M109 Rider Forums banner
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
728 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I see alot of you guys are lowering the rear of you bikes 2-2.5", so why not slide the fork tubes up the same amount to level the bike out??????????????????????? :confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,103 Posts
Crazyspeed said:
I see alot of you guys are lowering the rear of you bikes 2-2.5", so why not slide the fork tubes up the same amount to level the bike out??????????????????????? :confused:
it does make sense, you should do both to keep the geometry the same. One member M109fan has already noted right after he put the lowering bones on that the bike feels kinda squirrely. the trail changes when you lower the rear and not the front and lessen front end contact with the road. :bigthumbsup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,103 Posts
ppridgen1 said:
ok I 'll bite ....how does a round tire with a set tire pressure lose contact with the road because the rear end gets lower? It would just pivot on the front axle ,not come off the ground?furthermore they don't get squirrely just lower the center of gravity making it more difficult (slightly ) to turn.
You cant just slide the forks thru the tripple tree due to the tapered outer fork tubes,at least you can't slide them down too much(or enough to make a huge ride hight difference)
it would be kind of like on a sport bike when your on the gas hard how the front tire is just skimming the ground, can make them go into a speed wobble. when you lower the back and not the front to match it will put more weight tranfer to the rear and less on the front then on top of that when you throttle it up it will lighten the load on the front even more. the only way to lower it would be with a spring kit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
371 Posts
kat because if you lower the front to match the back you will be so low when yo pull in to a parking lot you will for sure drag the front spoiler any who i think this speed wobble is going down crap alley. all you have to worry is load shifting. the more angel you sit at the less weight that will bee on the front tire / more one the back tire this is why sport bikes do front and back to equal out the load weight that is ooooopppppssss this is just an opion they are like a$$ holes everyone has one 8)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
728 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
ppridgen1 said:
ok I 'll bite ....how does a round tire with a set tire pressure lose contact with the road because the rear end gets lower? It would just pivot on the front axle ,not come off the ground?furthermore they don't get squirrely just lower the center of gravity making it more difficult (slightly ) to turn.
You cant just slide the forks thru the tripple tree due to the tapered outer fork tubes,at least you can't slide them down too much(or enough to make a huge ride hight difference)
I was looking at one pic of some ones lowered 109, personally I don't care for the appearance of the rear being lower than the front. Prig I do see why it would be difficult to lower the front, had to go look at the bike (in storage). Changing geometry will change the ride and handling of the bike, Believe it or not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,579 Posts
Crazyspeed said:
I was looking at one pic of some ones lowered 109, personally I don't care for the appearance of the rear being lower than the front.
Honestly, it's hard to look at a picture and judge how the rear looks compared to the front unless the angle is directly from the side. If you are using a wide angle lens and taking the pic from an angle close to the front, the front is gonna look much higher than the rear. I'll give some examples of what I'm talking about.

Here is my bike at stock height, taken directly from the side.



Here is my bike lowered. It doesn't look like the rear is THAT much lower than the front.



Stock Height facing right



Lowered Facing Right.



To give an example of the angle thing... Here's a pic of my stock height bike taken from the front. See how the front looks much higher than the rear... Makes it look like it's been lowered.



As for the handling, the absolute only thing I have noticed is the tendency to scrape in the corners a little sooner since the peg height has dropped a full inch over stock height. I have noticed absolutely no negative handling attributes that you might expect from changing the trail geometry. As always, YMMV.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
728 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Medic, yours isn't that obvious. If you look at the one one in the "Low M" post in the pictures area you can see quite a difference from front to rear on his.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,579 Posts
Crazyspeed said:
Medic, yours isn't that obvious. If you look at the one one in the "Low M" post in the pictures area you can see quite a difference from front to rear on his.
That's exactly what I'm talking about... Mine is lowered 2.5". It's all about the camera angle. The pics of mine looking directly at the bike from the side gives the only true view of the rear height v/s the front height. It's all how you look at it. Here's 3 images of my bike taken one right after the other. The only thing I changed was the angle I took the pic. It starts out looking like the front is huge and the back is slammed all the way to the stop. The last pic is the 'true' look. :bigthumbsup:





 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top