Tires

[Anthony]

I'd like suggestions (brand and size) for a good street tire for sport (not track) and distance.

 

Cheers!

[Bbennett]

Michelin Pilot Sport

[pille]

continental conti force!!

and for those who push their bike a bit more : conti force max!!!!

[Guzzirider]

Bridgestone BT021- much better than the old 020s- good grip in the wet and dry and last forever- what more do you want?

 

Guy

[Guest ratchethack]

I'd like suggestions (brand and size) for a good street tire for sport (not track) and distance.

 

Cheers!

Anthony, as I've so often whinged on and on (and so unmercifully) , I b'lieve moto tire development has evolved to such a HIGH STATE of excellence in the last decade or so, that picking any tire from the top (or near the top) of the most credible test rankings is better than the safest of bets, because they're all outstanding, and despite relatively narrow differences, none of 'em can be considered "mistakes"!

 

You've asked for suggestions, and I'll assume "sport (not track)" and "distance" = Sport/Touring. So that's all I've got here, though I won't hesitate to make a recommendation when asked. I've done a fair bit o' homework. If you want suggestions that're based on SOMETHING other than opinion that might be founded on who knows wot?, turns out you gotta do some digging and read a little. . .

 

IMHO, Sport/Touring tires of today are giant leaps above the pure Sport tires of yesteryear in every measurable parameter, as well as most parameters that're not measurable! Wots a rider to do today but take best possible advantage of the very best that's ever been available -- by far?!

 

Though there are undoubtedly many out there, I don't personally know of even one V-11 rider who would attempt to argue that a 120/70 is not the preferred, if not the "ideal" width and aspect ratio choice for the 3.5" front wheel.

 

HOWEVER, when we get to the rear, that's where we run into err, on-going, umm, "controversy". As far as I'm concerned, let's not be silly when it comes to tires, 'cause IMHO tires are the most important component on any motorcycle. By my own personal experience and the recommendations of many Pro's who're in a position to make the most qualified recommendations, the 5.5" rear wheel that came on your '03 and '04 V-11's should have a 170/60 -- assuming the best handling, safety, and tire life your Guzzi is capable of are your leading objectives. Yes, it came with a 180, but this was a compromise made in Mandello no doubt by a marketing committee to enhance showroom "blingery", and therefore sales. Yes, many consider this "good enough", or even "best" -- based on wot?? By all means, leave us explore that next:

 

IF you're more of a parade showman than a rider, if you've become convinced that "wide" equals "fashion priority", and if your primary objective is parking lot posing, and if you also b'lieve, as evidently a surprising number of posters to this Forum do, that the "fashion statement" made by a "Bloat-o-bling" wide-butt tire trumps handling, and if you believe that the people you've never seen before and will no doubt never see again are important to the maintenance of your self-image, who might be tempted to evaluate your "street cred" by looking at your rear tire closely enough to even detect any difference in width , you will go with the stock issue 180, or even, for those ultimate slaves of trendy handling-crippling tire tumescence, a 190. Yeah, it will clear the swingarm and it can be grossly distorted to fit on the 5.5" wheel, though it will look ridiculous (IMHO), like it's ready to roll over and pop a bead over the first substantial bumpage on the first substantial curvage, and the unintended flexion and heating of the sidewalls with this combination on the road has just gotta be err, pretty bad -- and let me just suggest at least potentially dangerous.

 

Yes, variances exist between mfgr's. on which "too wide" width will work less poorly than other "too wide" widths. As far as I'm concerned, why not just go for optimum performance, safety, and comfort, do wot the freakin' tire mfgr's recommend, and skip the embarrassment and heartache of shoe-horning a size 10 foot into a size 9 running shoe, and save the agony of blisters and road-side grief in the first place??

 

-- But o' course, that's just me.

 

From a previous thread, here's wot Andy Trevitt at Sport Rider had to say on the subject of correct tire size:

 

The illustrations make it pretty clear what causes the less-than-favorable symptoms noted in the comparo:

 

http://www.sportrider.com/tech/tires/146_0...size/index.html

 

Does Size Matter

Squeezing a wide tire onto a narrow rim can be a big mistake. Here's why.

By Andrew Trevitt

 

Those low-profile 190-series tires sure look gnarly on the back of a sportbike, and we've seen them pinched onto all sizes of rims. But 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.

 

As an experiment, we mounted a 190-series Metzeler Rennsport onto our F4i's 5.5-inch rear wheel and took some measurements. Compared to the correctly sized tire on the same rim, the 190's profile closely matches the 180's near the edges of the tread, but is much lower in the center area-equivalent to about a 6mm change in ride height. Effectively, the wider tire will give more rake and trail when the bike is vertical, while keeping close to the original geometry when the bike is leaned over. Accounting for one (by changing ride height) will unduly affect the other.

 

Following our test with the Metzeler Sportecs, we slipped a 190/50 rear Sportec onto the F4i and rode a portion of the test loop for a practical comparison. With no changes to suspension or geometry, the F4i felt substantially different with the wider tire. With the bike straight up and down, steering was slightly sluggish in comparison, but just off vertical, the F4i was quite tippy and darted into corners. The light, neutral steering of the Sportecs was completely changed and the bike lost its balanced feel. The sensation was very much like riding on a tire squared off from too many freeway miles. At higher lean angles, performance was less affected, although making transitions from side to side was unpredictable. And, contrary to the popular myth that the wider tire puts down a bigger footprint and gives more traction, we felt no improvement in that department from the properly sized tire.

 

We've experienced similar changes with a 180-series tire on a 5.0-inch rim meant for a 170-series bun.

 

[sport Rider's bottom line:]

 

Tire engineers work hard to design and match front and rear profiles for characteristics that we sometimes take for granted. Upsetting that balance is surprisingly easy and you should think twice before sacrificing your tire's performance for appearance's sake.

 

**************

As far as tire pick, here's wot I consider a credible ranking from about a year back, which to my knowledge is still about as current as it gets. It's very close to the same ranking published by Moto Revue at about the same time. Sorry, the links to the full write-ups on both of these well-known annual test rankings weren't left up on the Web for long. I should have copied both, I thought they were both well done:

 

Stolen and re-re-re-re-stolen from a previous thread:

 

The German mag MOTORRAD had an interesting tire comparo where they

determined the best sport-touring tire and the best sport tire for

street/trackday in the dry and wet with lap-times that don't lie and

also tire wear/longevity. Interesting was also that the difference in

corner speed between the best sport-touring tire and the best sport

tire was only 2,5 mph and they said todays best touring tires have

more than adequate traction for all kind of streetriding. Only if you

do trackdays and are fast enough to get the sport tires warm enough

sport tires are safer and the way to go...

 

Sport-Touring tires

dry:

 

1) Metzeler Z6

and Conti Road Attack

2)Pirelli Diablo Strada

3)Dunlop D220

4)Michelin Pilot Road

5)Bridgestone BT020

6)Avon Azaro

 

Sport-Touring tires

wet:

 

1)Pirelli Diablo Strada

2)Metzeler Z6

3)Michelin Pilot Road

4)Conti Road Attack

5)dunlop D220

6)Bridgestone BT020

7)Avon Azaro

 

NOTE: Between the best and worst tire were 5,5 sec difference in lap time!

 

NOTE: The above test also ranked mileage of each tire. Surprisingly enough, there were differences of up to 2X mileage between tires ranked next to each other overall, and one of the top tires in the above overall dry ranking was also #1 on mileage. That happens to be my personal choice, the Metzeler Z6, of which I've enjoyed many sets already and am currently preparing to put on a new front.

 

Hope this helps. Have fun!

[rocker59]

I'm running the Z6 Roadtec on my Nero Corsa... 170/60-17 rear instead of the OEM 180... Life span has been 5k-6k on the rear, and 6k-7k on the front... They are great wet or dry, and have good handling characteristics...

[waspp]

I'm running the Z6 Roadtec on my Nero Corsa... 170/60-17 rear instead of the OEM 180... Life span has been 5k-6k on the rear, and 6k-7k on the front... They are great wet or dry, and have good handling characteristics...

 

I'm also running the Metzler Roadtec on the rear of the Rosso Corsa but am using the Sportec on the front. I ran the Michlien pilot roads before and liked them as well.

[FuelCooler]

I am running Pilot Powers (not the sport touring Pilot Roads). I have 6000 miles on the rear and 7000 on the front. They are squared off from Interstate running this summer, but othewise would last another 500-1000 miles. A buddy of mine with an R1 told me they would last 7000. He was right, and I am shocked. I do keep 40 psi in the rear. But I may try the Z6 or Diablo Strada's next spring.

Cheers,

Steve

[Guest Nogbad]

Always run 020s on the V11, seem fine wet or dry

[Baldini]

.......5.5" rear wheel that came on your '03 and '04 V-11's should have a 170/60 -- assuming the best handling, safety, and tire life your Guzzi is capable of are your leading objectives. Yes, it came with a 180, but this was a compromise made in Mandello no doubt by a marketing committee to enhance showroom "blingery", and therefore sales. Yes, many consider this "good enough", or even "best" -- based on wot?? ...

 

180 & 170 are both recommended correct fitments for 5.5" rim.

170 will give a more even turn in than 180. But handling varies tremendously between different types of tyre & it's possible a 180 in some types will offer similar handling to 170 in others. Furthermore, some tyres are only available as 180, not made in 170.

 

KB

[Guest ratchethack]

Thanks, Keith.

 

Who really gives a flying fark about all o' this? Well, I reckon you & I might not be the only ones.

 

FWIW, I did more digging, and came up with a bit of an eye-opener for meself, which supports & confirms your post in a way that I hadn't expected. Humbled again.

 

Since there are lots more 5.5" rims than 4.5" rims out there, I focused only on the 5.5".

 

May I first re-state the observation that many LM owners with 5.5" rim have been very pleased to've made the switch from 180 to 170, as you and so many others have pointed out, just as many with the 4.5" rim have been similarly pleased to've made the switch from 170 to 160, (myself included). Many others who've ridden BOTH of these bikes before and after making this switch (Yours Truly included in both cases) have experienced much the same (it's no small thing in either case, IMHO). Tire mfgr's will recommend different tire sizes for the V11 with the 5.5" wheel, and as you point out, different mfgr's tires will behave differently by width and aspect ratio.

 

I b'lieve that part of the consideration between tire and wheel dimensions here is the confluence of metric and English/US measuring systems, which forces the mfgr's offering both a 170 and a 180 into a choice, which I found surprising overall.

 

Ever curious about such things , I did some Web research and came up with the following direct tire mfgr. (not tire SUPPLIER!) recommended fitments for the Moto Guzzi V11 LM and variants with 17 inch, 5.5" rear wheel:

 

Metzeler -- They offer 170's also.

 

180/55ZR17TL

 

Pirelli -- Hm. Evidently the legal dep't. didn't want to commit

 

190/50ZR17M/CTL (73W)

180/55ZR17M/CTL (73W)(E)

180/55ZR17M/CTL(73W)

160/60ZR17M/CTL(69W)

160/60ZR18M/CTL (70W)

170/60ZR17M/CTL(72W)

150/70ZR17M/CTL(69W)

 

Bridgestone (no fitment listing for Moto Guzzi V11)

 

Dunlop -- (They offer 170's also)

 

180/55ZR17

 

Michelin (no fitment listing for Moto Guzzi V11)

 

Continental -- (They offer 170's also)

 

180/55ZR17

 

Avon -- (They offer 170's also)

 

180/55ZR17

 

OBSERVATIONS:

 

ALL of those mfgr's. listed above offering both a 170 and a 180 recommend a 180. Not ONE recommendation for a 170. Now having first-hand experience with both myself, and knowing many who've come up with the same analysis of the handling superiority of the narrower tire as I do (and knowing NOT ONE RIDER -- regardless of skill or ability -- who has tried both and does not), I continue to recommend and ride on 160's for the 4.5" rim and similarly continue to recommend, without hesitation, a 170 for the 5.5" rim.

 

Do tire mfgr's tend to recommend wot the majority of consumers "want" in deference to the often nonsensical dictates and popular delusions of fashion, regardless of wot they "need" for optimum performance and safety?? I don't consider myself qualified to say, but I reckon it's pretty obvious as well as conclusive that motorcycle mfgr's do -- so annoying as this may be to some, I reckon it's a reasonable Q to ask.

 

I wear my tires all the way to the edges, and I select tires for mountain road riding that tends to be far more challenging and demanding in every respect than I reckon most riders experience on a regular basis, myself included. Having ridden on many Sport tires on the Guzzi, I prefer Sport/Touring tires for their far superior mileage, whilst giving away little to Sport tires in terms of handling and grip -- and in at least two cases, giving away NOTHING in terms of handling, quite the opposite.

 

My SUBJECTIVE reasons for a "narrow choice" recommendation for BOTH rim widths: Significantly improved accuracy, predictability, feel, confidence and control in quick transitions, and overall balance of road manners at "sporting" angles of attack with the "locomotive of Sport bikes", the venerable and officially obsolete V11.

 

May I also add that again, like many others with similar experience to my own, (including many long-time Guzzi Pro's with a great deal more experience, as well as immeasurably better qualified knowledge), given the choice between rear WHEELS, I would always choose and recommend a 4.5" wheel over the 5.5" wheel, with the "narrow" tire fitment choice in each case, for any V11 -- for all the reasons cited above.

 

BAA, TJM, & YMMV

[Baldini]

...ALL of those mfgr's. listed above offering both a 170 and a 180 recommend a 180. Not ONE recommendation for a 170. ....handling superiority of the narrower tire as I do (and knowing NOT ONE RIDER -- regardless of skill or ability -- who has tried both and does not), I continue to recommend and ride on 160's for the 4.5" rim and similarly continue to recommend, without hesitation, a 170 for the 5.5" rim.

 

Do tire mfgr's tend to recommend wot the majority of consumers "want" in deference to the often nonsensical dictates and popular delusions of fashion, regardless of wot they "need" for optimum performance and safety?? I don't consider myself qualified to say, but I reckon it's pretty obvious as well as conclusive that motorcycle mfgr's do....

 

Well this is my theory:

 

The most noticeable trait of narrower rear tyre is a more balanced & even turn-in (when leaning, front & rear go over together, rather than front first followed by rear). A rear tyre closer in width to front will more closely match turn rate of the narrower front, giving a more even feel to turn-in. A bike on 100f/110r turns in very neutral & smooth.

 

Profiles are designed to give different turn-in characteristics. Some sports 180's turn in v quick, presumably width is compenstated for by a sharper profile than matching 120 front.

 

A 170 on a 5.5" rim will have a flatter profile than a 180 of same type, a slower turning profile - but because it is narrower it will still go over quicker.

 

Big sports bikes need wide r tyres cos they make lots of power. Ours don't & don't need wide rims, not even a 4.5". It is, as you say fashion. But also MG have to offer wider rims cos the vast majority of bikes are using them & that is what the tyre manufacturers design for.

 

Also, by my logic, on a 5.5" rim a 170 profile will flatten more than a 180, & will therefore run off it's tread earlier. That is a safety consideration.

 

I like tyre threads, I like tyres, I don't find them boring at all.

 

KB

[zebulon]

Supertwin : Pilot Power Race ( front : soft , rear : medium ) 120/60 180/55 - Crazy stuff could ride on the walls

Daytona RS : Pirelli Diablo Corsa 120/70 180/55

 

But as told the stock daytona ride like hell with the OEM 160 rear tire. If you have stock bike don"t need to go to 180 tire except for esthetical poser look .

[Morris Sod]

I have been using Michelin for the past 3 changes, but the best I have found are the ;

new Michelin Road 2 2CT front and back. These dual compound tyres have turned the handling on my RM into a superb road holder. Absolutely confidence inspiring in all corners grips like the proverbial to a blanket, holds a perfect line, no deviation, no tracking. Able to wear off the "chicken strips" at last.

 

Put them on just before heading off to Phillip Island for the Moto GP, 4100km through fantastic Alpine roads, very tight twisties for 100km at a stretch, dirt roads and over 100mph sweepers through the mountains and back roads. These tyres lapped it up. Wear factor, some light roughness on edges, hardly marked in the centres, like new.

 

Measured wear against a new one on my return. I lost 1.3mm of centre tread in the 4000kms, which would probably equate to about 12,000km overall if wear factor stays the same.

 

I can't recommend them highly enough

[Baldini]

.....2CT front and back. These dual compound tyres have turned the handling on my RM into a superb road holder. Absolutely confidence inspiring in all corners grips like the proverbial to a blanket, holds a perfect line, no deviation, no tracking....equate to about 12,000km overall if wear factor stays the same....

 

 

I use Pilot Power 2CT. They are fantastic tyres, totally confidence inspiring. But they are SSport tyres - I don't get much more than 1,500m to a set - wear is fast but v even. Power Road are a new Sport/Touring version of the 2CT?

 

Conti Sport Attack are a very good tyre, with slow, neutral character - Road Attack would be the Sport/Touring version I think.

 

I don't know why more people here don't try Michelin Or Contis?

 

KB