Works short shocks 1150RT (admin: Merged identical threads)

[brrider]

Works shocks on a R1150RT

I am considering putting a set of the Works shorter shocks on my RT because I am vertically impaired.

What will it do to the handling(better or worst)

Will the works make the ride better? I am satisified with the ride on the stock shocks. Has any one out there done this and can you comment on the pros and cons

 

[brrider]

Can any one comment on replacing the stocks with works short shocks?

What does it do for the handling?

Is the ride better or worse?

Are they worth the bucks?

 

[ANDYVH]

Make certain you lower both the front and rear of the bike the same amount, to maintain the proper steering geometry.

Your side stand may be too long to support the bike at the right angle when parked after lowering the bike. You may need to get the sidestand modified.

The centerstand will be MUCH harder to use on a lowered bike.

Your cornering/leaning clearance could be significantly reduced. If you are of the type that likes to really use the leaning capability of your bike you will find dragging parts will be MUCH more common. Unloading the tires while leaned over is a real concern because you really could lift the rear tire off the pavement.

Um,...just curous, but before spending all that money on lowering the bike, I have to ask why? I'm only 5'-6", and I have ridden most all BMWs with no problems, LT included. My current bike is a 94 R1100RS (stock height) and my 76 R100RS is also stock height. Both my bikes have Corbin seats, which on the 94 is of no help to reach the ground, in fact the seat is set at the mid-height position. I have always cautioned riders about lowering their bikes because of some of the detrimental aspects.

 

[ANDYVH]

If you chose shocks with the same spring rates as the stock shocks, and do not crank the dampening adjustments up to the full setting, the ride quality should be at least equal to the stock shocks.

But, in many cases, the shorter shock will have a progressive wound spring with higher (stiffer) spring rates near the limits of compression. This is done to make sure the shock bottoms out before the wheel assemblies or some other suspension parts hit the frame or other major component.

So if you are a heavier rider but want a shorter shock, be aware the spring rates near the end of the travel will be higher. If you tend to rider your bike loaded (two up, touring gear) most of the time, it may produce a harsher ride.

 

[deilenberger]

Can any one comment on replacing the stocks with works short shocks?

What does it do for the handling?

Is the ride better or worse?

Are they worth the bucks?

BRRIDER - please only start one thread on a topic.. thanks!

 

[brrider]

Just want more stability for inperfections

Sorry about the double post as this is only but a few times I am posting.

Yes I am taking into consideration all those things. I had my seat modified with a corbin as well, and they told me this was as low as they could go. I can ride the bike very well however I am not flat footed with both feet.

I am 5'7" 200 lbs. The works short shocks that they sell are suposed to lower the bike 1/2 to 1 inch. This means I would be completly flat footed, and that does make me more comfortable.

I am far from a novice rider(35 yrs every day riding) however with out both feet planted flat, slipery conditions, imperfections in the road, angled roads, gravel would be much safer from letting the weight of the bike get away from you.

I am far more comfortable as every body is with a lower bike. I put a set of works shorter shocks on my R1200C and I am very pleased with that set up. But that is a cruiser not a sport touring bike.

I think that the R1150RT is a over all extremely awesome in many ways. The suspension and the handling of the bike is really second to none I have ridden. I really do not want to mess that up. That is why I wanted someone out the in RT land that has done this to give me the pros and cons.

I can call works and get the slanted point of view, but they are selling the goods.

Thank you for your comments all the info I can get really helps.

Works sell these shocks for a considerable amount of bucks someone out there must have put these on there bike or they would not continue to produce them. The problem is once you buy them there is no reverse. You have them.

Any body else know of any body that has went this route Please comment.

Thank you

 

[ppaintguy]

Can any one comment on replacing the stocks with works short shocks?

What does it do for the handling?

Is the ride better or worse?

Are they worth the bucks?

I had a set of Works short shocks made for a Nighthawk a few years ago and they worked great, and no difference to the std set that I noticed which is a standard that I considered to be good as I did not change them due to OEM shock performance, it was a ride height issue too.

They were worth the money as my wife could finally ride her bike safely as she felt stable at stops regardless of road camber. I also raised the fork legs approx 10mm in the trees to level the ride. I strapped a legth of wood to the side of the bike and set a level. I made the adjustments so that after setup adjustments of sag etc, the bike attitude was right to the road.

 

[ROTTEN]

I put Wilbers on my 1150 RT with 1" lowering. The shocks are individually made for your weight and riding style. I'm 5'11" / 175 lb.
I have about 10, 000 miles on them and they are much better than stock. I do have to remember to keep the balls of my feet on the pegs for sharp cornering but I'm too old for very aggressive riding.
The bike is harder to get on the centerstand especially if it's loaded for touring.
Overall I really like 'em.

 

[brrider]

wow 5'11" and still went with the short shocks

Amazing I thought I was being a little exterme by wanting to lower the RT.but you still went with the short shocks at 5'11". Let me ask you does the wilbers have the load adjustment on them like the stock shocks?

I called works and they said they can change the body of the shock to put the load adjustment on them like the stock shocks. (for a price they will do whatever)

I looked at the adjustment they have for the works like they are sold and I just can not imagine trying to adjust the shock when it would be on the bike. I can hardly even see the shock behind all of the plastic.

Have you ever had to adj. your rear shock on the bike?

I am glad I am not the only guy out there that is trying to bring my feet to the ground and make the bike more stable. It doesn't take rocket science to figure how much it will cost if the bike just tips over.

I am pleased to hear some positive news that they are better that the stock.
Thank you for your time in responding

Brrider

 

[bikerfish1100]

I've used both Works (regular length on a K11RS, I am 5'10 with 30" inseam) and Wilbers (stock length in front on my R11S). The Wilbers is a far superior shock, with much greater adjustability. The gain in that is that you can do a better job of fine tuning the ride to match your personal requirements. If you're not a real discerning/demanding rider (like, you've been happy with the performance of stock shocks for umpteen years or so) the Works are likely to do you just fine. Probably need to remove saddlebag to reach the preload adjuster on any of aftermarket shock, unless you get the remote preload adjuster option (usually about $150 on the Wilbers). Works will not have a remote available, as they don't use hydraulics like Ohlins of Wilbers does.

 

[OfficerImpersonator]

I just don't get it

Why the need to have both feet flat on the ground? If you can get the balls of both feet firmly on the ground, why do you need more of your feet on the ground when stopped - particularly considering all the negative effects changing a bike's geometry will have on the 99.99% of the time when the bike is rolling and the feet are on the pegs?

I'm 5'11"/6' and have my RT's seat at the highest setting. I like looking over the top of the screen, and I like looking over the tops of as many cars as possible. I can easily get the balls of my feet down on the ground at stops, and I've never had a problem regardless of the road surface - and I'm a 'rounder, riding on greasy wet roads here in Seattle.

Of course you should be comfortable on your bike, but I fail to understand the obsession with getting both feet flat on the ground at a stop. If you can keep the bike from tipping over at a stop, and can maneuver around "walking" the bike, what difference does it make if you can't get the heels of your feet on the ground?

 

[brrider]

Stability is more confidence

I am 5' 7" and I usally slide a little to one side of the bike to get one foot down. The other foot on the peg. I really do not have a problem riding this bike solo. This is a sport turing bike and when I load it doun,and double up and my wife wiggles or shifts weight sometimes I get real nervous.

I also ride a R1200C with the shorter shocks and I have a custom russell daylong saddle. When I ride that bike it is under me and when I pull up to a stop I can stand with the bike under me. It really is completly different confidence in riding when the RT is about maybe 40 lbs heavier.

One other thing that makes a small difference is that I put a set of Illium sport boards on the RT. It make the bike wider. Well that made it a small amount more challanging as well.

 

[deilenberger]

Why the need to have both feet flat on the ground? If you can get the balls of both feet firmly on the ground, why do you need more of your feet on the ground when stopped - particularly considering all the negative effects changing a bike's geometry will have on the 99.99% of the time when the bike is rolling and the feet are on the pegs?

Snippage..

what difference does it make if you can't get the heels of your feet on the ground?

As one who has lowered their bike (3/4") so I can get at least part of both feet on the ground - I can point out a few situations where there is an advantage to being able to flatfoot it..

• - Backing the bike up - especially uphill backing up like out of a parking space where you had to pull forward. It's near impossible to do with just the balls of the feet. In most instances it then requires getting off the bike and rolling it backward. BTDT quite a few times actually.
  
• - Stopping for an uphill left turn, where the road slopes away to the left, so you can't use your rear brake to hold the bike as you take off (you're holding the bike up with the right foot..) Especially fun when the view to the right is semi-blind.
  
• - Catching the bike if a foot slips on sand/leaves/etc. VERY difficult to do if you are tippy-toe, and a lot more likely the foot will slip since it has less weight on it and a much smaller surface for traction. BTDT too - and have back pains as a result.

As far as "all the negative effects" of lowering a bike - well - there really aren't that many negative effects IF the bike is lowered evenly front and back.

You will loose some ground clearance - but for the majority of riders who don't scrape pegs - it's a non-issue.

It may be more difficult to get on the centerstand, and it usually changes how easy it is to use the sidestand - one has to plan a bit

Handling doesn't change, until things start touching down, or the suspension bottoms out. I've lowered about 5 bikes now (a 27" inseam and BMW's sorta leads to that..) and the pluses outweigh the negatives for me.

BTW - know what the difference between the GS Adventure and the regular GS is - suspension height. If more is better - then everyone should ride the Adventure. I do know some people who have put RT suspension on a regular GS - making it usable for them, and it still handles well and provides a ride they can live with.

I would suggest to the original poster - that he consider lowering both ends the same amount (which on an oilhead - due to the different suspension angle ratios on the front and rear - requires differences in the amount each shock is shortened..) Doing this will keep the basic suspension geometry the same and shouldn't negatively impact handling.

YMMV and I'm sure your inseam does..

 

[ROTTEN]

I did notice something missing here - inseam. Two people at 6' can have an inseam difference of two or more inches. This is more important than overall height if talking about the amount of foot that touches the ground.

 

[bikerfish1100]

I did notice something missing here - inseam. Two people at 6' can have an inseam difference of two or more inches. This is more important than overall height if talking about the amount of foot that touches the ground.

true. but at 6', inseam length is not likely to be any less than 32" or so (i'm 5'10", with a 30" inseam, and my legs are short relative to my torso). I can flatfoot any BMW ever made- except for one or 2 of the new G650 series bikes, so ANYone that is 6' should really have no issues on a BMW, other than in the theoretical world. however, our OP stated 5'7", and that might be a concern (tho certainly shouldn't really be a major issue).

 

[deilenberger]

true. but at 6', inseam length is not likely to be any less than 32" or so (i'm 5'10", with a 30" inseam, and my legs are short relative to my torso).

Not necessarily.. I have a friend who is 6' tall - with a 28" inseam.

I can flatfoot any BMW ever made- except for one or 2 of the new G650 series bikes, so ANYone that is 6' should really have no issues on a BMW, other than in the theoretical world. however, our OP stated 5'7", and that might be a concern (tho certainly shouldn't really be a major issue).

And again - inseam IS the concern with seat height.. so just giving an overall height isn't going to allow for real comparisons.

 

[bikerfish1100]

man!, 6' with a 28" inseam? he must look pretty strange, yes? (and i did say "not likely", rather than "not going to be")
but absolutely agree, it's pretty much all about inseam length, as well as hip width; narrow hips will "take away" inseam, wide hips will "add" inseam. One of the "tricks" of the custom seat builders is to make the seat narrower, rather than just thinner.

 

[MARTYW]

I have a 2002 1150 RT with a lowered Works shock. I bought the bike from a short inseam rider, and she went through great pains to lower the bike as much as she could.
I like being able to put my feet down solidly for all of the reasons that have already been mentioned. For me, those benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
Two drawbacks to having the bike so low:
It's very difficult to get it on the center stand, like two person job difficult, so checking the oil is a chore. I've heard that some people shorten the stand to compensate for this. That seems too permanent for me, but I can understand why they do it.
On sharp hard cornering I scrape the centerstand, usually turning left from a stop. This is a low speed issue (for me), not a high speed issue, and it's only happened a couple of times. I don't really need to corner that hard anyway.

I weigh 200 lbs., and the shock gives me a fine ride. I have never bottomed it out. I haven't ridden much heavily loaded, so I don't know what effect that would have.

Happy riding
-Marty

 

[brrider]

Thank you

I want to thank every body who posted and put in there 2 cents in. I am going to install both the short shocks from works. I will keep every one posted about my results.