Rim and tire size Wacky

[ALdad]

I picked up a 2000 sport with 2200 mi. on it. Bike has a 180/55 on the rear and a 120/70 front. It's my understanding that the 2000 has a 4.5 rim 0n the rear and a 3.5 on the front. I am not sure how to measure rim size but the rear is 5.5 from the most outer edge to other edge where the tire meets the rim and the front is 4.5. something does'nt make sense ? I can't imagine larger rims were put on .The tires are perelli dragons I dont know if these were original equip. But with only 2.2k mi. Why would'nt they be? Any ideas????? Cheer!! Alan

[motoguzznix]

Al

 

Your rims are 3.5 and 4.5

Rim size is measured on the inside of the rim where the tire sits.

If the original paint on the rims is bright silver grey, they are 4.5 rear. 5.5 were all dark grey/anthrazit.

On a 4.5 rim a 160/60 tire is recommended, larger tires make the vehicle unstable at higher speeds.

[mdude]

Hi Al: I posted this a week ago:

 

First testride after my electric failure yesterday, and first ride with a 160 rear tyre instead of the ballooning 170. Changed to Metz M6, by the way.

 

Wow, what a difference that tyre made, bike much more stable and easy to steer. Really. really confidence inspiring. I never really trusted it before in turns and had to manhandle it in the tigh ones, now I just let it steer itself. That was good forum advice! and the metzelers even look good.

 

180 is just wrong.....

[ALdad]

Thanx guys. I will replace tires with 120/70 front,is this OK? and a160/60 rear.

[Guest ratchethack]

Thanx guys. I will replace tires with 120/70 front,is this OK? and a160/60 rear.

ALdad, IMHO all the posts above have been spot-on. Your tire size plan is the ONLY choice that will allow your bike to achieve ALL the handling it's capable of -- assuming you ALSO have the suspension setup dialed-in, of course.

 

Having the same bike as yours, I've been focused on this for years from the perspective of pursuing ALL the handling and road manners the bike is capable of. And wot a joy it most certainly IS, when properly set-up!

 

Per many many previous posts over the years, the ONLY reason for wider than a 160/60 tire on your 4.5" rim is THE SAME REASON Guzzi went to the 5.5" rim and 180 rear tires on later models. That, of course, was for the purpose of making "a fashion statement" according to wot the Bling Police of the Two Wheeled Parade Float Consensus dictate by way of Bling Propaganda. (See the Bling Kommanders at OCC. ) Making that "fashion statement" comes at the high price of the superb road manners and handling that the Guzzi is capable of (limited as it already is in many ways). But why cripple it unmercifully -- on purpose?!

 

Now many will actually make this sacrifice, KNOWING IN ADVANCE how devastating the "wide meat" syndrome is on handling. . . To each his own, most of us live in free market economies, personal choices are respected, and all that. . .but I just don't get it.

 

Best beware.

 

FWIW, I've seen wot a 180/55 LOOKS LIKE on a 4.5" rear on a Sport. Reminds me of a woman with a size 12 butt apparently stuffed by industrial hydraulics into size 6 jeans -- best stand well back, lest the seams give way. . . you'll put y'er eye out, kid. . .

 

BTW -- Gruesome as this is, imagine the rear view of the aforementioned Size 12 woman pressure-packed into Size 6 jeans doing the 40-yard dash -- er, make that the 10-yard dash out o' sheer human decency. . . As an alternative, imagine an overgrown watermelon rolling down a hill. Now imagine the Guzzi with 4.5" rim with 180/55 in the twisty stuff. I b'lieve you get the picture, my friend. . .

[tikkanen]

Hi Al: I posted this a week ago:

 

First testride after my electric failure yesterday, and first ride with a 160 rear tyre instead of the ballooning 170. Changed to Metz M6, by the way.

 

Wow, what a difference that tyre made, bike much more stable and easy to steer. Really. really confidence inspiring. I never really trusted it before in turns and had to manhandle it in the tigh ones, now I just let it steer itself. That was good forum advice! and the metzelers even look good.

 

180 is just wrong.....

 

Amen, leave the fat ass tyres for the Harley boys

 

Ciao

Søren

[ALdad]

Thanx Ratchet, Best laugh in the last month. Cheer!!

[antonio carroccio]

Don't care about that fat ass. Looks horny to me, I like it!

 

Before changing rear tyre, be sure the width of the wheel will be 5.5 inc.

I believe the 170 will also fits on kind of wheels.

We have got in those years many topics over tyre range.

Conclusion is: on kind of wheels, you can fit 170-180 and 190 tyres.

I like the fat boy way, I use 190

[Guest ratchethack]

Ah yes. Well, while freedom of choice ain't always a beautiful thing, and while, er, beauty exists largely in the eye o' the beholder (and in this case, roundly, broadly, and in a grandly panoramic, rather immense way ), at least we can make our own choices, whether we acknowledge the trade-offs or not. . .

 

Forza grosso!

 

FWIW, for those interested in wot Sport Rider has to say about mismatching wider tires than the rims are designed for -- in exactly the dimensions we're talking about here, a previous thread, and particularly the post at this link may be of interest:

 

(a direct quote from link below):

 

"...in reality, a 190/50-17 fits properly only on a 6.0-inch rim, and cramming it onto anything smaller severely changes its profile."

 

http://www.v11lemans.com/forums/index.php?...st&p=123122

 

BAA, TJM, though I seriously doubt that anyone's M is EVER gonnna V