Triumph Rat Motorcycle Forums banner

21 - 40 of 50 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,059 Posts
The Daytona rim I use is a 4.50x18 and the tyre is 160/60. I wouldn't want to run a wider tyre on it. 180/55 use rims a full inch wider while the tyres are only 4/5 wider (at least in theory), so percentagewise it's a big difference. The 160 on a 4.5 rim means a 1.4:1 ratio, a 180 on a 5.5 rim gives a 1.29:1 ratio. Forcing a 170 onto a 4.25 rim give a 1.58:1 ratio. Note that Triumph fitted a 170/60 onto the 5.5 in rim on the Sprint, although that did flatten the tyre too much IMO and actually caused heavier steering. That's a 1.22:1 ratio.

Either 150 or 160 should, IMHO, be used on a 4.25in rim, although I must stress that there is no danger fitting a 170mm wide rubber.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,438 Posts
Either 150 or 160 should, IMHO, be used on a 4.25in rim, although I must stress that there is no danger fitting a 170mm wide rubber.
Right, I would agree with you here. You really gain no advantage from putting a 170 on the stock TBS rim, nor from a 160 on the stock T-Bird rim...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
I typically got 7k out of Avon Azzaros, but only 5k out of a rear Attack. It wore out really quickly in the center... I suspect I went through the hard rubber compound center and into the soft compound.

It could have been a defective tire, who knows? I wonder, though, if the reviews are comparing it to sport comound tires, rather than sport touring compounds. I only get 2-3k out of sport compounds, so in comparison, 5k would be pretty good!
I have over 7,000 miles on my Road Attacks, but I am an old man and ride like it. But I am really conscientious about maintaining proper air pressure.
.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
129 Posts
dumb question maybe, but my TBS calls for a XXX-70-XX in the rear, and I hear about many of you using a XXX-60-XX instead. Is that due to the limited choice of tires in the TBS rear size? I know the 70 is an aspect ratio and a 70 would therefor have a greater sidewall than a 60 assuming the other numbers are all the same.

Part two of this is then does this really change my overall gearing? I would guess yes, that math would say "yes", but real-world, how much height in sidewall are we talking on the bike's tire and how does that translate to rpm in the top gear on the freeway going 65mph?

Your exactness is not needed, but I need new tires and the Conti Motion fits my needs as a cheap sport touring tire.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,059 Posts
Gearing will be a little taller with a 70 profile, but not terribly much so - about 5%.

More importantly, a 70 profile will make the tyre a better fit for the rim in the 170 width.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,793 Posts
I went with a 150 - 70 - 17 on the rear of my TBS.

If you check the detailed dimensions that one is closest in OD to the original 160 - 70 - 17. My Initial impression is very positive. I did not want to lower the rear ride height very much.

The Motion was back ordered in that size, so I went with the ContiForce. They should have that size in the Motion by now.

I think a 170 is a bit too wide for a 4.25" wide Rim. Actually I think a 160 is too wide for a 4.25" rim also.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
Love tire discussion, they're almost as annoying as talking about putting car oil in your bike. So I'll stir the pot...

I love my Shinkos. I got a Raven 009 in 170/60 on the back and a 005 Advance on the front. They feel great and I know from previous experience they'll run well past 8k miles. I got almost 9k when I had them on my VFR. $160 for both with free shipping. The 170 looks great on the back. It actually looks like the right size tire for the rim.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,059 Posts
I love my Shinkos. I got a Raven 009 in 170/60 on the back and a 005 Advance on the front. The 170 looks great on the back. It actually looks like the right size tire for the rim.

That's because they are Shrinkedons :cute

As with many subjective issues, people will have different opinions - and they are all subjectively true. And possibly also objectively!

Let's go to racing. Anybody remember Simon Crafar? He was really getting to the pointy end of 500GP racing when Dunlop quit the class. He was lost, unable to adapt to the "better" Michelins.

This tells us that personal preferences but also personal riding styles will affect what works for us.

I have been riding for 30 years, and I have had lots of virtually unexplainable tyre situations. Just one example; my brother had a strong dislike for Michelins (A49 and M48 for those old enough to remember) and swore by Avon Super Venoms (not the current edition Venoms - we're talking old and diagonal stuff here). He crashed his GPz600R Ninja on the Michelins because the front suddenly let go without warning - he could never feel what the tyres were doing. The front kept washing out and the rear sliding uot.

Me? I found the Avons lacking in grip and feel, particularly the rear, slipping and sliding too easily under acceleration. I didn't have confidence in the front, either, during heavy braking. I never had any issues with the Michelins and would really have to be hamfisted to break either tyre loose.

My brother and I also have completely divergent styles.

So your Shinkos no doubt work very well for you. In fact, they will probably work very well for the majority. But many will not want them to be good and hence will either not try them or hate them if they do - even if they probably worked just fine.

Personally, I would have tried them if they were available and cheap enough. They are not - at least not in "my" size. The cheapest tyre I can get is the Conti Force. The costliest is the Bridgestone BT014 (which I have used until today since it came with the rim). Price goes from NOK 1123 to NOK 1625, but apart from the cheapest and costliest, the remaining tyres sit between NOK 1202 and 1472, so not a big enough difference to let price dictate my choice. With my Strada costing NOK 1293, the Shinko would have to get under NOK 1000 for me to try it. Even if there is a chance it is good enough (or better) there's still a risk that I wouldn't like it. It could end as a costly experiment.

Gawd, I'm a rambling type, ain't I :Dang
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,438 Posts
So your Shinkos no doubt work very well for you. In fact, they will probably work very well for the majority. But many will not want them to be good and hence will either not try them or hate them if they do - even if they probably worked just fine.
Yeah, I am one of those that won't. At least not on a bike I depend on to handle... :eek: and when the are name-brand tires for the same price. I rank them (in my mind) with Cheng Shins. Have ridden them on other people's bikes, but not enough to get a good feel for them.

Who knows - maybe with time and more positive feedback?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
That's why I compare tire discussions to oil discussions. I wonder why these threads always compare sport bike tires. Especially when I only see Thunderbird owners on here. As for Cheng Shin, they're not DOT approved tires but would probably be fine to put on cruiser type motorcycles. :)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,438 Posts
We are not comparing sport tires. We are comparing sport-touring tires. There is a big difference. ST tires give you better traction with good wear. Those of us that ride in the twisties need the ST rubber. This bike is a retro-standard base on a sport chassis. It likes sport touring tires in that config.

Some people's riding style may be more inclined towards the cruiser tires, or general purpose skins.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
I was baiting you cafeT.

Faffi said it best:
"personal preferences but also personal riding styles will affect what works for us"

I've been riding Shinko's for 3 years now and love them. The mileage is fantastic, they're cheap, and they handle to the limit that I ride. I live in sport bike country and don't have chicken wings on my tires and my pegs get shorter every year. I like the way they ride. I also like how people hate them because they cost less than their tires. People automatically say they're inferior tires because they're cheaper.

Second, I love my Legend. Great bike, a sport bike it is not. It's a 20 year old chassis that was dated when it was introduced, not only that, it was built to fit every bike Triumph made. Spoke wheels, single disc up front. Even the sport version is no where near a sport bike (unless you're still in 1982). Triumph purposely built the first generation to be conservative and build the reputation and reliability of the brand.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,438 Posts
I was baiting you cafeT.
That is what the emoticons are for then, you should try them.

Even the sport version is no where near a sport bike (unless you're still in 1982). Triumph purposely built the first generation to be conservative and build the reputation and reliability of the brand.
I AM still in 1982. And 1973, and 1968... :D Bikes were more fun then. Modern sport bikes are freaking death wishes on the road anyway, IMHO.... more suitable for the track.

I didn't say it was a modern sportbike. It is certainly not a cruiser.

Triumph built modularly. That manufacturing method allowed them to offer a complete line up of bikes at moderate cost. I wouldn't call that conservative, but I would call it intelligent. It allowed them to focus on a reliable bike, and is the reason they are here today.

Oh, and my tires were cheaper than your tires.... :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,059 Posts
That is what the emoticons are for then, you should try them.
Would you place a sign on you bait telling the fish he would get caught if he bit :p


As to tyres and what we need or not... OK, let's go back to the 80s. I started riding in 1980. In just over 2 weeks I have been riding for 30 years. So let's see what tyres could do then.

CX500, owned 1982. Had a MX rear tyre fitted when I bought it, worn square and with 3 mm wide cracks around the blocks on the shoulders. I could still scrape pegs and stands without sliding.

XJ750 Seca, owned 1983. OEM Bridgestone tyres. I did fall off due to lack of grip, but that was due to stupidity. A cool, foggy morning with tyres still cold I took a 30 mph corner doing 52 mph, scraping the pegs, both stands and the muffler which finally levered the rear wheel virtually off the ground.

CB350F, owned 1984-86. Had Conti touring tyres on and did indeed slide before running out of clearance.

GS550E, owned 1988-90. Had Michelin A49 front and M48 rear. I regularly scraped the non-folding pegs, the stands, the exhaust and the left hand side engine cover and the rear would only slide if I whacked the throttle open in 1st or 2nd gear when scraping parts.

CB1100F, owned 1990. Had Michelin A49 front and Metzeler ME99 rear. It had massive cornering clearance for its day and still better than current bikes like the FJR1300. I could scrape pegs, stands and exhaust without worrying about grip. Using full throttle in 4th gear at 100 mph with sparks flying, the rear would step out about 4 inches as the wheel was spinning, and I could hold that slide for hundred yards around high speed corners.

XS500, owned 1994-96. Had a new Micheling A49 up front and a 7 year old too-wide-for-the-rim M48 rear and would still allow peg scraping in the rain.

None of these tyres are likely to match the Shinko radials of today. Modern tyres offer a little more grip for maximum braking and will also allow more acceleration at very radical lean angles, but I think most of us would be shocked to see how fast the Hayden brothers (and any racer) could ride on Shinkos and other "inferior" tyres. The gumby at the controls matters more than the equipment more often than not. I should know - I have a crash record to prove it :eek:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,462 Posts
Had a new Micheling A49 up front and a 7 year old too-wide-for-the-rim M48 rear and would still allow peg scraping in the rain.
Hehe, so all that guff about 'ratios' & 'too wide' for a 170 on a 4.25 rim was about what exactly?

You aren't the only one been scraping pegs for 30yrs (bit longer in my case :eek:). What you say is true for dry conditions & good road surfaces. But in the wet or on poor, polished smooth tarmac? That's where modern rubber has the advantage. (& ...peg scraping in the rain....is definitely into the realms of BS land on any roads I've ridden, unless ya lowered the pegs ;) lol)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,059 Posts
:eek: The bike came with an unused, but very old 130/90-18 rear tyre. Just getting it onto the 2.15 in rim was a real mess. I replaced it with a 4.00 that fitted far better once it wore out.

The XS was actually raised a little from stock with slightly longer and stiffer Konis as well as more fork preload. And it did allow touching down a peg around a hairpin bend one cold evening in the rain - until I hit a stream of water crossing the road. The rear let go, but caught up softly and I could continue. Very little skill and very much luck were involved :D

Speaking of rain - the CB1100F allowed full acceleration in every gear even leaned over quite some bit. It had shockingly good grip, actually.

The only tyre I have ever had that felt dangerous on old tarmac worn to a polish was the Dunflop D205. If it was wet in addition it was lethal. No other tyre has changed its behaviour as much for me. It was so bad that me, a cheapskate if ever there was one, actually replaced them when they were only 1/3 worn! Never did that before.

QUESTION: Does anybody else do regular brake tests? I do. If you do this in the same spot (with different bikes and/or different tyres), you will find out how much difference there can be. For instance, going from the stock Bridgerocks to Pirellis on my Vulcan, I chopped 10 yards from my braking distance from 60 mph just because of the added grip. Even then, the Vulcan needed about 5 yards more than my Daybird.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
QUESTION: Does anybody else do regular brake tests? I do. If you do this in the same spot (with different bikes and/or different tyres), you will find out how much difference there can be.
Pretty good idea, never thought of trying that. Then again, I'm military and move around too much. Next stop, England later this year. I'm actually importing my Triumph to England.
 
21 - 40 of 50 Posts
Top