Rod Overstreet
Platinum Level Site Supporter
Ummmmm...because we want to sell you radiators every time you fall down?
Future GG - what would you specify ?
- Thread starter Caravan Monster
- Start date
Danj56
Bronze Level Site Supporter
Didn't braces come stock on the Six Day models?
memphis2857
New member
My 2011 300 had factory installed braces
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
An adjustable seat doesn't make sense, at least to me...I am height deficient as well coming in at only 5'8".
We are all vastly different in size, it is darn near impossible to appease everyone, 1" (or whatever) adjustably doesn't make much sense for the added cost, it all reality you do it once and it is set.
What does make sense is doing a BYOB similar to Beta, where you could swap out different height seats, springs, bar risers, etc...from the Hard Parts catalog.
It does seem however with the Betas you really don't save that much money...or actually spend more with their BYOB program. Isn't a 100% straight swap as far as I can tell. More like a slightly discounted upgraded aftermarket part(s).
It's gotta be worth a couple hundred extra - if it means the person will save $500 having the bike lowered the conventional way. Most people only lower the bikes an inch or so, 2" tops.
It may all just be conceptual chatter anyways. Not sure how you would do this and still have the bike look good....
hadfield4wd
New member
I think an adjustable seat is goofy. Once you set it thats where you leave it. All can be accomplished with an aftermarket seat foam. Ao a couple hundred bucks is too high for something I can do with a $60 seat foam
In your opinion....
Not on the newer GGs. There's not enough foam there to start with, so you can't really remove enough to make a difference and still have any foam left.
I know of a couple guys that swap different height seats back and forth for different riding conditions, so having an adjustable seat isn't a dumb idea. They've just never been offered before on any bike, so people might take time getting used to the idea. Assuming it can even be practically engineered into the bike......
It's the same with auto clutches. The first time they hit the market, a whole bunch of stubborn Luddite brained idiots pronounced them 'stupid' and said they're only for lazy pansies....
It turns out the Luddites were wrong, as they usually are. It's taken awhile, but they are now very well established in the market with a huge fan base & you can even order them from the factory on some bikes in Europe.
hadfield4wd
New member
Yep in my opinion. This whole thread is peoples opinions. Just take what people say and move on.
SpirosZ1000
Member
What can I say. I come from the supersport world and I am fairly new to dirt bikes. I started with a very cheap DT WR 200 and after a year of going nuts and in love with enduro I bought my GG, an EC 300 2006 which I curently own for 2 years.I am in love with it I have both suspension cut out for me (standard ohlins rear 45 shiver front and I just finished changing the subframe with the newer one (the old one reallyyyyy sucked.)
I am reading what you are posting and I see that most of you have fairly new models (VERY Jealous).What I want to say is that my bike gives me a large smile when I ride it even if it is an older one and in many friendly races that we have here in Greece makes me a champ out of nowhere in comparisson with newer bikes.
I sure want to update my arsenal and now with the brand staying alive I will in a year or two but I believe when you like what you ride and there is passion to what you do peripherals and blink is the least you need to care about.
GG for me has a remarkable 2t engine (I agree to suggestions I read here for updates) and a unique geometry that excels in the type of riding I like and my suggestion is that what ever the decide to do GG should remain GG.!!
p.s. most of the dirt bikes here in Greece are KTMs (strange!!!!!!!) but in the mountains they tend to break more than the few GGs I know....
I am reading what you are posting and I see that most of you have fairly new models (VERY Jealous
).What I want to say is that my bike gives me a large smile when I ride it even if it is an older one and in many friendly races that we have here in Greece makes me a champ out of nowhere in comparisson with newer bikes. I sure want to update my arsenal and now with the brand staying alive I will in a year or two but I believe when you like what you ride and there is passion to what you do peripherals and blink is the least you need to care about.
GG for me has a remarkable 2t engine (I agree to suggestions I read here for updates) and a unique geometry that excels in the type of riding I like and my suggestion is that what ever the decide to do GG should remain GG.!!
p.s. most of the dirt bikes here in Greece are KTMs (strange!!!!!!!) but in the mountains they tend to break more than the few GGs I know....
How are they lowering the fork heights besides sliding the forks down in the clamps??
Specially made triple clamps?
Or seat??
Pegs??
Lowering links have been around for a long time.
But that will upset the balance of things in the steering department.
How quick or how slow it steers.
Does it tuck.Dive.Or the opposite.
Could you elaborate some on the process.
Feedback?
Thx
phoenix
New member
Despite warnings, I had my 2013 300 internally lowered. Since the bike was heavy (to me) and sapped energy picking it up, I thought it would getting it lower would help me drop it less. Obviously cutting the seat like on another manufacturer is not an option due to the lack of material.
I liked it at first because of the novelty of being able to touch, but after that wore off I realized the bike was handling pretty poorly. I would bottom out on things, scrape my feet if I had to ride through a deep rut or cut-out (I had to pick my feet off the pegs sometimes!) and it generally seemed "out-of-whack." It's kind of hard to describe, but the whole thing seemed off.
As for how it is done, i'm not quite sure, but I think it has something to do with spacers. The rear shock was also lowered the same amount. I did .5" and even that little of a change very much affected the steering. It was really noticeable once I got my 200 with stock suspension.
I liked it at first because of the novelty of being able to touch, but after that wore off I realized the bike was handling pretty poorly. I would bottom out on things, scrape my feet if I had to ride through a deep rut or cut-out (I had to pick my feet off the pegs sometimes!) and it generally seemed "out-of-whack." It's kind of hard to describe, but the whole thing seemed off.
As for how it is done, i'm not quite sure, but I think it has something to do with spacers. The rear shock was also lowered the same amount. I did .5" and even that little of a change very much affected the steering. It was really noticeable once I got my 200 with stock suspension.
Jakobi
Super Moderator
And they were correct!
Really though, no manufacturers sell a bike that comes OEM with a fully adjustable auto crutch. It's after market, just like seats/seat foams are. Perhaps someone could design an aftermarket concept that allows for adjustability within a seat frame. Perhaps GG could modify the chassis to allow for more clearance and allow this. Perhaps it would take off and be a buying point for the potential customers.. or maybe not.
Well said.
Whenever you lower the bike you give up something. It's compromise.
You can internally limit the travel by installing spacers to both the forks and shock, but what you give up is available stroke. You can't expect them to behave the same when you have less to work with, so generally you need to valve/spring them firmer than otherwise to ensure you don't blow through your now reduced stroke. Firmer suspension is firmer suspension, where most people want plush.
Lowering the ground clearance occurs both with limiting the suspension travel, or through sliding forks through the triples, changing linkage ratios, or simply building a chassis which is 'lower' by nature. As above you give up clearance. This poses issues and I believe the more gnarly and technical the terrain the more issues you face. Rocks, roots, step ups/downs, logs, ruts, etc all favour ground clearance. If you can get through without hooking up and smashing your frame rails into stuff, without hitting footpegs, brake pedals, and gear levers against things/the sides of ruts, the better your odds will be in keeping the feet on the pegs and not on the ground.
Which leaves seat height alone as the variable. By changing this you impact on the relationship between rider and bike. Go for a ride with no seat on and see how it feels. It loads your knees up when sitting, and makes it harder to transition between sitting, hovering, and standing aggressively... all in the favour of being able to touch the ground a bit more easily.
So there is no right/wrong way to do things, but it will always be a compromise of sorts. In saying that most manufacturers have weighed this up in their initial design to meet their target audience.
FWW, I personally just hang off one side of the bike when stopped. One leg touches the ground, my ass is off the side of the seat, and the other one is draped over the seat. Seems to work!
After reading all these posts, I've never been so happy to be 6'3" with a 34" inseam. 
I've never ridden an off road bike that was lowered but I have ridden on road bikes that were and the handled like crap. They would turn in easily but getting them up and out of the corner was a chore. Powering out of the corner didn't even stand the bike up.
Its really a shame if a few blissfully unaware short people actually think that's how motorcycle is suppose to handle.
I've never ridden an off road bike that was lowered but I have ridden on road bikes that were and the handled like crap. They would turn in easily but getting them up and out of the corner was a chore. Powering out of the corner didn't even stand the bike up.
Its really a shame if a few blissfully unaware short people actually think that's how motorcycle is suppose to handle.
Yeah I agree with most of that.
So far I've never ridden a lowered bike I like.
If they would just squish the frame a bit vertically they'd get there.
Leave the riding height as far as clearance goes though.
You pretty much nailed it in an early post, you just have to use terrain to your advantage.
It's better to ride on lower grooves anyway.High spots are trouble.
Steep down hill tight off camber right hand switchbacks get me fuuuuuuuu@@##ed up and aren't much fun on a tall bike.If you highside in that spot its 20 vertical.feet until you land and start rolling.Usually with the bike right behind you.
So far I've never ridden a lowered bike I like.
If they would just squish the frame a bit vertically they'd get there.
Leave the riding height as far as clearance goes though.
You pretty much nailed it in an early post, you just have to use terrain to your advantage.
It's better to ride on lower grooves anyway.High spots are trouble.
Steep down hill tight off camber right hand switchbacks get me fuuuuuuuu@@##ed up and aren't much fun on a tall bike.If you highside in that spot its 20 vertical.feet until you land and start rolling.Usually with the bike right behind you.
Jakobi
Super Moderator
Totally hear you, but they spell trouble for most. If something's steep and cambering across the inline, the low side is going to be further than even the longest legs.
VxZeroKnots
Gold Level Site Supporter
The problem with squishing the chassis vertically is folks then tire quicker by transitioning from sitting to standing throughout the ride. Everything is a compromise...
Lowering suspension on a bike has significant compromises that you cannot undo at the trailhead etc.
For some, they really don't have much choice - i.e. If they're shorter than 5'5" with short legs, they either limit suspension travel, or go to a smaller bike, or stick to easier trails, or ride mx...the compromises in these cases are quite significant - and you are stuck with them.
Squishing the chassis vertically, with an adjustable seat significantly reduces or eliminates the above compromises for all but the shortest people, but still allows changes to be made at the trail head, or during the ride. This poses much, much, much less of a compromise. IMO this is important.
An adjustable seat also would work for taller folks who are raising their seat heat anyways...
As mentioned earlier, I'm quite fine with my stock seat height most of the time. It's when I get into rocks, that having the ability to quickly&temporarily lower it would come in quite handy.....especially since I wouldn't sacrifice ground clearance, suspension or handling. Trying to pick high points for a foot dab is great in theory, but useless on climbs etc. when the rear suddenly loses traction. Getting going again on snotty, rough uphills is one of the great frustrations, as you now need even longer legs due to the angle....
I have no idea if an adjustable seat could even be engineered to be practical....at the end of the day, it's all just talk....
I think what some have said, certainly what I am saying is.
Their is no advantage in lowering a bike except in the case of extremes.
In fact in most cases, it's a detriment.
The ability to make a dab here or having to start the bike in a bad spot is offset by so many other things.
I've ridden for many years.And have seen taller riders having no advantage over shorter riders.In my experience I'd say the fastest guys I've ridden with.The standouts have not been tallish riders.A few,but many more on the average to shorter side of things.
Ricky Charmichael
Jeremy Mc Grath
Ryan Villapotto
I'd consider those the top riders in the AMA National and Supercross scene in the modern era.You cud throw Dungey in there too.Not a tall guy.
Modern era is important here because this is the era of taller bikes.
Those guys all ride offroad.Play ride-Crusty Demons days.etc.Check out what Pro moto guys do on the weekend when they aren't racing..Mc Graths done Ertzberg well
after his prime.Villapotto grew up riding in Washington.Not necessarily a flat place.
I'm not saying any one of those guys wouldn't mind some longer legs.
But.
Their is no advantage in lowering a bike except in the case of extremes.
In fact in most cases, it's a detriment.
The ability to make a dab here or having to start the bike in a bad spot is offset by so many other things.
I've ridden for many years.And have seen taller riders having no advantage over shorter riders.In my experience I'd say the fastest guys I've ridden with.The standouts have not been tallish riders.A few,but many more on the average to shorter side of things.
Ricky Charmichael
Jeremy Mc Grath
Ryan Villapotto
I'd consider those the top riders in the AMA National and Supercross scene in the modern era.You cud throw Dungey in there too.Not a tall guy.
Modern era is important here because this is the era of taller bikes.
Those guys all ride offroad.Play ride-Crusty Demons days.etc.Check out what Pro moto guys do on the weekend when they aren't racing..Mc Graths done Ertzberg well
after his prime.Villapotto grew up riding in Washington.Not necessarily a flat place.
I'm not saying any one of those guys wouldn't mind some longer legs.
But.
