Unloaded rear suspension sag?

[Skyfarmer]

Ah well, in that case I am using the wrong term.

So there is not a lot of 'sag' just a lot of settle as the 'slack' in the suspension fitting etc is taken up before it becomes active..in relation to its highest position..


...neither of the last two scenarios either but not as light as I once was...14 stone now fat bastard

 

[Barneyballbags]

Re:

That elastomer is way too short for the shock for a start. The sag you talk about when the bike is stood on the ground is just the rear end taking up the gap between the top of the elastomer and the top of the shock . You can quite clearly see the gap in one of your photos.

You need a longer bit of rubber!

And it's a LTS 5. As far as I remember all the other LTS models had a completely different linkage arrangement (like mine in the photo below).

 

[Skyfarmer]

Re:

Yes, it does seem too short..hence the thought, at least for now, of getting some spacers in there. hat is why I put that pic in there to show that...that is partially where, what I was calling sag' came from. The bike slumps (sags) down from it highest position


I have sent the suppliers an e-mail with pics, to see if they will, send me a firm one, free or cheaper since it was their omission on the site at giving info as to rider weight suite for each unit offered. My fault too for not asking ...and also to tell them I think the think is too short.

They are selling them as GT LTS elastomers, but they have no indication as to rider weight for the firm or medium ride units.

I am wondering if this is not in fact an LTS4. I just can't tell.

many pics on the net show the LTS4 with a little fillet on the top tub under the seat, like mine, but some don't have it. Done various google searches

Mine is like this, which they are calling a '4'
http://www.bikemontt.com/foro/topic/128 ... formacion/



yet this one is also clearly labelled a '4'

 

[cce]

i might be able to get hold of a complete shock unit from an elastomer LTS.

The LTS 5 was steel, and a real pig. the 1996 LTS 3 and later 4s and 5's had elastomer rear ends

 

[Skyfarmer]

That would be great if you could..even if knackered. as long as it was original, I'd then at least know how it was meant to look. and have a spare to tinker with. Would also show me where all the little washers go..my mate took mine apart. Still not sure if all the bits are there..that could be the issue.....

I just found this thread, also definitely a '4'..but with the fillet...so that fillet is not a good identifying feature..looks like the '4' had two different frame types..at least, depending on year.


http://forums.mtbr.com/gt/everything-gt ... 90-12.html

 

[cce]

BITD GT's had different gusseting depending on size. Larger frames generally had more

or it could have been a mid-year design change - if extra strength was needed in that area

 

[Skyfarmer]

Ah... thanks and for the PM's

 

[legrandefromage]

my catalog shows it as an LTS-4 and retailed at £999.95

a bit late to the party...

 

[Skyfarmer]

The LTS 5 was steel, ........

Steel...what the complete frame? I missed that part of your post...this must be '4' then..defo an alloy frame.

 

[cce]

yep, the 1997 LTS 5 was all steel. Utter chod.