Wildguzzi.com
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: pikipiki on August 29, 2016, 01:46:04 AM
-
As the V9 bobber is shod in big rubber:
Has anyone experience riding bike with this style of tyre? I assume the advantage is a slightly more comfortable ride, resistance to aquaplaning + less interfered with when riding over cats eyes and white lines + longer tyre life? but whats the down side? are these tyres all vague and I corners? how good a rider would you have to be to notice the inadequcies of this design?
-
It's purely a styling excercise. There are no *engineering* benefits to such ridiculous cosmetic affectations.
Wheel and tyre sizes and profiles are always a compromise that is chosen with respect to function, frame geometry, weight bias, power etc. the *Ideals* for most conventional formats have long been established and have changed little over the last 15 years or more. The absurdity of the tyre choices for both of the V9 models speak volumes about the market that has been targeted, (And missed by a mile!) by the styling department who nowadays seem to run roughshod over the proto-engineers Noale seem to assign to Guzzi designs.
Pete
-
I think trends in MC tire sizes have been largely driven by visual impact. And just like I think engine sizes are out of hand (I commented on a Harley forum tonight that Jenn and I have owned at least 4 cars with smaller engines than currently offered in Harley big twins), I also believe tire sizes have followed trend.
I find it funny that my 1996 RK had 130 series tires front and rear when now the standard rear for a Sportster is a 150. 😱
That said there are effects to size differences, especially if profiles and compounds remain essentially the same.
I went down from a 140 to a 130 on the rear of my Jackal and similarly down from a 150 to a 140 on the rear of my Sporty. Both times I would say I perceived lighter/quicker feels in the bike's handling. Mostly like it would fall in quicker and easier to the turn.
Granted, each time I was replacing a worn out tire so part of the feeling would be a natural improvement from the more rounded profile of the replacement, but still UNLESS each time I'm fooling myself I think something more was happening.
Ironically I went up in the front of the Sportster from a 100 to a 110 for a more planted feel and for perceived increase in contact patch.
Now I could be wrong or the theoretical benefits/costs might be negligible, but I think they may include:
* Fatter = fewer #of force/sq in. which may mean reduced wear/longer life, more grip in normal traction conditions, but potentially easier hydroplaning. The wider/fatter profile may slow down turn in or break over into corners and add some feel of increased stability.
Conversely
* Thinner = higher #of force/sq in. which can increase wear/shorten tire life, though if true may reduce ability to hydroplane (more force to push through to surface/displace water). The narrower profile lends a lighter feel that's quicker to turn in or break over.
Now these are generalizations and someone smarter than I may correct me if I'm mistaken in my physics theories.
I also realize there are other variables like tire pressures, compounds, differences in profiles and types (sport radials vs touring bias ply's).
Also it seems that dual compound tires are becoming popular (with harder compounds down the center for better highway wear and softer materials on the edges for better grip leaned over) which changes things up as well.
And truthfully, like so many things with our beloved obsession, we probably are making much ado over nothing.
But I'll continue to over think it anyway.
-
It's more the match of front to rear that makes the bike feel good or un-good.
A new Scout flicks like a Morini 350 with low, fairly wide tires, and I suspect the V9 will do the same.
The practice is fro American bikes with rigid suspension-and the Scout has very little travel, so the sidewall is a welcome addition.
-
For fat tires improved handling, Moto GP bikes would have them.
-
For fat tires improved handling, Moto GP bikes would have them.
*If ? Is that what you're saying?
I don't think anyone is claiming that fat tires improve handling.
But I think some might argue it can improve the performance of the tire/bike in certain categories/metrics while reducing performance in others.
Obviously Moto GP is a very narrow performance category.
-
"Mine are bigger than yours" is the undercurrent.
Really sad to hear the BS bandied about whenever there is a gathering of so called expert riders. Bike night, poker run/charity event.
I went "down" to a 180/55 from 190/50 on the Benelli. So much better when transitioning side to side. This is also a gnarly sport bike. I have no cruiser experience other than riding customer barges.
-
Question.
Hydroplaning. I had heard somewhere (at the time it seemed reliable, like a tire mfg site) that a motorcycle tire does not hydroplane until you reach triple digits. Is this true at all?
-
Depends on several variables. The cause is water build up- the sipes can only channel so much. A worn tread hydroplanes at a much lower speed. A tire with many sipes planes at a higher speed. Torrential rain can overwhelm the best rain tire design. Recent motogp events seem to deal with it up to a point, then the red flag comes out.
I rode through 2" standing water during a toad strangler at 40mph with no difficulty. Avon Storm sport touring tire.
-
For fat tires improved handling, Moto GP bikes would have them.
Funny-MotoGP tires are way fatter than my Scout's. Of course tire size is regulated there by rule.
-
Question.
Hydroplaning. I had heard somewhere (at the time it seemed reliable, like a tire mfg site) that a motorcycle tire does not hydroplane until you reach triple digits. Is this true at all?
try it, report back..
-
I assume the advantage is a slightly more comfortable ride, resistance to aquaplaning...
I don't see how a larger tire would be less likely to hydroplane than a small one. The big one has more area to trap water, and less force per unit area keeping it in contact with the road. As mentioned above, motorcycles don't tend to have the problem as much as cars do, unless you're a Darksider with a flat profile car tire on the rear wheel.
-
For fat tires improved handling, Moto GP bikes would have them.
Umm... they run a 190 out back, and a 125 up front. That's pretty damn fat.
-
Umm... they run a 190 out back, and a 125 up front. That's pretty damn fat.
I dont think moto gp tyres can be compared they run sliks with around 2" less profile than the v9 bobber or HD fat bob.
regarding these bobber tyres Im not even sure if the tread pattern is a styling exercise? are they radials or bias ply? are there any benefits to these tyres.
I have Avon road rider bias ply on my v7 and on clean tarmac I have no issue with them although they dont much like white lines and round where I am there are a good few roads that have some loose chippings down the middle or on the ouside of curves and lots of these annoying warning stripes aproaching roundabouts we seem to have such a lot of in the uk. giving the benefit of the doubt id think that bobber might cope better with the white lines and warning stripes and I would think these tyres would last longer. Suzuki van van has a similar tyre on rear and aparently the milage on the tyres is 20k then again the van van is a different kind of bike, its cheap and simple the fat tyre makes up for primitve low rent suspension, its a 1970s throw back. I'm trying to find any justification for the 16" fat tyres but the more I think the more I agree it's just a styling exercise and not even one I like the style of....
-
V9 Bobber - city bike with fat tires...good for potholes. Will be more comfortable than skinny tires.
-
Just my two cents based on years of biking, touring to track days.
Cosmetics / Visual impact / Styling aside, the narrowest tyre you can run without compromising grip will always be the best handling. As you have more power you need a larger contact patch to transfer that power to the ground.
My Ducati has a 170 on the rear, coming down from a 180, made it more flickable. And with only 80Bhp on tap a 180, and probably a 170, is overkill. My little V50 Monza has the skinny little 100 on the back and it is one of the best handling bikes i have ever riden. But with so little power its all it needs.
Have a look at the Moto3 Moto2 and MotoGP bikes, they are all race bikes achieving insane lean angles. There is about a 150Bhp disparity between a Moto3 bike and a MotoGP bike. One has skinny tyres, One has fat ones. Its about matching tyre size to the power, weight and application. Styling too, obviously.
Fatter tyres do aquaplane more easily than skinny ones. At the GP in Assen the MotoGP boys were complaing of Aquaplaning at 180mph down the long straight!!!! new underwear all round then!
Chris
-
The only possible benefit to those fat bobber tires is the contact patch where the rubber meets the road is larger. That may be better in a panic stop (?)
My experience is that fatter tires slow the steering.
But I agree that it is purely a visual thing - are white walls next? :grin:
-
Question.
Hydroplaning. I had heard somewhere (at the time it seemed reliable, like a tire mfg site) that a motorcycle tire does not hydroplane until you reach triple digits. Is this true at all?
I can state without any question that a motorcycle can hydroplane at much lower than 3-digit speeds - from personal experience. Fortunately, I managed to gather things up before something awful happened.
And from an earlier comment/question, a narrower tire will hydroplane LESS easily than a wide one. The trade-off for a smaller contact patch is that it will have greater force pushing the tire down through the water into contact with the road. Now, as to whether that contact has good friction or is greasy? Another matter...
Tire size and proportion are all a matter of complementing two things - the mechanical design of the bike and its suspension, and the cosmetic aesthetic of the bike. This is also true of cars and non-commercial trucks. Sport bikes have fat rear tires and relatively narrow front ones; standards used to have (and some still do) tires that are close in size at each end. Adventure bikes go from a sport-bike like configuration for the more street oriented ones to a narrow rear with a super-skinny front for the more dirt-oriented ones. There are reasons for all these changes.
-
*If ? Is that what you're saying?
I don't think anyone is claiming that fat tires improve handling.
But I think some might argue it can improve the performance of the tire/bike in certain categories/metrics while reducing performance in others.
Obviously Moto GP is a very narrow performance category.
Yes I meant "if" that was pre am coffee. And yes, it depends on the performance you're looking for.
-
Fat/bobber front tires weigh more so effect the handling of your steering. It's like you have a flywheel on the front rim and you can't ignore it. With a front end like that there's no way you are going to be able to haul ass thru a corner like I can on my MuZ 660 single w/a 110/70-17 front tire. :azn:
-
fat tires slow the steering and make the bike less flick-able.
-
Fat tire designed for potholes and cobblestones...not necessarily for racing. Good For Chicago and Houston streets for sure...
-
As state by others already. Bigger tires mostly for styling. Good - larger contact patch for braking. Bad - cost more. Less efficient because of larger contact. More to push down the road.
-
Fat tire designed for potholes and cobblestones...not necessarily for racing. Good
For Chicago and Houston streets for sure...
Here is what I think I know , please feel free to correct .
Comparing race tires and race bike geometry to street tires and most street bike geometry is coconuts to tornadoes . Race tires have a different profile designed to allow for quick roll in, so the enormous sizes don't react the same as most really wide street tires . Additionally ,pavement race bikes run really steep steering angles and very little trail and require a higher level of effort and concentration than is acceptable to most street riders . The level of traction available from true race tires is incredible , which when dealing with 240 HP is kind of important .
Dusty
-
I can state without any question that a motorcycle can hydroplane at much lower than 3-digit speeds - from personal experience. Fortunately, I managed to gather things up before something awful happened.
So what were the circumstances.
I know I've traveled down the flooded 'rut' on an interstate at around 70mph without any issues. I am more afraid of painted white stripes or intersections.
-
So what were the circumstances.
I know I've traveled down the flooded 'rut' on an interstate at around 70mph without any issues. I am more afraid of painted white stripes or intersections.
I was traveling about 50-60 mph or so, had a front tire at about 40-50% wear, and went through a fairly large pond that had developed during/after a rainstorm. That particular tire design (I later decided) did not have especially good siping or channels to draw water away from the center. About 1/3rd of the way into the standing water, the front began to get that wonderful floaty feeling that tells you it isn't touching the pavement any more. It is a different feel from the tire sliding.
On the PR4s and tires with similar treads, I've never experienced this, but they have much better designs for wet riding.
-
Stock Metzlers on the Griso, hydroplaned on I-17 north of Camp Verde in the left lane at around 70 during a gully washer. Scared the #$%* out of me. Fairly new tire too.
-
Big tires make me feel stable and happy. I would love to be able to use them. If anyone has a 400 lb bike with a saddle height about 31" that uses such ridiculous tires, maybe we could work a trade for my Breva.
-
Big tires make me feel stable and happy. I would love to be able to use them. If anyone has a 400 lb bike with a saddle height about 31" that uses such ridiculous tires, maybe we could work a trade for my Breva.
I wish it would only take big tires to make me feel stable and happy - I gave up on that long ago! :grin:
-
Your tire size preference depends on your riding style preference. If you want stability no matter what and speed thru corners is not what you care about, then fat tires front & rear are for you. :smiley:
-
To continue this thread with a little different direction and some more fat tire questions...
I just picked up a 74 Eldorado that has 16 " rims and wide / fat tires. I just picked the bike up today and left it at a shop and have not deep dived what I have yet - that comes later this week.
But...
In my other post or somewhere ... some one indicated that the CHP Eldos used 16" rear tires - and I think somebody said they were 5.10s - which would equate to something like a 130. Mu guess is that the police bikes got these rear tires because they were carrying more weight (radio, siren, guns & ammo, donuts etc.).
For the time being... I am going to keep these rims but the tires are probably 30 years old. Does anybody have any experience with 16" fat tires on an Eldo? What current tire would work on this bike?
-
Fat/bobber front tires weigh more so effect the handling of your steering. It's like you have a flywheel on the front rim and you can't ignore it. With a front end like that there's no way you are going to be able to haul ass thru a corner like I can on my MuZ 660 single w/a 110/70-17 front tire. :azn:
AND...
fat tires slow the steering and make the bike less flick-able.
...I think these are true statements, but the second better reflects the sliding scale and the subjective nature of how much it matters.
I'm sure there's a tipping point for everyone, as even I have stated that I've made changes to narrow tires on some of my bikes for a handling feel that I prefer.
But the truth of the matter is whether most bikes will haul ass through a corner or not on the street is probably limited by the rider not the bike. I mean, yeah, there are some that are just too fat, too low, too long, etc. for real aggressive street cornering, but even most "lowly" Harleys can be hussled through corners on the street to surprise the less experienced riders on much more capable bikes.
So in the end it all comes down to the individual and what they want/enjoy.
-
So Kev , ya callin' Harley riders fat :shocked:
Dusty
-
So Kev , ya callin' Harley riders fat :shocked:
Dusty
I believe it is grammatically clear enough that the statement was in fact about the bikes. :boxing:
-
I believe it is grammatically clear enough that the statement was in fact about the bikes. :boxing:
Dunno , sometimes it seems we speak a different dialect of the Queen's own language here, than is employed along the Eastern Coast . (Danged emos)
My understanding is that it isn't so much the slight weight difference in a larger tire that slows down the steering , more to do with profile and resistance to roll .
Dusty
-
My understanding is that it isn't so much the slight weight difference in a larger tire that slows down the steering , more to do with profile and resistance to roll .
Dusty
Its both!!! I have a ... fanatical friend back in the UK and he weighs EVERYTHING that goes on his bike!!! A few years ago now he was work for Petronas Racing as one of the telemetry guys, had access to a huge selection of tyres and being the way he is, weighed them all. At the time Michelin had the lightest tyres over Dunlop, Pirrelli and Bridgstone. The rear Michy being a whopping 450gm lighter than the heavy Dunlop.
For any of you that has ever spent money on lighter wheels for a track bike, 450gms is ALOT!!!
Mike is still a fanatic, and has been building his own hub center steered bikes for years now.
http://www.tryphonos.com/
Width also varys from brand to brand. A 180 Bridgstone BT23 is wider than the 180 Metzler that was on the bike when i bought it. It rubbed the hugger! Now i have a 170 on there that is the same width as a 180 Metzler.
Profile also is in the mix. The old front Pilot Race i used to use for track days was basically a triangle!!!
Chris
-
I know one rider that tells me if you go for a wider tire with the same profile, that it makes a steeper profile in the curve of the tire and makes the tire handle quicker. (more sidewall and less on top)
I take the opposite position believing the 10mm+ width increment is a greater factor than the marginally steeper crown. My riding experience validates that.
I would like someone to "prove it" with actual numbers (smarter than me).
-
Dunno , sometimes it seems we speak a different dialect of the Queen's own language here, than is employed along the Eastern Coast . (Danged emos)
My understanding is that it isn't so much the slight weight difference in a larger tire that slows down the steering , more to do with profile and resistance to roll .
Dusty
Yes, completely different dialects.
Let's examine:
We were talking about how fat tires may affect handling and I started to turn the conversation about rider preferences and rider skills:
"I'm sure there's a tipping point for everyone, as even I have stated that I've made changes to narrow tires on some of my bikes for a handling feel that I prefer.
But the truth of the matter is whether most bikes will haul ass through a corner or not on the street is probably limited by the rider not the bike. I mean, yeah, there are some that are just too fat, too low, too long, etc. for real aggressive street cornering, but even most "lowly" Harleys can be hustled through corners on the street to surprise the less experienced riders on much more capable bikes."
So first I gave a disclaimer that even my relatively conservative preferences are for skinnier tires in some applications because I enjoy the feel.
But then I added that I believe in most cases it's rider skill and not tire size or bike that determines ultimately how fast a bike will corner in street situations. By that statement I say that most bikes, even with fatter tires, are probably more capable than most riders, especially given realistic limits for street riding.
Then I added a disclaimer that yes, there are some (meaning bikes themselves) which are just too fat, too low, too long etc. for real aggressive street cornering but even the most "lowly" (meaning looked down upon by many in this conversation) Harleys (again therefore talking about bikes) can be hustled...
More Clearer Now? :boozing:
-
Well sure , maybe , possibly , dunno :laugh:
Dusty
-
I bet for sedate rational street riding, there is no difference between those two front tires on the V9 other than styling. Hit the track and you'll want the fatter front tire. Why? larger contact patch means better grip, but also greater rolling resistance and slower to lean. It is a balancing act. Most sporting bikes have gone to the 120/70 17 front tire and 180-190/70 17 rear. These run what at least for now is the best compromise.
Looking at the V9, looks like a goldilocks issue to me - - - 'too fat - - - too skinny' But in the end, given the choice between fat or skinny, for performance and looks, I'll bow to Freddie Mercury and his crew on this.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-D99n9f3vU4
-
Its both!!! I have a ... fanatical friend back in the UK and he weighs EVERYTHING that goes on his bike!!! A few years ago now he was work for Petronas Racing as one of the telemetry guys, had access to a huge selection of tyres and being the way he is, weighed them all. At the time Michelin had the lightest tyres over Dunlop, Pirrelli and Bridgstone. The rear Michy being a whopping 450gm lighter than the heavy Dunlop.
For any of you that has ever spent money on lighter wheels for a track bike, 450gms is ALOT!!!
Mike is still a fanatic, and has been building his own hub center steered bikes for years now.
http://www.tryphonos.com/
Width also varys from brand to brand. A 180 Bridgstone BT23 is wider than the 180 Metzler that was on the bike when i bought it. It rubbed the hugger! Now i have a 170 on there that is the same width as a 180 Metzler.
Profile also is in the mix. The old front Pilot Race i used to use for track days was basically a triangle!!!
Chris
Yes, 450g = 16 POUNDS. Is your friend saying there's a 16# DIFFERENCE between the weight of a Michelin tire and a Dunlop tire? These are otherwise equivalent motorcycle tires he's comparing, right?
-
No, 450g is a hair under 1 pound. Did you mean to write "16 ounces"?
-
Sorry -- yes, ounces.
I meant "it's a hair over a full pound heavier!" (with an implied YIKES!)
I could see that with perhaps a metzler 880 (6-ply) on one side of the equation . . . but with standard sidewalls that's a big difference.
-
Sorry -- yes, ounces.
I meant "it's a hair over a full pound heavier!" (with an implied YIKES!)
YEP!!! He was surprised too, this was about .... 8 years ago though. But still, its a BIG difference. I would love to know how tyre weights have changed, or not, since then. Perhaps we should all weigh our new tyres? :S
-
Just so you know, wider tire = lower rolling resistance..
-
Just so you know, wider tire = lower rolling resistance..
How so? Take a Mountain bike with fat tires compared to a road bike with skinny tires...significant ly less rolling resistance with skinnier tires than the fat ones.
-
The maximum force of friction is the product of the coefficient of friction times the weight applied to the contact patch .
Dusty
-
The maximum force of friction is the product of the coefficient of friction times the weight applied to the contact patch .
Dusty
And is rolling resistance the same thing as maximum force of friction (which sounds to me like total available traction say for propulsion forces, as opposed to just how much it resists turning).
-
And is rolling resistance the same thing as maximum force of friction (which sounds to me like total available traction say for propulsion forces, as opposed to just how much it resists turning).
No they are independent .
Dusty
-
How so? Take a Mountain bike with fat tires compared to a road bike with skinny tires...significant ly less rolling resistance with skinnier tires than the fat ones.
Dude! Seriously...
The pro road racers have all moved up to 25mm. I have 22mm on one bike, 28 on another-you can feel the difference.
Estimates are the difference in a 40km time trial, based solely on rolling resistance, is near 40 seconds. The difference comes from the shape of the contact patch.
Really, mountain bike tires..
-
larger contact patch means better grip
This is somewhat of a myth. Traction depends on downward force and composition of mating surfaces and has *nothing* to do with contact patch. If there is any traction gain from a wider tire it is because of the higher weight/mass of the tire or because the wider tire is made of softer rubber.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/tractive-effort-d_1783.html
-
This is somewhat of a myth. Traction depends on downward force and composition of mating surfaces and has *nothing* to do with contact patch. If there is any traction gain from a wider tire it is because of the higher weight/mass of the tire or because the wider tire is made of softer rubber.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/tractive-effort-d_1783.html
Exactly , contact patch doesn't even come up in the equation . The reason for race bike tires increasing in width has to do with the increase in lean angle generated by modern bikes . A wider tire is simply necessary to keep a fairly gentle decrease in effective radius while keeping the tire running surface on the pavement .
Dusty
-
Dude! Seriously...
The pro road racers have all moved up to 25mm. I have 22mm on one bike, 28 on another-you can feel the difference.
Estimates are the difference in a 40km time trial, based solely on rolling resistance, is near 40 seconds. The difference comes from the shape of the contact patch.
Really, mountain bike tires..
Too much coffee this morning chief or you're just not understanding the analogy I am using? Fatter tires vs. skinnier tires is the subject.
I'm running 29 x 2.1 on the mountain bike and 700x23 on the road bike....I've got more rolling resistance on the mountain bike tires...they are fatter/wider than the road bike. Same analogy as the motorcycle. You're saying that's incorrect?
-
Too much coffee this morning chief or you're just not understanding the analogy I am using? Fatter tires vs. skinnier tires is the subject.
I'm running 29 x 2.1 on the mountain bike and 700x23 on the road bike....I've got more rolling resistance on the mountain bike tires...they are fatter/wider than the road bike. Same analogy as the motorcycle. You're saying that's incorrect?
Some of the change has to do with harder compounds and vertical forces . Oh hell , you guys are gonna make me have to contact my physicist buddy :laugh:
Dusty
-
No need for that...just assume for all intents and purposes that all other factors are the same...a controlled experiment.
One bike with fat tires, another bike with skinny tires, both bikes exactly the same weight and component wise, you don't need to be a physicist to know after riding bikes for 40 years which one has more rolling resistance...
-
Give him a call. I know for muscle cars the reason for bigger tires is so they can use softer rubber to get more traction, but the softer rubber requires more rubber (translates to wider) so it is strong enough that it doesn't self destruct when you put the ponies to it. Really sucks when you tear the rubber off the carcass.
On motorcycle tires I imagine the wider tires make it easier to use a softer compound on the sidewalls where you don't have as much wear, effectively giving you more traction when heeled over in a curve. At the same time they can leave a harder rubber in the center of the tread to give the tire longer life on the superslab.
-
Rolling resistance is a whole different color horse. Bigger diameter tires will be deformed less and have less resistance to road deformations and obstacles. I know for a fact that a 29" fat tire bike will easily overcome a curb or gravel that would stop a 26"x1" bike in it's tracks.
There are many many other factors at play here though, or we would be seeing fat tire bikes in the Tour. It takes power to haul those heavy fat tires around.
-
For racing and for sportsbikes, those fat (rear) tires are to put the power (250+ hp) to the ground.
Rolling resistance is not an issue when you are clawing for traction.
-
yep, and with the softer rubber compounds you need a lot of it to withstand the 250+ HP without tearing apart. The tire gets bigger for strength, not because bigger grips better but because softer grips better.
-
Okay.....going with wider tires for better handling because of the wider contact patch and that allows for more of a lean angle in a turn. The 1400 Eldorado handles a lot better than the Custom or the Tourer. Don't know about the Audace or MGX21. But, I suspect the Audace might be the best handling of the new breed. The combo of the rake of the steering neck and 16" weenies make it and the Eldo better handling.
Yes, a wider tire = wider contact patch for more effort to get down the road. That effort may be small and not very apparent for a motorcycle however.
-
Big heavy street bikes will not lean far enough to use a wider racing profile , which is different than street tire profiles . The only practical reason for a wide street bike tire with a slightly increased contact patch is to reduce wear .
Dusty
-
Something that has not been mentioned is that a softer tire will conform to the road surface better than a hard tire . This allows the tire to dig in ever so slightly to road irregularities . Now , before we confuse that with increased contact patch , no that ain't what is happening . This involves vertical forces , which is a completely different animal .
Dusty
-
And softer tires shear easier and leave darker burnout patches.. lol
-
No need for that...just assume for all intents and purposes that all other factors are the same...a controlled experiment.
One bike with fat tires, another bike with skinny tires, both bikes exactly the same weight and component wise, you don't need to be a physicist to know after riding bikes for 40 years which one has more rolling resistance...
Are your mountain bike tires mountain bike, or road? Also need to use comparable diameters, really. but te tread is what I'm thinking.
This isn't some theory I made up. You can find dynamic testing on line, or try different sizes on your own wheels (which is what I did). Same tire pressure, same wheel size, different width-absolutely no doubt about it.
-
To continue this thread with a little different direction and some more fat tire questions...
I just picked up a 74 Eldorado that has 16 " rims and wide / fat tires. I just picked the bike up today and left it at a shop and have not deep dived what I have yet - that comes later this week.
But...
In my other post or somewhere ... some one indicated that the CHP Eldos used 16" rear tires - and I think somebody said they were 5.10s - which would equate to something like a 130. Mu guess is that the police bikes got these rear tires because they were carrying more weight (radio, siren, guns & ammo, donuts etc.).
For the time being... I am going to keep these rims but the tires are probably 30 years old. Does anybody have any experience with 16" fat tires on an Eldo? What current tire would work on this bike?
Not on an Eldo. The T5 has 16" wheels front and back. The rear tire is a 130/90-16. Best traction tire I've used is the Pirelli Sport Demon. But, it only lasted me 6k miles. So, I run Shinko 712's which get 8k miles and are a lot cheaper. The are not as sticky but are good enough for my riding.
-
You should be able to find decent 16" tires, they are common on American bikes. Kenda makes some that seem to last forever.
-
Depends on the size you need and what brands you'd like. I'd love to find PR3's or PR4's but they aren't made in the sizes I need. ANd I don't want to go skinnier since the T5 turns in quick as is.
-
You should be able to find decent 16" tires, they are common on American bikes. Kenda makes some that seem to last forever.
Ther eis the added complication of bias versus radial designs...
And While the Kendas last forever, a friend of mine who had some was not impressed with their grip. Durability comes at a cost.
-
Oh, they are not sport bike tires, but the Eldo is not a sport bike. Nor the Scout. It supplies more grip than either chassis can use, and thoguh I can lock either wheel on the Scout, the Eldo will not be so easy.
-
To continue this thread with a little different direction and some more fat tire questions...
I just picked up a 74 Eldorado that has 16 " rims and wide / fat tires. I just picked the bike up today and left it at a shop and have not deep dived what I have yet - that comes later this week.
But...
In my other post or somewhere ... some one indicated that the CHP Eldos used 16" rear tires - and I think somebody said they were 5.10s - which would equate to something like a 130. Mu guess is that the police bikes got these rear tires because they were carrying more weight (radio, siren, guns & ammo, donuts etc.).
For the time being... I am going to keep these rims but the tires are probably 30 years old. Does anybody have any experience with 16" fat tires on an Eldo? What current tire would work on this bike?
Not sure what you're looking for and I've got no direct experience with an Eldo, but I had lots of experience with 130 series 16" wheels on a Road King and 130, 140, or 150/16" multiple Sportsters. My preference was always Metzelers, the ME88, 880, or now 888 series. As a matter of fact I have a 140/90-16 ME888 about to go on one today.
I always found the bias-ply Marathons from Metzeler to be a nice combination of wear and grip.
-
My only experience with wide tires is the radial 120/17 front and the 170/17 rear on my 97 tube frame Buell. These are the stock sizes and the Beull has a steep fork rake like most all new sport bikes..I notice at very low speeds the bike is more clumsy in turns... But at normal and high road speeds , the handling limits are beyond my skill level..
-
What model Buell?
-
Just read an article in my current Cycle World (9/16) written by Kevin Cameron titled "What's heavy", where he talks about Moto Guzzi road racers in the 50's and later racing front tire weights/handling effects. Article fits right into this discussion under the guize of "addressing the steering-stiffening effect of key components on a MC.". :popcorn: