Long story short, after going through many bikes, and being forced by my aging back to pick ones that have very cushy rides, I now have a few points of comparison and the following make me curious:
- dual shocks on the back of a cruiser = harsh ride no matter what shocks you put on it.
- my F700GS rides smoother than a Triumph tiger 800 XR, which rides smoother than my CB500X, which has a decent ride on its own.
The last point is the interesting part to me, all three are adv bikes, use simular types of suspension (dual front forks, single shock on the rear), the CB500X has a noticably shorter wheelbase than the other two, mostly a shorter swingarm, which seems to put the rider more over the rear wheel rather than in the pivot center between the two wheels.
So how much of the ride difference on the three adv bikes is attributable to shocks and how much to geometry, or is geometry even an issue? My gut tells me the longer wheelbase and the single rear shock (all other things being equal) is potentially softer than a shorter wheelbase bike, or dual rear shocks for which I now have PTSD - never again.
If true, what do you give up with a 6-8" longer wheelbase - everything is a tradeoff right? - is it some kind of agility? And why does the Tiger ride differently than the BMW, could a suspension change on it give it the cushier ride the BMW has (I think the Tiger 800 is a nice bike other than the ride).
I've read some of the other posts here and it seems you can tune a suspension to what you like to a point, but it seemed to me you have to at least start with a bike with a design that will let you get there.
Wanting to learn just a little bit more.
- dual shocks on the back of a cruiser = harsh ride no matter what shocks you put on it.
- my F700GS rides smoother than a Triumph tiger 800 XR, which rides smoother than my CB500X, which has a decent ride on its own.
The last point is the interesting part to me, all three are adv bikes, use simular types of suspension (dual front forks, single shock on the rear), the CB500X has a noticably shorter wheelbase than the other two, mostly a shorter swingarm, which seems to put the rider more over the rear wheel rather than in the pivot center between the two wheels.
So how much of the ride difference on the three adv bikes is attributable to shocks and how much to geometry, or is geometry even an issue? My gut tells me the longer wheelbase and the single rear shock (all other things being equal) is potentially softer than a shorter wheelbase bike, or dual rear shocks for which I now have PTSD - never again.
If true, what do you give up with a 6-8" longer wheelbase - everything is a tradeoff right? - is it some kind of agility? And why does the Tiger ride differently than the BMW, could a suspension change on it give it the cushier ride the BMW has (I think the Tiger 800 is a nice bike other than the ride).
I've read some of the other posts here and it seems you can tune a suspension to what you like to a point, but it seemed to me you have to at least start with a bike with a design that will let you get there.
Wanting to learn just a little bit more.