Guest captain nemo Posted February 2, 2004 Posted February 2, 2004 The bigger the profile number, the taller the tire. Another question about my pinched 170/60 - because it is 'pinched' is it not more rounded? This seems to be what I like about the tire - because it falls right over. So, if I get a 160, do I get a 160/60? or a 160/70? Wouldn't this be less rubber on the road than what I am used to?
Murray Posted February 2, 2004 Posted February 2, 2004 After riding around on a V11 a bit and currently owning a 1100 sport carbed if I ever got a V11 I would seriously look at fitting a 4.5 rim to it and running a 160 section tyre. The "sporting" term used very loosely guzzis simply do not make enough HP to justify any more rubber and the reason to have more rubber is to get extra power to the ground. The Guzzi's are usally pushing to punch out 75-80 hp at the rear wheel after breathing and exhaust mods something like a 190 would simply slow the steering down excessivly. 190's etc etc they fit to 240hp moto GP bikes. Some of the superlight wheels such as dyno mags don't have a very good reputation for coping with rough bitumen etc etc but any wieght off unsprung wieghts ie wheels is much more valulable than the same wieght off sprung wieghts from a performance piont of view. The other thing is a bigger tyre would also be slightly heavier. If you really want to liven the steering up on a Guzzi unbolt the steering dampener it make a significant difference and with Guzzis long wheel base and conservative steering geometery its highly unlikely you'll ever actully seriously need it.
Baldini Posted February 3, 2004 Posted February 3, 2004 Scura doesn't make much more power than my old Tonti & that's on 110 rear with no grip problems... Fat tyres are for looks, nothing else... And while I'm here...bring back 18" wheels KB,Cymru
Guest captain nemo Posted February 3, 2004 Posted February 3, 2004 Ok Ok, I'm going to 160 - once again - should I go to 160/60 or 160/70? Does anyone else believe taking off the steering dampener is a good idea? The 2000 Sport is a bit shorter and has a bit steeper geometry. Is it still safe to take it off?
Guest Brian Robson Posted February 3, 2004 Posted February 3, 2004 If you think that MG put the steering damper on for looks then take it off. If you think it helps riding on less than perfect roads, leave it on.
Guest geezerx Posted February 3, 2004 Posted February 3, 2004 Ok Ok, I'm going to 160 - once again - should I go to 160/60 or 160/70? The manual for the 2000 V11 Sport specs a 60 series tire for the rear. So I'm running a 160/60 on mine. As to the steering damper, that could possibly end up like an oil thread. I met some fellers in upstate NY a couple of summers ago who suggested that the damper was more apt to create problems than prevent them on the early V11s. They suggested removal. Heck, this is the first bike I ever had with one. I kind of like the looks of it so I have it set to minimum setting but left it on. They also suggested dropping the triple tree on the forks slightly which I never did. Whether or not there is any wisdom in what I'm doing, I have no idea. But I'm happy with the way the bike handles.
docc Posted February 3, 2004 Posted February 3, 2004 Ok Ok, I'm going to 160 - once again - should I go to 160/60 or 160/70? The consensus has always been 160/60 which I followed. But after the low side I'm determined to shift more weight to the front. . next time 'round I'll go with the 160/70.
Guest captain nemo Posted February 3, 2004 Posted February 3, 2004 Now see.....that's what I'm talking about. A low side. I'm worried about too little meat. I went to the Dunlop site and the 4.5 inch rim WILL take a 170 although a 5 inch is recommended. I'm sure they wouldn't say that if it was unsafe. I sure don't want the feeling that my tire won't hold in a deep corner. Just found out Dunlop doesn't make a 160/70 - maybe nobody does. Doc, did you ever find any reason in the road surface for your low side?
docc Posted February 3, 2004 Posted February 3, 2004 Ok, once again, THE reason for the low side is I went in to a 90 degree corner too hot to find out too late it was a 180 degree uphill, decreasing radius with a camber change , a pavement variation and a sedan in the oncoming lane. The lesson for me: ALWAYS see your exit before you commit. BUT, I've had the Sport over that far on other tires and still had grip. So, I'm seeking all the factors that will give me more certain stick at the front. You're teling me there are no Dunlop 220's in 160/70?
Guest captain nemo Posted February 3, 2004 Posted February 3, 2004 dunlop I'm only seeing the 208 and the 220 as possible for our bikes. Neither one has a 160/70 size. I like Dunlops too. I'd like to keep with them.
Baldini Posted February 3, 2004 Posted February 3, 2004 I'm worried about too little meat. Fact: These bikes do not make enough power to need the bigger tyres. IMO a larger tyre than necessary is more likely to cause handling problems & lack of grip than help. Is bike going hard enough to heat the tyre? Fat tyres find all the shit in the road & skate around on it while skinnies'll spit it out the side or just jump off it. Mismatched f/r tyres make leaning into a turn a haphazard business & use up concentration that could be better directed seeing a way forward rather than just maintaining balance. It seems to me that problems in turns are often down to rider making a mistake & then compounding that mistake with inaction, incorrect action or over-reaction. (I didn't see Docc's crash & am not refering here to that). An unecessarily fat rear tyre is IMO more likely to get you into that situation than help you out of it. I don't know the science of this - it's just what I see & feel. As has been mentioned here before, Keith Code's book "A Twist of The Wrist" is well worth reading & re-reading... KB, Cymru
Guest captain nemo Posted February 3, 2004 Posted February 3, 2004 Thanks Baldini - your comments make sense to me. I will switch to the normal recommended tyre on back. As for Keith Code - I've met him and took his Superbike track course from him personally. I wasn't that impressed. I think he's some sort of tanned con man. That was my impression. I did, however, enjoy running a 600 Ninja around the track all day at 150 mph. I got more useful knowledge out of my state motorcycle safety course.
docc Posted February 3, 2004 Posted February 3, 2004 It seems to me that problems in turns are often down to rider making a mistake & then compounding that mistake with inaction, incorrect action or over-reaction. An unecessarily fat rear tyre is IMO more likely to get you into that situation than help you out of it. I must agree on both counts. remember , thes ebikes have a substantial rear weight bias and any technique to reliably get the front to stick is good. Good reading to sharpen the technique: Total Control, Lee Parks
Guest captain nemo Posted February 3, 2004 Posted February 3, 2004 Yea, I picked up 'Total Control' when I was in Miami. I like his Zen approach.
al_roethlisberger Posted February 3, 2004 Posted February 3, 2004 Has anyone checked out the new Avon ST AV45/46 series tires? I was planning on going to the "standard" Bridgestone BT10Front/BT20Rear as is favored by the ST community, although BT10 front and rear were also an option. But I've been hearing good things about these Avons, and the new Metzler Z6(I think that's the model)?? A couple/three threads on the subject: http://www.sport-touring.net/cgi-bin/msgbo...=ST;f=4;t=11390 http://www.sport-touring.net/cgi-bin/msgbo...=ST;f=4;t=11908 http://www.bayarearidersforum.com/forums/s...&threadid=57839 al
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now