I thought it was an option to have "seat height reduction" not low chassis.
Low suspension grinding
- Thread starter Rowle
- Start date
I thought it was an option to have "seat height reduction" not low chassis.
fred_jb
Registered user
If BMW are describing the factory lowered version as "low chassis" then it is probably because they regard the suspension struts as part of the chassis/frame. The actual frame is almost certainly identical for all models.
Of course you can have seat height reduction on the standard model, but it doesn't get you as low as the factory lowered bike with its shorter suspension.
Of course you can have seat height reduction on the standard model, but it doesn't get you as low as the factory lowered bike with its shorter suspension.
To go back to the original question, you can't lower something without reducing the ground clearance so a lowered model will scrape at less of a lean angle than a standard height bike.
fred_jb
Registered user
When I said you can have seat height reduction on the standard model, I was referring to the choice of seats, not to the factory lowered option, which I had forgotten was an option with exactly that name.
Sorry for any confusion.
To the OP
when you tried the bikes, did you have them running and the suspension set to single rider / soft
On thin i used to find helped was the get on the bike and run it forward about 6 inches and apply the brake
this would settle the front end and push the bike down
and cycle your suspension settings at least once a week, you can get stiction or they will perma stick in one position until you need it and then its fubarred
when you tried the bikes, did you have them running and the suspension set to single rider / soft
On thin i used to find helped was the get on the bike and run it forward about 6 inches and apply the brake
this would settle the front end and push the bike down
and cycle your suspension settings at least once a week, you can get stiction or they will perma stick in one position until you need it and then its fubarred
I wish i could, i need to get bar risers asap and grip puppys, the forward lean of the new bars is fine, the bars low is not fine.
Also i need to change my screen, the sport token thing just blows air under my chin, and that is bloody annoying lol
Spot on.
why they made the seat wider is beyond belief, its bad enough having a small inside leg and then having to spread your legs as though your riding a bloody heffer.
Sometimes they need to leave well alone
Not daft are they
By going with electronic suspension, the bike can be repurposed and used with a std or high seat, and i doubt people would tell the difference
me personally, id rather have a set of Wilburs or Ohlins with manual set up
fred_jb
Registered user
That is true, but as I mentioned earlier, in real life loaded conditions the actual difference in ride height is not so much as you might think, and the bigger the suspension compression the smaller the difference, so the difference in lean angle before touchdown will similarly be less than you might think. One unknown in this is whether the seat height differences BMW quotes are for an unloaded bike standing on its wheels, so with some rear sag already, or purely theoretical based on differences in available suspension travel. In any case I think it is safe to say that once you have used up 50% of the suspension compression available you will also have halved the difference in ride height between the two models. If you manage to bottom out the suspension the ride height at that point will be the same for both models.
I suspect a combination of the static load, which is usually reckoned to compress the suspension by about 30-35%, and the centrifugal force when leaning under hard cornering, could together easily use up 50% or more of the available suspension travel. Hopefully someone will check my maths here, but as an example if the standard bike has 150mm of travel available then at 50% load you have 75mm remaining, while if the lowered bike has 30mm less travel available at 120mm, then at 50% load it has 60mm remaining, so the difference is now only 15mm.
The effect of lean also reduces the effect of reduced suspension height. At 45 degrees of lean that 15mm of reduced suspension height at 50% compression translates into any point on the bike being about 10mm closer to the deck (courtesy of Mr Pythagoras' Theorem). Maybe some mathematical genius can work that out in terms of reduced degrees of lean, but I can't believe that it will be that significant for road riding, though maybe you would notice it on the track.
At the end of the day I guess you have to weigh up the benefits of the lowered bike allowing more secure footing without necessarily needing to lose all the seat padding, compared to a few millimetres more ground clearance at extreme lean angles on the standard bike but maybe needing to have a minimally padded seat. I had the factory lowered GS which allowed me to use a standard height seat while still being able to get my feet flat on the ground.
Maybe on the latest bikes, which have auto preload adjustment, BMW could add a facility to automatically drop preload to the MIN setting whenever the bike slows to a stop to aid footing, and then put it back to AUTO when riding, and maybe even crank it up to MAX when enthusiastic cornering is detected in order to give maximum ground clearance!
Lowered 2018 1200 GSA with standard seat for me. Tried standard bike with lowered seat, lowered bike with lowered seat, before settling on my choice. No regrets. Never got pegs to scape....foot has a few times, but that more down to my style.
And if you can't get your feet on the ground except by using an uncomfortable low profile seat, consider getting an RS instead. All the same technology, but lower as standard and as a bonus better looking too!
I didn't need a lower seat but I've changed to the 1250 RS anyway and love it.
Interesting - the big advantage of the GS is the huge suspension travel giving a comfy ride.
Travel on R1250RS 140mm front/140mm rear.
Travel on standard GS 190mm F/200mm rear.
So even if you take out 30mm with a low chassis model- you still end up with more travel.
To the OP
when you tried the bikes, did you have them running and the suspension set to single rider / soft
On thin i used to find helped was the get on the bike and run it forward about 6 inches and apply the brake
this would settle the front end and push the bike down
and cycle your suspension settings at least once a week, you can get stiction or they will perma stick in one position until you need it and then its fubarred
Hi,
Yes, i ran the bike and set the bike to low mode - made no difference though.
Maybe needed to run it around to settle it.
sven
Registered user
To answer the original question, I had a 2014 GS LC with a standard chassis and low seat and now ride a low chassis 1250 GS LC. My left hand boot will occasionally touch down if I have my toes beneath the gear lever, but I haven't noticed anything else touching down. There's definitely more ground clearance than my old standard 2009 GS.
What year bike?
My bike is a '17 DESA, yes I used to get metal down, right ride only first the centre stand then foot brake lever, never managed it in the uk, just a few times in France/Spain.
You will have to be really going for it. The lowered GS does not have ground clearance issues. I when abroad ride like an idiot, now I have TT suspension I don't think it will happen again. Grinding metal that is.
My bike is a '17 DESA, yes I used to get metal down, right ride only first the centre stand then foot brake lever, never managed it in the uk, just a few times in France/Spain.
You will have to be really going for it. The lowered GS does not have ground clearance issues. I when abroad ride like an idiot, now I have TT suspension I don't think it will happen again. Grinding metal that is.
fred_jb
Registered user
Yes that is true, and to me the RS does feel like it has marginally stiffer suspension to the factory lowered GS I previously owned, but does not feel any less comfortable, and as I have no intention of riding off road the greater suspension travel of the GS is not really needed for smoothing out bumpy tracks. Overall, to me the RS handling feels a bit sharper and more engaging than the GS, and I especially find it nicer in slow corners where the GS seemed to want to run wide - maybe the 17" front is a benefit for that.
As well as more suspension travel, there is the indisputable fact that the GS has the Telelever front end which almost eliminates dive under braking, but again I'm not feeling much difference on the RS. I suspect that the ESA electronics stiffen up the compression damping on the RS when braking is detected, which will help reduce dive. In any case, with my normal riding style I rarely brake hard, preferring to mainly use engine braking to slow down and to set up for corners, especially when riding with a pillion, and this was the reason I was not too concerned about giving up the Telelever front end, but I can see how it can be a real benefit in some situations.
Similar threads
