if you ever plan to carry luggage. My bro bought one after having several standard height GSA's. It handled like a dog fully laden and he part exchanged it for a standard height GSA very swiftly.
 
It reads to me like you expected it to feel better and you felt like it did....Quelle Suprise!
Sorry but without telemetry a "seat of the pants" test like this is meaningless.....but as long as you had fun.

Blueranger, I’ve been riding a very long time, raced, trackday instruction etc, etc... I agree that my write-up was a bit back-to-front but I was actually hoping not to notice a difference, so it’d make my decision easier.

I don’t expect you take my word that there was a difference, you don’t know me and I’m not here to argue about it - life’s too short. I was only sharing my findings in case anyone else held the same or similar curiosity.

BMW have only one GSA! Lowering it (the best part of 600lbs) so it sits 50mm closer to its axle planes, has to make difference.
 
Just out of interest did they both have the same tyres on with similar wear? FWIW I've just got my 2nd lowered standard GS and the bike seems more balanced and neutral with the latest ESA even with the A3's on it so are you comparing bikes with the same ESA too, i.e. self levelling or not?:beerjug:

Edit: Oh and I chose the lowered version as I'm a short arse. :D

Littleade, as it happens the bike I rode had exactly the same tyres as mine, and looked the same re wear - both quite new.

It was pre the self levelling, so again the same as mine. The self levelling ESA seems like a good idea, it’ll just mean that the bike rides at a more constant height although my dealer said that the self levelling has an auto setting which can be overidden when required.
 
It's worth trying it fully laden if you ever plan to carry luggage. My bro bought one after having several standard height GSA's. It handled like a dog fully laden and he part exchanged it for a standard height GSA very swiftly.

I’m thinking the self levelling ESA might help in this situation.
 
Being a mechanical engineer of some years experience I do not for one minute dispute there is a benefit in a lower COG. My point is, you expected it and you felt it what proportion of what you felt was placebo Vs an actual discernable effect is open to debate.

Edit: without robust telemetry.
 
As the OP pointed out above Fully laden with 2 larger than life people onboard, you will wish for a standard height, that extra shock travel really helps, other bikes exist for scraping the pegs. :beerjug:
 
I’m thinking the self levelling ESA might help in this situation.

I have a lowered GS, which I believe is significantly lower even than the lowered GSA. I did a couple of thousand miles touring in the summer with pillion and luggage, very near to the maximum payload of the bike, with no issues, even in the twisties and around hairpins, and I definitely believe that the self leveling suspension makes a big contribution to this.

Of course there were no peg scraping antics, you would have to be a braver man than me to subject my wife to that sort of riding! :wife
 
Being a mechanical engineer of some years experience I do not for one minute dispute there is a benefit in a lower COG. My point is, you expected it and you felt it what proportion of what you felt was placebo Vs an actual discernable effect is open to debate.

Edit: without robust telemetry.

Being a detective of some years experience you cannot for one minute tell me what I expected - try that one with a defence solicitor in the room, it never goes goes down well! You seem able to also tell me what I felt? I’ll tell you what I felt... I felt the benefit of the lower COG. Have you ever raced a bike, jacked it up at the rear to make it turn quicker, or dropped the forks through the yolks?
 
I have a lowered GS, which I believe is significantly lower even than the lowered GSA. I did a couple of thousand miles touring in the summer with pillion and luggage, very near to the maximum payload of the bike, with no issues, even in the twisties and around hairpins, and I definitely believe that the self leveling suspension makes a big contribution to this.

Of course there were no peg scraping antics, you would have to be a braver man than me to subject my wife to that sort of riding! :wife

The peg scraping I encountered on the lowered GSA is my main concern. Luckily, I always ride solo.
 
I owned both models, first the lowered bike and fairly recently the standard height model. I never felt the lowered one suffered for handling when fully loaded, although I don’t carry a pillion. I’d agree with the OP’s assessment that the lowered bike is a touch more flickable but there wasn’t much in it - but being able to easily reach the ground on uneven surfaces was very much worth it.
 
Great bike but fully loaded with a pillion you do scrape the pegs/boots often (well in germany anyways).

Could do with being an inch higher in 2up mode.

Apart from that, I love the way it handles.

Took it onto nordschleife and it couldn't be faulted, the bike is more capable than me :beerjug:
 
Being a detective of some years experience you cannot for one minute tell me what I expected


I quote from your OP.
"I was curious and also believed that physics would surely play a part in making a difference"

Your words not mine..

You seem able to also tell me what I felt? IÂ’ll tell you what I felt... I felt the benefit of the lower COG.

I quote from your OP.

"it's just that the lowered bike felt a tad better and slightly more precise mid bend"

Again, your words not mine.? which I'm not disputing.

Have you ever raced a bike, jacked it up at the rear to make it turn quicker, or dropped the forks through the yolks?

Not raced but fitted adv shock to my gs outfit and rt 17" front wheel to reduce trail and make the steering lighter but that's irrelevant as it's not about what I've done, this is about your OP.

Both of those mods steepen the steering angle...which makes turn in quicker..along with adjusting the COG....but then you'd know that, wouldn't you?

As I understand it, the lowering is uniform hence steering geometry remains unchanged however wheelbase is reduced slightly which will also have a slight benefit in turn in at the expense of high speed stability...again but I'm telling you what you already know aren't I?

I'm not the one who set out to do a qualitative assessment....I'm just pointing out that without factual data your assessment is meaningless to anyone else as it felt better to only you and the placebo effect means that any actual benefit you think you felt could just be placebo as it could be too minute to discern.....
 


Back
Top Bottom