I have a 1983 GS650GLD with 19" front wheel and 16" rear wheel.
Picked up some spare parts from a 1982 GS650G and for some reason it
uses same front wheel but its rear is 17"

Is there any advantage/disadvantage of putting the bigger rear on mine?
Presumably the weight difference is minimal, the distance travelled per
rev is slightly higher (3" not counting tire), seating height should be
minimally affected.

Now the manual does not say that the older bike had larger wheel but it
also does not say that the gas tank is 1/2" longer so will not mount.

Ian Singer
--


================================================== =======================
See my homepage at http://www.iansinger.com
hosted on http://www.1and1.com/?k_id=10623894
All genealogy is stored in TMG from http://www.whollygenes.com
Charts and searching using TNG from http://www.tngsitebuilding.com
I am near Toronto Canada, can I tell where you are from your reply?
================================================== =======================

Ian Singer wrote:
> I have a 1983 GS650GLD with 19" front wheel and 16" rear wheel.
> Picked up some spare parts from a 1982 GS650G and for some reason it
> uses same front wheel but its rear is 17"
>
> Is there any advantage/disadvantage of putting the bigger rear on mine?
> Presumably the weight difference is minimal, the distance travelled per
> rev is slightly higher (3" not counting tire), seating height should be
> minimally affected.

Have you ever actually ridden that machine? Changes in wheel size and
tire profile can make a machine that is stable at high speed into a
nuisance that wiggles and weaves at highway cruising speed..

Don't ask how I know that. I used to think that wide tires were the way
to go, knowing nothing about profile. I though that putting a 1-inch
larger diameter wheel on a mchine so I could fit a wider tire was no
problem.

I recommend that you go to www.mawonline.com and find the tire section.
I don't recommend that you *buy* anything from MAW, it's just that they
have all the URL's for the most popular brands of tires.

You can go to the manufacturer's websites and look up the wheel size
and find out what tire fits each rim width optimally. You can look up
recommended replacement fitments for the 1982 and 1983, and find out
what the fitted diameter of each tire/wheel combo is.

Ideally, you'd like to come out with wheels and tires that have the
same diameters as the original equipment wheels and tires so the rear
end doesn't sit too high (or too low) and the same for the front end.

You want the axles to be at the same height above the ground that they
were when the machine rolled off the showroom floor, if at all
possible.

Then, if the tires have the correct profile, the machine should have
the parking lot nimble handling it had when new, as well as the same
high speed stability. You won't have changed the fork rake and trail if
you get the right size tires.

High speed stability doesn't go on forever though. Every motorcycle has
a critical speed where it begins to weave. You just don't want to fit
tires that make the machine weave at speeds where it's scary to cruise
down the highway.

If you go a higher diameter in wheel and install a lower profile tire it
might end up feeling the same way on the road. I really dunno never tried
it.


"B-12" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
>
> Ian Singer wrote:
>> I have a 1983 GS650GLD with 19" front wheel and 16" rear wheel.
>> Picked up some spare parts from a 1982 GS650G and for some reason it
>> uses same front wheel but its rear is 17"
>>
>> Is there any advantage/disadvantage of putting the bigger rear on mine?
>> Presumably the weight difference is minimal, the distance travelled per
>> rev is slightly higher (3" not counting tire), seating height should be
>> minimally affected.
>
> Have you ever actually ridden that machine? Changes in wheel size and
> tire profile can make a machine that is stable at high speed into a
> nuisance that wiggles and weaves at highway cruising speed..
>
> Don't ask how I know that. I used to think that wide tires were the way
> to go, knowing nothing about profile. I though that putting a 1-inch
> larger diameter wheel on a mchine so I could fit a wider tire was no
> problem.
>
> I recommend that you go to www.mawonline.com and find the tire section.
> I don't recommend that you *buy* anything from MAW, it's just that they
> have all the URL's for the most popular brands of tires.
>
> You can go to the manufacturer's websites and look up the wheel size
> and find out what tire fits each rim width optimally. You can look up
> recommended replacement fitments for the 1982 and 1983, and find out
> what the fitted diameter of each tire/wheel combo is.
>
> Ideally, you'd like to come out with wheels and tires that have the
> same diameters as the original equipment wheels and tires so the rear
> end doesn't sit too high (or too low) and the same for the front end.
>
> You want the axles to be at the same height above the ground that they
> were when the machine rolled off the showroom floor, if at all
> possible.
>
> Then, if the tires have the correct profile, the machine should have
> the parking lot nimble handling it had when new, as well as the same
> high speed stability. You won't have changed the fork rake and trail if
> you get the right size tires.
>
> High speed stability doesn't go on forever though. Every motorcycle has
> a critical speed where it begins to weave. You just don't want to fit
> tires that make the machine weave at speeds where it's scary to cruise
> down the highway.
>

durtdog wrote:
> If you go a higher diameter in wheel and install a lower profile tire it
> might end up feeling the same way on the road. I really dunno never tried
> it.

Oh. The voice of inexperience, huh?

I've tried it all. Spent a lot of money on tires and wheels.

The results were usually not at all what I'd expected. I need to change
my last mistaken selection to restore my Yamaha's handling to what it
was before I accepted Usenet concensus and bought a damned Bridgestone
BT-020 front tire. POS out-tracks on countersteering and shimmies and
speed weaves at freeway cruising speeds.

The factory test riders *know* what a motorcycle should feel like. They
try various tire and wheel combinations and make recommendations. OTOH,
testers do a lot of testing on the race track, and most street riders
will never set a wheel on a track.

Sometimes the bean counters at the factory will recommend a really
crappy tire that they can get for a nickel less per tire, and overrule
the experienced riders' recommendations.

But, generally, if you use the original equipment tires recommended for
your machine, you'll have a motorcycle that handles just like it did
from the showroom floor.

When you talk about"lower profile", what do you mean? Low profile car
tires have a different section height than the older E-section tires
which were as wide as the carcass was tall.

But a low profile motorcycle tire may have a very high crown for quick
handling. Or, it may have a lower crown and the rider has to struggle
to make the motorcycle turn.

One experienced rider I know roadraced for 20 years. He found a very
cheap Suzuki GS-450L with a 16-inch rear tire and tried to race it on
Willow Springs without changing to the 17 inch wheel that came stock on
other GS-450's.

The 16-incher had such a large contact patch it gripped the road too
hard and the GS-450L wobled fiercely in the highspeed turns 8 and 9,
unnerving him.

GS-450's were very popular at the time, riders could run them wide
open, flat out, at about 110 mph and humble riders of much larger
machines.

Don't ask how I know that...

durtdog wrote:
> If you go a higher diameter in wheel and install a lower profile tire it
> might end up feeling the same way on the road. I really dunno never tried
> it.
>

Did more checking in the manual to see what's supposed to be stock
1983 GS650GLD Front J19xMT1.85 with 90/90V19 (mine had 100/90v90)
Rear J16xMT2.75 with 130/90V16

spares I have
1982 GS650G Front J19xMT1.85 with 3.25H19
Rear J17xMT2.5 with 4.50V17
(manual says rear should be 4.25H17)

After putting air in, as all 4 leak, the spares look like they should be
off a chopper as front is really skinny and rear is fat in cross section
looking like it's too wide for rim.

No I haven't ridden bike yet as having trouble getting clear title,
original gas tank leaked and chemical patches did not hold. Replacement
tank from the GS650G will not fit as is about 1/2" too long and the
third one I have on order is from an 83 GS1100 and it has not arrived,
and not even sure it will fit. If it doesn't fit I get the original
welded in a shop. Until I can get a tank can't even get it running. Bet
by the time I do it will be ready for snow.

The spare wheels and tires were from a parts bike I bought with
intention of swapping front forks and dual disks/calipers to my bike.
Whether I swap rear wheel is immaterial, and I need to buy tires, once I
confirm engine runs. If there are engine problems can always put spare
one in! If all is OK sell the spares. PLUS if the bike is too tall for
me to sit on properly then I sell it. My 85 V45 Magna with a really
chopped seat was just the right height for my 30" inseam.

B-12 was talking about changing wheels inducing wobble. Not sure I
understand why. As long as the rake isn't changed and the tires are
proper size for the wheels what causes it? Based on road conditions
here, and an ageing back, I need maximum tread on the road. I used to
hate it when I rode 15 years ago and suddenly the freeway would be
grooved when cruising at 70 mph. Luckily they seem to have stopped that,
but then there also was the problem with the cracks being patched with
that tar that stays super slick. Just what I don't need.


Ian Singer


--


================================================== =======================
See my homepage at http://www.iansinger.com
hosted on http://www.1and1.com/?k_id=10623894
All genealogy is stored in TMG from http://www.whollygenes.com
Charts and searching using TNG from http://www.tngsitebuilding.com
I am near Toronto Canada, can I tell where you are from your reply?
================================================== =======================

durtdog <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> If you go a higher diameter in wheel and install a lower profile tire it
> might end up feeling the same way on the road. I really dunno never tried
> it.

Think "unsprung weight", birdbrain.



--
BMW K1100LT 750SS CB400F CD250 Z650
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....

Ian Singer wrote:

> 1983 GS650GLD Front J19xMT1.85 with 90/90V19 (mine had 100/90v90)

If that was the *only* change done to the machine, it would slow the
steering down and make it feel slightly less precise.

> 1982 GS650G Front J19xMT1.85 with 3.25H19
> Rear J17xMT2.5 with 4.50V17
> (manual says rear should be 4.25H17)

If you install a slightly larger tire on the rear and make no change to
the front, the front tire has to work harder to stabilize the machine
in a vertical position. The machine will steer a little quicker, as the
rear end is lifted slightly higher.

As any rear tire wears to flatten the rear contour, the front tire has
to work harder to stabilize and steer the machine. It wears to a
V-shape. As the front tire becomes more V-shaped, the machine becauses
less stable. The critical speed at which speed weaves behin is reduced.

If you install a slightly smaller tire on the rear, with no changes to
the front, you may notice that the rear end feels like it's falling out
from under you in a corner. But the rear end is lowered slightly,
raking the forks out just a bit more and incrasing the trail. The
machine steers slower.
>
> After putting air in, as all 4 leak, the spares look like they should be
> off a chopper as front is really skinny and rear is fat in cross section
> looking like it's too wide for rim.

That was the look the Japanese manufacturers were trying to achieve
with their "L" and "Custom" models.
>
> No I haven't ridden bike yet as having trouble getting clear title

It's hard to describe to somebody what the changes in chandling would
be when you change tire sizes, but the above is pretty much what
happens.

You should know about the effect of rim width on tire contour, though.
If you install a new tire on a narrower rim than is optimum (according
to the charts on the manufacturer's website) the tire will "crown" as
the profile becomes too round and pointy. The machine will steer
quicker.

The reverse occurs when you install a tire on a rim that is too wide.
The steering slows down.

> Replacement
> tank from the GS650G will not fit as is about 1/2" too long and the
> third one I have on order is from an 83 GS1100 and it has not arrived,
> and not even sure it will fit.

Maybe you can relocate the metal cups on the underside of the tank. The
mounting rubbers slide into those cups. The cups are just spot welded
onto the tank, but you would have to drill out the spot weld to get the
cups loose to move them. This might require a 90-degree drill motor and
a really short drill.

Another way might be to cut the metal thingumbobs that the rubber
mounts slip onto off the frame and reweld them an inch forward or so.
But you'd have to be sure the triple clamp and handlebars and other
controls wouldn't hit the gas tank at full lock.

A bodge to fix *that* problem, if it should occur, would be to make the
steering stops on the frame longer by welding a nut on the end.

Ted M. should not have read this far, he will need pyschological
counseling for traumatic stress if he has done so, as your Suzuki will
no longer be a collector's item. ;-)

> If it doesn't fit I get the original welded in a shop. Until I can get a tank can't even get it running. Bet
> by the time I do it will be ready for snow.

I found a very rare 5-gallon gas tank for a 1960's Yamaha production
racer which predated Yamaha's very successful TD-1 series. It wouldn't
fit the YDS-3 frame I was planning to put it on, so I did surgery on
the frame, fabricating new rear gastank mounts and a new seat mount.
Nothing was going to stop me from having that beautiful gas tank on my
cafe racer...

> B-12 was talking about changing wheels inducing wobble. Not sure I
> understand why. As long as the rake isn't changed and the tires are
> proper size for the wheels what causes it?

Speed weaves are often called "speed wobbles". I have written
extensively about the subject in this NG, boring TOG terminally.
Basically, a speed weave is caused by the front tire not having enough
traction to steer and stabilize the machine. The rear tire is much
larger, and modern tires have no problem with having enough traction.

When I see chopper riders installing 10-inch wide tires on the back of
their machines and still keeping
a 3.00 X 21 front tire, I have to wonder what is wrong with those guys?
The motorcycle cannot have any high speed stability at all, and it
cannot turn a corner. All it "wants" to do, is go straight.

If a rear tire was wide enough and the RUB couldn't find 40 acres to
turn his hawg around, he'd have to whip out his cell phone and call his
mom and tell her he wasn't coming home...

> Based on road conditions
> here, and an ageing back, I need maximum tread on the road.

You might want to investigate more compliant rubber compounds then, if
your riding style demands comfort, instead of control. I knew a guy who
had a business installing 1200cc big bore kits on 883 Sportsters. He
was using Conti "Blitz" tires because they had better road compliance.
He said that they were "cushy".

That's the tread compound making the tire more compliant. When you
start getting into compliant rubber, you have to look at the size of
the tread blocks and the depth of tread. If you need to ride in the
wet, you'll want deep groved tread and small blocks, but if your riding
is all dry pavement, such a tire would feel "wiggly" and it would wear
in strange ways that I have discussed at length elsewhere.

Google for "cupping".

If you can get to a motorcycle shop that has an assortment of tires and
the salesman doesn't jump right on you trying to sell you something,
anything, to get your money, you can *handle* the tires and get a sense
of which tires have a softer carcass.

Cruiser tires will have a more limber carcass, you can even mount some
of them with your bare hands.

Go ahead, ask me how I know that. There have been some Michelin tires
that had such limber cases, I could turn them inside out!

Of course, something like that will have no "run flat" capabilities at
all, and may even come off the rim in case of rapid deflation.

At the other extreme are sportbike and sport touring tires that have a
very stiff carcass. One tire that has both compliant rubber *and* a
stiff carcass is Bridgestone's popular BT-4 Battlax tire, which comes
in "H" and "V" speed ratings.

I have a "V" rated BT-45 on the rear of my old GSXR because it's the
cheapest tire of that size. The
tread blocks are too tall, and the rubber is too compliant so the tire
wiggles too much. But the carcass was so damned stiff I had to pay the
tire monkey at a motorcycle salvage yard $15 to mount it, using his
tire machine.

Ian Singer wrote:

> Based on road conditions
> here, and an ageing back, I need maximum tread on the road.

Canadian rock drummer and lyricist Neil Peart wrote a book called
"Ghost Rider" where he said that all Canadian roads were either "closed
for the winter" or "under construction". or something like that.

But highway comfort has a lot to do with setting up your front and rear
suspension sag properly.

I remember when I first learned what the suspension travel of my front
forks was. I thought that if I had a fork with 5.5 inches of travel, I
should set the preload adjusters so that the forks extended all the
way.

I thought that it was more important to maximum full suspension travel
over that ONE great big bump than it was to get compliance with the
MANY much smaller bumps the wheel was constantly encountering.

The conventional wisdom that I was ignoring was that the proper set up
involves setting the preload adjusters on the forks(if any exist at
all) and the rear shocks so that the weight of the motorcycle uses up
about 25% of the travel.

And, if your own weight is about is somewhere between 200 and 250
pounds, the combined weights of you and the motorcycle should make the
suspension sag somewhere between 1/3rd and 1/2 of the possible travel
of whicever suspension unit you're looking at.

This setup will give you a comfy ride, but the steering may seem
imprecise. I wrote a long screed called "Good Vibrations" over on
alt.motorcycle.sportbike a few years ago, and the only response I got
was something like, "This has to be a joke?".

Most riders have no clue about how suspension frequency affects
steering feel and rider confidence versus rider comfort.


> I used to
> hate it when I rode 15 years ago and suddenly the freeway would be
> grooved when cruising at 70 mph.

A lot of front tires had a center groove that would interact badly with
grooves and section lines. Dunlop eliminated center grooves and
supplied tires with large diagonally transverse tread blocks in the
K291/391/491/591 series. That solved *one* problem, but the typically
stiff Dunlop carcass prevented the tread blocks from moving freely, and
the tires cupped and scalloped and then they wiggled...

> Luckily they seem to have stopped that,
> but then there also was the problem with the cracks being patched with
> that tar that stays super slick. Just what I don't need.

Tar snakes are no fun. The nature of tar is that it is a supercooled
liquid. The surface hardens, but the
asphalt under the surface remains semiliquid at ordinary highway
temperatures (maybe as high as 140 degrees during the California
summertime) and the tar *shears* diagonally when a rider tries to
corner across a lar snake.

B-12 wrote:
<snip>

>
> > I used to
> > hate it when I rode 15 years ago and suddenly the freeway would be
> > grooved when cruising at 70 mph.
>
> A lot of front tires had a center groove that would interact badly with
> grooves and section lines.


France used to ue those damn grooves on their autoroutes. 'Rainurages',
they were called, and some bikes used to dance the hokey-cokey on them.
Haven't seen them for at least 20 years, though: I think the French
relaised they were a bad idea.


> > Luckily they seem to have stopped that,
> > but then there also was the problem with the cracks being patched with
> > that tar that stays super slick. Just what I don't need.
>
> Tar snakes are no fun. The nature of tar is that it is a supercooled
> liquid. The surface hardens, but the
> asphalt under the surface remains semiliquid at ordinary highway
> temperatures (maybe as high as 140 degrees during the California
> summertime) and the tar *shears* diagonally when a rider tries to
> corner across a lar snake.


"Overbanding" we call this, in the UK. We don't have the problem of 140
dgeree heat (you'll be surprised to hear!) but we do have the problem
of rainwater on overbanding, which makes it slippery as all hell.

For this reason, there are very strict guidelines that road menders
must adhere to, covering total length of any single overbanding strip,
maximum permitted width, etc. Successful prosecutions and claims have
been made against local councils that broke the guidelines and caused
motorcyclists to crash.

B-12 wrote:

> GS-450's were very popular at the time, riders could run them wide
> open, flat out, at about 110 mph and humble riders of much larger
> machines.
>
> Don't ask how I know that...

Nice to know. I just bought an '83 GS450L :-). Yes, the one that had been
sitting. I've been running B12 in the gas, but I haven't ridden it enough
yet to get it completely clean. But it improves a little with each ride.

BTW, was this bike known as cold-blooded? Seems I have to leave the choke at
least partially on for several miles. Or is that just another manifestation
of the dirty carbs?

And as long as I'm asking questions, I read somewhere that all of the GS group
shared many common parts. Does anyone know of a website that covers these
equivalencies?

--
It's turtles, all the way down