New shocks?

[FatBaxter]

This is probably a dumb question. I'm the original owner of a '99 R1100RT, with 51K miles. I've read in other threads that most folks would have already replaced the original shocks by now. How does one tell if one needs new shocks? Mine seem fine, but I'm wondering if I have just gotten used to the way they feel. They don't feel as if they bottom out on bumps; rebound seems OK.

I've also read that replacement shocks are very pricey (what part of a beemer isn't?). If I need them, I'll probably have the dealer do it, since I'm not a wrench. What's a reasonable price range? Are the BMW replacement shocks OK, or ahould I go for aftermarket ones? I'm not a demanding rider, so I don't need high performance shocks.

Thanks for any feedback!

[podsobinski]

Sounds like you have the right technique for determining if your shocks are okay. It you still have good dampening and the springs are still strong that you don't bottom out, you are okay.
There is such a great variety of aftermarket shocks that are rebuildable that I would stay away from stock or OEM shocks. You will pay the same for stock shocks as you could get a pair of Ohlins. . .these are great looking, as good as they get and rebuildable. Replacing the shocks are pretty easy just guessing a shop cost/time would be an hour each shock. With 51,000, you might be due shortly.

gpodzo

I am getting pretty sick of cold!:hungover

[bikerfish1100]

at 51K, your shocks are shot. but if you're so unsure of their performance that you "think" they might still be okay, you would probably do fine with getting a set of stock shocks that someone else has taken off their bike for the performance upgrade available from aftermarkets. i'd shoot for a set with less than 10K miles on them, if possible.
i, and many others, demand more from our bikes than you apparently do. we want the performance that superior suspension affords, you sound like you're content with stock equipment. (nothing wrong with that, jsut an observation). you might want to see if you can ride a bike outfitted with Ohlins or others (don't think Wilbers makes a shock for the RT) to see if what it gives you is worth the extra $.
I'd expect to spend about $400 +/- for a used set of stockers, around $800 +/- for a used set of Ollies, and about $1600 +/- (haven't priced lately) for a new pair.

[r1150gsadvrider]

:thumb If you go Ohlins, do a search on Kyle Racing, They will meet/beat all prices and set you up for your type of riding. Have them on my GS and Lt.

[Rollifahrer]

I bought a 98 w 67K in 05. I just put Wilbers (@108K) on and lowered the bike a bit. They were pricey, but worth it, and wish I had done it in 05. Between better shocks and replacing the brake rotor buttons, the annoying rattling sound is mostly gone.

[rt1to3]

Thanks for the input on the shocks. I am considering ordering HYPERPRO 030/040 and lowering my 1100. (5") Tired of using a 2" lift on my Boots!

[scotchale]

Not sure if this topic should stay in this category, but I'll inquire for now:

Question has to do with lowering a bike. My wife and I just returned from Florida to Texas with a 95 R 1100 R, that we purchased from an individual in Florida. The R model will be for my wife (I have an RT). The R was picked on the basis of being more suited for my wife's shorter stance, based on some input from others over the last few months. She's ready to upgrade after a year with a CS.

She's pretty close with the seat on the lowest setting, and being more narrow than my RT seat, the ball of her feet and toes hit the pavement, but not fully flat on the ground yet. I don't think the shocks are due for replacement yet (30K miles at this point, total), unless age is an issue?

At this time, I'd like some input and research on either lowering with replacement shocks, and/or if there is some more simplistic methods of lower the R model for my wife?

Thanks,
Scotchale

2004 RT
2005 CS
1995 R

[Rollifahrer]

Thanks for the input on the shocks. I am considering ordering HYPERPRO 030/040 and lowering my 1100. (5") Tired of using a 2" lift on my Boots!

I lowered my bike 1" and it has made life much easier, and so far no bad effects as far as lean angle, or at least the range of the angle I actually use around Ohio. It could become a problem in the mountains, though.

As far as cutting the sidestand, I bought a used one whose bail wire was broken at Re-Psycle. To determine how much to cut off, I marked the floor where the original hit, had a helper retract it and lean the bike to the correct angle and I pulled a piece of wire from the pivot hole to the mark on the floor. The difference was about 3/4". I marked up the replacement and had a welding shop cut it and weld it with solid reinforcement inside. The problem with that method is that the triangular foot peice is angled to be parallel to the ground, and changing the length changes it's orientation so that the most outboard point of the foot hit early, costing 1/8" in clearance. It doesn't sound like a lot, but the bike hits its balance point much sooner and it feels wierd even on my smooth and level garage floor.

The short version of the story is that it's probably better to cut as much off the sidestand as you lower the bike, and definitely better to err on the side off too short, since you can add a FatFoot or build it up cheaper than recutting and rewelding.

Anyway, that was my experience; hope it saves you some headaches.

[deilenberger]

Thanks for the input on the shocks. I am considering ordering HYPERPRO 030/040 and lowering my 1100. (5") Tired of using a 2" lift on my Boots!I would be very cautious on lowering the bike 5".. that's enough that even a conservative rider is going to have things touching down. It also makes the centerstand about impossible to use (if your S has one..) and will require shortening the sidestand. This much lowering will also greatly reduce your front suspension travel, and may also reduce the rear (the wheel can't move up any further than the inside of the rear fender..)

I believe the most any shock vendor will suggest lowering a bike is about 2", and even that will have some handling consequences.

Just a FWIW..

[JimVonBaden1]

I would be very cautious on lowering the bike 5".. that's enough that even a conservative rider is going to have things touching down. It also makes the centerstand about impossible to use (if your S has one..) and will require shortening the sidestand. This much lowering will also greatly reduce your front suspension travel, and may also reduce the rear (the wheel can't move up any further than the inside of the rear fender..)

I believe the most any shock vendor will suggest lowering a bike is about 2", and even that will have some handling consequences.

Just a FWIW..

Is it even possible to lower it 5"? I guess with shocks and a seat 3" is possible.

I just installed a set of Works Performance on an 1150GS that were 1 3/4" front, and 2" rear lower. The guy still is up a bit, but almost flatfoot at 26: inseam. The bike rides fine, but lacks clearance, and would be nearly useless off road.

Jim :brow

[deilenberger]

Is it even possible to lower it 5"? I guess with shocks and a seat 3" is possible.

I just installed a set of Works Performance on an 1150GS that were 1 3/4" front, and 2" rear lower. The guy still is up a bit, but almost flatfoot at 26: inseam. The bike rides fine, but lacks clearance, and would be nearly useless off road.

Jim :browJim - just to be clear - you didn't get shocks 1 3/4" shorter and 2" shorter right? In the rear which has a 1:3 ratio the rear would be 6" lower.. The front ratio is closer to 1:2..

[JimVonBaden1]

Jim - just to be clear - you didn't get shocks 1 3/4" shorter and 2" shorter right? In the rear which has a 1:3 ratio the rear would be 6" lower.. The front ratio is closer to 1:2..

Yes Don, we know what you mean when you say that! You have made that clear enough times, but I am sure no one really thought the shockes were actually 2" shorter. Effective reduction in height was 1 3/4" and 2" .:laugh

Were the shocks that much shorter they would not go on the bike.

Jim :brow

[deilenberger]

Yes Don, we know what you mean when you say that! You have made that clear enough times, but I am sure no one really thought the shockes were actually 2" shorter.
Ummm... weren't we just discussing about lowering a bike 5"? :dance

Effective reduction in height was 1 3/4" and 2" .:laugh

Were the shocks that much shorter they would not go on the bike.

Jim :browThey wouldn't have any travel that's pretty much for sure..

[JimVonBaden1]

Ummm... weren't we just discussing about lowering a bike 5"? :dance They wouldn't have any travel that's pretty much for sure..

Point taken, but I think we agreed it would be nearly impossible to do that with the suspension.:drink

Jim :brow