160 rear tire

[Guest John - Oregon]

I've noticed some people with 4.5" rear rims going to size 160 tires. If you've done this mod, are you running size 60 or 70 profile?

 

Wouldn't the 60's drop the rear height a bit and add even more rear weight bias?

[Guest Oliver]

Ciao John,

 

the "old" V11 Sport had the 160 rear wheel on a 4.5" rim. I'll never give away my 180 wheel for a 160 one

 

In general ... 160/70/17 means - 160 mm width, height of 70% from 160mm width and 17" diameter - so YES, a 60 tire will lower the rear BUT only the case that you keep the same width ... because the heigth percentage is always in relation to the width.

 

Hope this helps

Greetings from Hamburg, Germany

[Janusz]

Few comments here...

 

On V11S 2000 and 2001 (the one I have) the original factory tire size is 170/60-ZR17 . The aspect ratio is 60 and only 60. The front tire aspect ratio is 70, but not rear. The factory did not specify or install 160 wide tire.

 

The nominal size of the tire (whatever you can actually read off the tire's sidewall) only approximately corresponds to the actual measurments. One manufacturer's 170 tire might be some millimiters wider or narrower then another's.

 

The factory specifies in the shop manual either Bridgestones BT020 or BT57. I have BT57 just about worn out at 9000 km.

 

Some people after installation original (nominally) size but different make, I think Dunlop comes to mind, complained that the tire seemed to be squeezed to much on rather narrowish rim for a 170 wide tire. I suspect that factory specific BT57 170 wide tire is in reality somewhat narrower then 170 mm.

 

Therefore I think that my replacement tire (which I decided to be a BT 010 Bridgestone of course) will be 160/60 and not 170/60. A rear BT010 is, by the way, not avaliable in 70 aspect ratio. It is available if you go for BT020 where you can choose between 160/60 and 160/70. Nevertheless I would not recommend switching to 70 profile.

[Janusz]

John, it will drop the rear height but only by approx. 6 mm whereas going for 70 profile, which you are deliberating, will raise it by approx. 10 mm.

 

I'd rather change the whole wheel radius by only 6mm then by 10mm plus different tire profile. Think about that.

 

Besides, if my suspicion as to narrower then nominal factory BT57 tire is true, my new tire will be almost exactly the same height as factory.

 

By the way, increasing spring preload by only one turn raises your rear height by approx. 4 mm already...

[jtucker]

I went to a 160/60 and I think it's great. The stock 170 on a 4.5" rim was way too wide. The 160 still provides me more than enough traction to lean over to sidestand-dragging angles... no problem.

 

BTW, Avon makes a version of their 160/60 AV36 rear tire specifically for the 4.5" rim. I think the Avons work great on this bike - they are bit touchy when they are cold, but totally predictable. I've got ~8,500 miles on my current set, and just placed an order for replacements. I'm running the new Metzeler Sportec M1s on the Ducati, but decided that I really like the Avons on the V11S, so I'm sticking with them.

 

__Jason

00 M900Dark

00 V11 Sport

[Guest dlaing]

Wouldn't the 60's drop the rear height a bit and add even more rear weight bias?

Yes, but the added rear weight bias would be almost nothing. A 6mm drop in the rear would probably mean you would want to scoot forward about 2mm. (rough guess)

The benefit of having the tire fit better are what is more important.

You also get the benefits of lower center of gravity, it will be easier for passengers to get on, less rear sprung weight, less centrifigual mass, greater rear braking leverage, and increased steering rake.

On the cons side, the speedometer will be slightly further off, the tires will last maybe 50 less miles and you will get less cornering clearance, so it will be easier to drag the kickstand, etc. plus it won't look as cool as a fat tire!

[wildbill]

I need new skins on my 2000 V11 Sport. If I go with 160/60 on the rear, should the front remain the factory specifed size? So only the rear changes to a narrower width?

 

I'm thinking of Dunlop D220s - there is so much discussion of tires on this site it's hard to get a feel for which is preferred - but for those who have run 220's, how do you like them? for wear and traction?

Thanks!

[Guest ratchethack]

Bill, as mentioned above, the aspect ratio's -- both front and rear -- that is, /70 on front and /60 on rear must be retained for optimum handling. May I highly recommend 160/60's for your 4.5" rear wheel and stick with the stock recommended 120/70 front. By personal experience (and that of many many others, including several riding Pals who've thanked me most sincerely for my recommendation), a 160 vs. 170 on this wheel on this bike (I honestly believe this is true regardless of mfgr.) allows you to discover excellence of handling that is for the most part unapproachable with a 170 width rear tire. It's an improvement that has been instantly appreciated by riders of all experience and skill levels.

 

Sorry, I can't comment on D220's. My all-time best-ever, mostest, and favoritest tire for my 2000 Sport is the Metzeler Z6, as discussed at some length previously. Incidentally, the Z6 has been favorably commented upon as a rear tire for his Griso by none other than The Oracle of Bungendore. . . . . .

 

Getting a "feel for what is preferred" in a tire is like getting a "feel for what is preferred" in a oil filter.

 

Think of it this way -- the tires at the top of the evaluation test results (top 3-4-5) are all so good in each category -- Sport, Sport/Touring, Touring, etc. -- that (like filters) it's pretty difficult to make anything that could be considered "a mistake" these days.

[badmotogoozer]

Going to a 160 rear tire was THE best mod I've done to my bike (with the Stucci crossover being a close second). Can't remember if I have a 60 or 70 profile... IIRC it is a 70. Running Avons as well (AV45/46). Good in the wet, good in the dry. Stock size on the front.

 

Rj

 

 

 

Nope, I didn't recall correctly...

 

It's a 60 profile on the my rear. I added 1.5 turns to the rear preload to get the ride height up again. (Needed a bit more back there anyway)

 

Hoping my new front springs will be as good a mod or better (as so often crowed about on here )

 

Rj

[antonio carroccio]

Does this size exist for a wheel with circumference 28”?

If it does, I can put it on my bicycle. I like to take fast corners with my bicycle too... (see avatar)

[dlaing]

I need new skins on my 2000 V11 Sport. If I go with 160/60 on the rear, should the front remain the factory specifed size? So only the rear changes to a narrower width?

 

I'm thinking of Dunlop D220s - there is so much discussion of tires on this site it's hard to get a feel for which is preferred - but for those who have run 220's, how do you like them? for wear and traction?

Thanks!

FWIW, I tried a rear D208 and found it to be the very good but not as good as Pirelli or Metzeler, in my completely subjective opinion.

Mileage was average, 4000miles.

Dry grip was excellent...a little better than the Pirelli Strada.

Wet grip was good, but not nearly as good as the Pirelli Strada.

Perfectly stable at high speed.

But the feel of the Metzeler and Pirelli seem better to me.

Again, just my biased, unscientific opinion.

 

Does this size exist for a wheel with circumference 28”?

If it does, I can put it on my bicycle. I like to take fast corners with my bicycle too... (see avatar)

I just ordered the last 160/60-28 ever made by Pirelli.

They corner much better than the 700-28, and last longer, too.

Send me $1000, cash...No, forget that.

I will auction it off on eBay.

I'll let you know when I am ready to sell it.