Shaft or Chain... that's the question...

[TheCafeKid]

Ah hah, just as I suspected, shafties have more nuts than chains.

Well I dunno about YOU, but i prefer not to play with nuts...or shafts for that matter

[MacGyver]

Performance oriented riders (and usually mechanically inclined) will vote for chains. Convenience oriented riders (and usually high mileage riders) will vote for shaft drives. Some riders will just argue, err, debate no matter what.

[koolaid_kid]

You need to spend more time in the dirt!

I had a 77 CanAm 250 (rotary engine model) and a 78 RM125C. Rode until 1984 when I went back to college to get my engineering degree. Never lost a chain on either of them, either. Did a lot of air time (WOOHOO) and spent a lot of time wrenching, cleaning the sand out of bearings and changing rings and such. But not rewrapping or unwrapping a chain. My biggest problem was that I sucked as a motocrosser, plus it is expensive to stay current, so I spent a lot of time just off-roading it.

[koolaid_kid]

Performance oriented riders (and usually mechanically inclined) will vote for chains. Convenience oriented riders (and usually high mileage riders) will vote for shaft drives. Some riders will just argue, err, debate no matter what.

No we won't! Yes we will!
I agree.

[Griffin]

The 850G was the HEAVIEST GS ever produced (not including the GK with all that added baggness) Even heavier than its 1000 and 1100cc counterparts...why? I dunno...

The 850 engine had the kick starter in '79, and the head has more material than the 1000 and 1100 (smaller bores on the 850, same sized engine).

These two differences added about 15 lbs to the bike. The later version of the 850G was essentially the same weight as both the 1000G and 1100G.

Dry weights of each bike (from Suzuki brochures and magazine tests):

'79 850G - 557 lbs
'80 1000G - 543 lbs
'83 850G - 540 lbs
'83 1100G - 545 lbs

[TheCafeKid]

The 850 engine had the kick starter in '79, and the head has more material than the 1000 and 1100 (smaller bores on the 850, same sized engine).

These two differences added about 15 lbs to the bike. The later version of the 850G was essentially the same weight as both the 1000G and 1100G.

Dry weights of each bike (from Suzuki brochures and magazine tests):

'79 850G - 557 lbs
'80 1000G - 543 lbs
'83 850G - 540 lbs
'83 1100G - 545 lbs

Well there ya have it. Plain and simple black and white facts ladies and gents... Cant do better than that.

So where does that leave us?

850 shaftie= overweight, yet stupendously durable while not quite as nimble, yet suprisingly so, Caddy of the GS world

1100E= sleek, deadly, might end you in a back brace, dont take it for long trips (unless you LIKE that sort of thing..i do) MIGHT end you in the morgue, cat like Ferrari of the GS world...

Pick your poison..

[Griffin]

By the way, the dry weight of the '83 GS1100E is listed by Suzuki at 522 lbs., only 35 lbs lighter than the original 850G. However, once you add in the larger tank capacity and the drive train oil of the 850G (hopefully nobody tries to ride one dry), the wet weight of the 850G is about 50 lbs more than the 1100E.

[TheCafeKid]

By the way, the dry weight of the '83 GS1100E is listed by Suzuki at 522 lbs., only 35 lbs lighter than the original 850G. However, once you add in the larger tank capacity and the drive train oil of the 850G (hopefully nobody tries to ride one dry), the wet weight of the 850G is about 50 lbs more than the 1100E.

I thought the tank caps were the same at 5.8??

[Griffin]

I thought the tank caps were the same at 5.8??

Have you ever actually put 5.8 gallons into your 1100's tank? I've put 6.1 gallons into my 1000G's tank when it was bone-dry. I know my brother ran his 1100E's tank dry (I had to ride to a gas station and fetch him a gas can full of gas) and as I recall, he only got a total of 5.4 gallons into it.

I'll have to call and double check with him, but I believe those numbers are correct. He'll remember, he keeps a log book of every drop of gas he's ever put into every vehicle he's ever owned.

I remember he was ****ed because he couldn't get the "full" rating amount into it, and blamed the shortness of capacity for his calculational error .

[TheCafeKid]

Nope. But i dont know exactly how far my reserve will get me either. Most ive ever put in it was 5gal, but i dont hit reserve untill about 4.5 is gone. BTW you'll never get that last 1/4-1/2 gallon out of the tank before the bike is sucking air, so throw that out the window...

[Dan Ruddock]

For me I hate the jacking effect on a shafty. Unless it's to turn one over for profit I will never buy a shafty for personal use. The maintenance is a non issue for me. If you use a X-ring chain 30k life is possible and for how much I ride that's is a long time. I am the mechanically inclined type. Dan

[doctorgonzo]

It's a different feel for sure (shafty). Especially the loss of that feeling of the rear end dropping and grabbing hold when you roll the throttle. You get used to it though.

[prosolar]

I have had a few shafties and love them, sure they weigh more but over the long run I like ease of maintenance, or lack thereof compared to chains. Maybe it's the old man in me. I am mechanically inclined for sure and most of my bikes have chains, it seems every bike I get needs new chain and sprockets!

[flyingace]

It's been quite a while since I owned a chain-driven bike, but I recall the biggest PIA was constant adjustment as the chain wore. Then, more likely than not, this would screw up the wheel alignment and you'd go down the road with rear tire sideways (if only slightly). This in turn would wear out the rear tire prematurely. I don't miss that at all.

As others have said though, it's a matter of your bike's purpose in life that determines which final drive works best.

[bwringer]

I like them both. They each have their purposes.

Having been a chain kind of guy exclusively for a quarter of a century, and being relatively new to the shaft side, I can tell you one thing I'm not looking forward to on my shafty -

Removing the rear wheel to change the tire. Reading the procedure for how to do it in the manual looks like it'll be a pita.

It's MUCH easier than on a chain bike. Nothing to align or adjust when you reinstall. To pull the rear wheel, yank the axle (which usually requires undoing the top shock bolts, same as chain drive bikes with stock exhausts), undo brake torque arm bolt, and you're done.

And only two wheel bearings to deal with.

When you remove the rear wheel of a G model, it's a lot easier if you put the centerstand on a board or take some measure to create slightly increased clearance at the rear -- it's a lot easier to yank the rear wheel out that way.

When we change those tires, you'll see -- easy peasy.