Wildguzzi.com
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: radguzzi on May 24, 2017, 06:22:26 PM
-
I happened to notice that the front tire on the New-To-Me EV is checked, slightly but enough to bug me, the rear I wearing out fast too as I put miles on it.
So I looked in the owner's manual for tire sizes and sure enough, the rear differs from that manual. Not a great deal but enough to make me wonder why owners insist on making such odd changes...? Don't they trust the Italian Engineers that think these sizes are best for this particular motorcycle..?
I will go with the stock 150/70-17 and 110/90-18 ME 880's, if I can find them.
Ciao,
Rob
-
Smaller for quicker handling , larger for , well , mostly looks .
Dusty
-
I (and many folks here) were forced to go from the "stock" 140 rear to a 130 on the Jackal because a new 140 doesn't fit! Apparently a special batch of metzlers was made for guzzi in the 90s ugh. Even the 130 clears with only 2 or 3 mm
-
Smaller for quicker handling , larger for , well , mostly looks .
Dusty
DR650's have freakishly narrow 120 rear tire. Its not uncommon to bump to a 130 not for looks but for some more tire in the dirt or on the road for traction. Also not uncommon to run 120 front 150 rear on the DR setup w/ supermoto wheels
-
I (and many folks here) were forced to go from the "stock" 140 rear to a 130 on the Jackal because a new 140 doesn't fit! Apparently a special batch of metzlers was made for guzzi in the 90s ugh. Even the 130 clears with only 2 or 3 mm
:1:
I couldn't get a credit card between the Metzler and the frame on the EV I had
My local bike shop owner told me the same special Metzler story
I think I used a standard size Michelin to replace it and was very happy.
BTW those bikes are hard on wheel bearings, consider replacing those at the same time, cheap standard size.
-
I happened to notice that the front tire on the New-To-Me EV is checked, slightly but enough to bug me, the rear I wearing out fast too as I put miles on it.
So I looked in the owner's manual for tire sizes and sure enough, the rear differs from that manual. Not a great deal but enough to make me wonder why owners insist on making such odd changes...? Don't they trust the Italian Engineers that think these sizes are best for this particular motorcycle..?
I will go with the stock 150/70-17 and 110/90-18 ME 880's, if I can find them.
Ciao,
Rob
Look no further:
http://www.americanmototire.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=33_165_172
-
Smaller for quicker handling , larger for , well , mostly looks .
Dusty
I hate to say I agree with Dusty anymore than Lannis. But I do. :embarrassed:
-
Our 2015 Caponord 1200 came stock with a 180/50 on the rear and put our speedo off about 8%.. Installing a 190/50 brought the discrepancy down to a slightly more reasonable 5%. I think aprilia spec'd the 190 on the next model year.
-
I ordered stock tires for my Honda GB500. When they arrived the dealer phoned me and apologized because they had sent tires that were too narrow. I asked them what size they were and they were as I requested. I told him to put them on. The bike handled better right away compared to the wider tires that were fitted by the previous owner.
I also read somewhere in Ian Falloon's Sport And Le Mans Bible that the Le Mans handles much better with the narrower tires. It makes you wonder about the handling of many of the Moto Guzzi cafe racers out there with huge horsepower gains and much wider tires.
-
Let's ask this guy:
(http://4wheelonline.com/Images/BlogSiteImages/widemototire.jpg)
-
DR650's have freakishly narrow 120 rear tire. Its not uncommon to bump to a 130 not for looks but for some more tire in the dirt or on the road for traction. Also not uncommon to run 120 front 150 rear on the DR setup w/ supermoto wheels
Lets parse this out . It is true that in really soft dirt a slightly wider tire with a more aggressive tread pattern will offer more traction . However on pavement traction and contact patch size have no relationship . Motorcycles that are capable of great lean angles, like sport and racing bikes employ wide tires for a just a couple of reasons . The main being that increasing tire width allows for a more gentle transition as the bike leans over . Greater lean angles require a slower decrease in tire radius to keep the bike from rolling over way too rapidly . A 120 tire of the same brand and compound provides the same level of traction as a 200 section tire .
Dusty
-
Let's ask this guy:
(http://4wheelonline.com/Images/BlogSiteImages/widemototire.jpg)
Hoy Hoy I'm the boy....your getting 300 pounds of heavenly joy! Chester Burnett AKA Hw
-
I happened to notice that the front tire on the New-To-Me EV is checked, slightly but enough to bug me, the rear I wearing out fast too as I put miles on it.
So I looked in the owner's manual for tire sizes and sure enough, the rear differs from that manual. Not a great deal but enough to make me wonder why owners insist on making such odd changes...? Don't they trust the Italian Engineers that think these sizes are best for this particular motorcycle..?
I will go with the stock 150/70-17 and 110/90-18 ME 880's, if I can find them.
Ciao,
Rob
I went from 150 to 140 880s on my old EV, it made it into a much better bike. All the other Calis of that year used the 140, and I hated it with the 150.
I figured it was for looks.
-
I change front/rear tire sizes quite often on my 8 bikes. Why?, to get more mileage out of them or to change their gearing for same or to change their handling.
MY `81 CX100 (LM II) came with a 110/90 rear & 100/90 front. It now has a 120/90-18 rear & 110/90-16 front for better high mileage and faster front turning, like my `87 LM IV had.
My `91 VX800 came with a 150/70-17 rear & 110/80-17 front. It now has a 130/90-17 rear & 110/90 front for longer tire mileage and it handles better too + changing the rear tire that much was like giving me another 500 rpm taller 5th gear, thus saving tire mileage & motor wear.
My `2000 MuZ 660 single came with a 150/60-17 rear. I put on a 140/70-17 rear tire on for taller gearing + 3 teeth less on rear sprocket. This is the best handling bike I've ever owned!
I change tire sizes to change gearing on shaft drive bikes for economy and handling as I see fit. Being an ex-amateur road racer I can feel the differences and get what I prefer w/o spending a bundle of $. :thumb:
-
I went from 150 to 140 880s on my old EV, it made it into a much better bike. All the other Calis of that year used the 140, and I hated it with the 150.
Interesting Aaron,
You are correct, all the other Cali models on that year were equipped with the 140, no idea why... :rolleyes:
I think I will go with the 140. I did go have a look at the '9 EV Hack and that has a130 on the rear. The times that I have had motorcycles with wider tire than they were designed to use, they felt truckish and the steering was slow and odd, just my assessment.
Thanks,
Rob
Look no further:
http://www.americanmototire.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=33_165_172
Thanks...
BTW those bikes are hard on wheel bearings, consider replacing those at the same time, cheap standard size.
Yup, I always check and replace if needed but thanks for the reminder.
Best,
Rob
-
Not a great deal but enough to make me wonder why owners insist on making such odd changes...? Don't they trust the Italian Engineers that think these sizes are best for this particular motorcycle..?
It wouldn't be the first time that the Italian Engineers stuffed up the design on this model. Hydraulic lifters and single plate clutch comes immediately to mind.
I found the stock 150/70 rear on my EV Touring made the bike slightly unstable at higher speeds, enough to not want to go any faster.
Because the earlier versions used a 140/80, I switched to that size with a noticeable improvement.
I've also had issues with Metzlers being too wide for the rim on other models, so chose Bridgestone BT45s.
-
Lets parse this out . It is true that in really soft dirt a slightly wider tire with a more aggressive tread pattern will offer more traction . However on pavement traction and contact patch size have no relationship . Motorcycles that are capable of great lean angles, like sport and racing bikes employ wide tires for a just a couple of reasons . The main being that increasing tire width allows for a more gentle transition as the bike leans over . Greater lean angles require a slower decrease in tire radius to keep the bike from rolling over way too rapidly . A 120 tire of the same brand and compound provides the same level of traction as a 200 section tire .
Dusty
It all sounds good...but....a larger section tire has a larger radius and I believe that gives more rubber on the road as the bike leans over... At least that's the way I see it... :tongue:
-
MY `81 CX100 (LM II) came with a 110/90 rear & 100/90 front. It now has a 120/90-18 rear & 110/90-16 front for better high mileage and faster front turning, like my `87 LM IV had.
Did you fit the 87 Lemans Wheels on the CX, maybe just the front? Intrigued.
-
. A 120 tire of the same brand and compound provides the same level of traction as a 200 section tire .
Dusty
[/quote]
That depends on how much torque/hp the motor has that's using it. A fatter tire has more rubber on the road to handle more power. :wink:
-
Did you fit the 87 Lemans Wheels on the CX, maybe just the front? Intrigued.
It was a 16" rim off a T4 or 5. I had to lower the CX calipers w/alum. strips but it works good and the other rim brake rotors are much lighter than the original CX iron discs. Rodekyll is here and may be able to take a pic of my CX front end to send here to Wildguzzi soon if interested to see it.
-
Once again , contact patch size has nothing to do with traction . The only factors involved in traction are how hard or soft a tire is , and the force being applied to the contact patch . Increasing contact patch size decreases the force per sq MM of contact patch , thereby negating any gains from increasing the area . Basic physics , we've been over this several times . Racing cars and bikes run huge wide tires so they can use incredibly soft compounds and still last a few miles , and MC's run wide tires for the aforementioned reason also .
Dusty
-
Once again , contact patch size has nothing to do with traction . The only factors involved in traction are how hard or soft a tire is , and the force being applied to the contact patch . Increasing contact patch size decreases the force per sq MM of contact patch , thereby negating any gains from increasing the area . Basic physics , we've been over this several times . Racing cars and bikes run huge wide tires so they can use incredibly soft compounds and still last a few miles , and MC's run wide tires for the aforementioned reason also .
Dusty
Sorry, Dusty, but I disagree. Decades(late 60's) ago I had a friend that had a 496 Chevy Chevelle he put stock car racing mags & tires on. It totally transformed the traction of that car from it's original narrow street tires and the car handled like a true race car then from just that alteration. Those tires lasted quite a while too. With those tires he could not chirp the rear tires any more nor light them up as before. w/street tires.
-
Sorry, Dusty, but I disagree. Decades(late 60's) ago I had a friend that had a 496 Chevy Chevelle he put stock car racing mags & tires on. It totally transformed the traction of that car from it's original narrow street tires and the car handled like a true race car then from just that alteration. Those tires lasted quite a while too. With those tires he could not chirp the rear tires any more nor light them up as before. w/street tires.
Wayne , those tires were softer than the original hard narrow tires . Once again , this is basic physics . Now , if you can break or bend those laws , then maybe the discussion will change :laugh:
Dusty
-
Was common in early v11 sports to go a size smaller than stock on the rear for improved handling. I did when I swapped and it did handle noticeable better. I love my v7 but there are days I miss this.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170525/5c4417d7373afca9ea7de1afbb22b4fe.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Once again , contact patch size has nothing to do with traction . The only factors involved in traction are how hard or soft a tire is , and the force being applied to the contact patch . Increasing contact patch size decreases the force per sq MM of contact patch , thereby negating any gains from increasing the area . Basic physics , we've been over this several times . Racing cars and bikes run huge wide tires so they can use incredibly soft compounds and still last a few miles , and MC's run wide tires for the aforementioned reason also .
Dusty
You are correct as far as friction goes-but tires are not just friction devices, they actually "gear" into the pavement, and the new force is shear.
A greater patch in shear will certainly allow more force to be transmitted.
-
You are correct as far as friction goes-but tires are not just friction devices, they actually "gear" into the pavement, and the new force is shear.
A greater patch in shear will certainly allow more force to be transmitted.
Think about what you just said Aaron ? The only way to increase shear is to increase the load , or make the tire softer . Making the contact patch larger simply spreads the load out , thus negating the effect of a larger contact patch .
Dusty
-
496 Chevy Chevelle
New math?
-
496 Chevy Chevelle
New math?
No, old memory. What was it, 396? My brain memory is sometimes suspect, but you get the idea..
-
Drag racing, wider tires of the same compound as more narrow tires ,will hook up better off the line..In this case is must be a larger contact patch giving better traction..?
-
Drag racing, wider tires of the same compound as more narrow tires ,will hook up better off the line..In this case is must be a larger contact patch giving better traction..?
The force of friction is equal to the product of normal force and the coefficient of friction .
Basic physics , contact area never shows up in the equation .
The force per unit area is all that matters .
Dusty
-
Contact patch area does not enter into the equation if the road surface is perfectly smooth. If it isn't perfectly smooth, and if the force per unit area is high enough to allow mechanical interlocking of the tread to the road, with soft enough rubber to allow it, you typically get more traction with a bigger tire patch. That's why drag racers use large, ultra soft tires. Their quarter miles times require much more than Amonton friction, which is the model for more-or-less smooth surfaces where contact patch size is irrelevant (Google it to see where oldbike54 is coming from).
That said, increasing the tires sizes on most bikes, definitely including many Guzzis, is a way to make them handle poorly and there isn't a huge amount of interlocking with street rubber... although there must be more with soft 'race' compounds used by some the street. Otherwise on a motorcycle wider rear tires promote weave instability, and wider front tires require handlebar forces to counteract the weird self-steering that results from the contact match moving around more relative to the steering axis when the bikes leans. Most people on most bikes ride better with narrow tires, stock size or sometimes less... and a lot of sport bikes have been embarrassed by people on narrow tire dual sport bikes.
-
Tusayan , you are correct about the ultra soft tires , that was my point . Simply increasing contact patch does nothing for traction . Those monster slicks that Fuel cars run use really low inflation pressures and grow very rapidly under acceleration , losing more than 50 percent of their width . Those cars rely on increasing down force to increase traction as they increase speed . Aren't modern fuel cars capable of like 5000 lbs of down force at 200 MPH , something a motorcycle is incapable of .
Dusty
-
Think about what you just said Aaron ? The only way to increase shear is to increase the load , or make the tire softer . Making the contact patch larger simply spreads the load out , thus negating the effect of a larger contact patch .
Dusty
Well, yes. In pure friction it would have the same grip..
Maybe I missed the question. Happens to me all the time!
-
Tusayan , you are correct about the ultra soft tires , that was my point . Simply increasing contact patch does nothing for traction . Those monster slicks that Fuel cars run use really low inflation pressures and grow very rapidly under acceleration , losing more than 50 percent of their width . Those cars rely on increasing down force to increase traction as they increase speed . Aren't modern fuel cars capable of like 5000 lbs of down force at 200 MPH , something a motorcycle is incapable of .
Dusty
Sorry, Dusty, once again I can't agree with you, no matter what you have been taught. When I put car tires on the back of my Piaggio MP3 scooters (DARKSIDE) I got a softer ride (lower psi) and more traction because I had more rubber on the road surface. Got more stopping power too. :kiss: Believe what you want. My experience beliefs are from real results.
-
It's OK Wayne , lots of people don't believe in the laws of physics , like that motorcycle counter steer .
Dusty
-
It's OK Wayne , lots of people don't believe in the laws of physics , like that motorcycle counter steer .
Dusty
Your MC countersteer is for bike riders who rarely ride on roads with many curves. Sure, it exists, but only for riders like that. Riders who have never learned how to ride regularly indifferent turning radius curves, so their backup is sudden/quick direction changing manuevers. Done it myself when needed. :wink: First time I saw Frank Wedge (Kansas) do it when I didn't see it necessary it freaked me out. It's a last resort manuever.
-
Your MC countersteer is for bike riders who rarely ride on roads with many curves. Sure, it exists, but only for riders like that. Riders who have never learned how to ride regularly indifferent turning radius curves, so their backup is sudden/quick direction changing manuevers. Done it myself when needed. :wink: First time I saw Frank Wedge (Kansas) do it when I didn't see it necessary it freaked me out. It's a last resort manueaver.
I have a headache , but you really need to do some research .
Dusty
-
I have a headache , but you really need to do some research .
Dusty
I have personal research......succe ssful years of amateur road racing + 55 years of street riding in most of USA. What are your credentials on this?
-
I have personal research......succe ssful years of amateur road racing + 55 years of street riding in most of USA. What are your credentials on this?
I know you think I live in flat country where the roads are straight , I don't . Edge of the
Ozarks , and 80 miles from the Ouchita Mtns . I won't brag , but many here have ridden with me on some very curvy roads , ask them . But rather than go by anecdotal evidence , I will steer you towards the bike that Keith Code built that had fixed a fixed handlebar , it proves a motorcycle can't be leaned W/O counter steering , otherwise , believe what you want .
Oh , a fair amount of time on flat track bikes also .
Dusty
-
The force of friction is equal to the product of normal force and the coefficient of friction .
Basic physics , contact area never shows up in the equation .
The force per unit area is all that matters .
Dusty
You do know that in the 1950's, physicists said a dragster could not exceed about 160 MPH because of their formulas ...They did not know that a tire can exceed 1.0 coefficient of friction....You can look that up :laugh: No doubt about it, I have experienced it along with 1000's of others, a A wider tire of the same rubber compound offers better traction...
-
I think it safe to say when there is a lack of "contact patch" touching the underlying surface life starts to get interesting.
-
You do know that in the 1950's, physicists said a dragster could not exceed about 160 MPH because of their formulas ...They did not know that a tire can exceed 1.0 coefficient of friction....You can look that up :laugh: No doubt about it, I have experienced it along with 1000's of others, a A wider tire of the same rubber compound offers better traction...
Not on concrete , that happens because the COE of rubber to rubber is already something like 1.15 to 1 . Those incredibly soft tires are literally glued to the rubber laid down during the burnout .
Oh , and once again , simply increasing contact patch does not increase traction . Softer compounds , heat , increased loading yes , not contact area . A dragster under initial acceleration transfers 90 percent of its weight onto the rear tires , thus increasing traction , and as it increases speed the down force goes up keeping traction as more or less a constant despite the tire losing over half of its width .
Dusty
-
increasing the tires sizes on most bikes, definitely including many Guzzis, is a way to make them handle poorly and there isn't a huge amount of interlocking with street rubber... although there must be more with soft 'race' compounds used by some the street. Otherwise on a motorcycle wider rear tires promote weave instability, and wider front tires require handlebar forces to counteract the weird self-steering that results from the contact match moving around more relative to the steering axis when the bikes leans. Most people on most bikes ride better with narrow tires, stock size or sometimes less... and a lot of sport bikes have been embarrassed by people on narrow tire dual sport bikes.
Yep. Dropping to a 170/60-17 from a 180/55-17 on the 5.5-inch rear of my V11 LeMans dramatically improved the bike's turn-in and cornering.
I've also known Ducati guys with 6.0 rear wheels who dropped from the stock 190/50-17 to the 180/55-17 and improved the bikes' feel on curvy pavement.
-
I'm with Dusty on this. Try hitting a patch of water at speed with wide tyres and see how much traction you have. :-)
Oh, and counter steering? Everybody does it, even if they don't know they do. It's something you learn subconsciously as a kid with your first bicycle.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
-
Counter-steering is a myth. Just like the theory of electrons is also a myth.
-
Counter-steering is a myth. Just like the theory of electrons is also a myth.
:laugh: Where have you been son ? :grin:
Dusty
-
More rotating mass, less h.p. to the ground. And everyone seems to want more h.p. to the ground. Going as far as making spoked rims tubeless for weight reduction.
-
More rotating mass, less h.p. to the ground. And everyone seems to want more h.p. to the ground. Going as far as making spoked rims tubeless for weight reduction.
Where else would you want the HP to go?
-
The force of friction is equal to the product of normal force and the coefficient of friction .
Basic physics , contact area never shows up in the equation .
The force per unit area is all that matters .
What I've been talking about here all along is tire contact area, not friction. This is why road racing bikes now have lower profile tires so that they have more contact area with the pavement when upright or leaned over than during earlier years. More contact area to handle the more hp the MC has to deliver now. Otherwise the bike would not be controllable when pushed in corners.
-
OK lets try this one more time . A wider tire will have a wider contact patch , but the contact patch will actually be shorter in length , so there is no net gain . The main reason why modern roadracing motorcycles run those really wide low profile tires are for two reasons . The low profile prevents the sidewall from flexing , thus keeping localized heat under control , and giving more predictable handling . They are really wide , for a couple of reasons , the first being that to maintain structural integrity a tire must hold a sufficient volume of air . Second , and this relates to the low profile thing . a wider tire is more capable of maintaining the proper heat range after warming up . while not overheating
and cooking the compound . Third , a wider tire allows for more lean angle , simply because there is more area to spread the actual contact surface over .
Dusty
-
Was common in early v11 sports to go a size smaller than stock on the rear for improved handling. I did when I swapped and it did handle noticeable better. I love my v7 but there are days I miss this.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170525/5c4417d7373afca9ea7de1afbb22b4fe.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Holy mother of **** that is absolutely stunning !!!
-
The force of friction is equal to the product of normal force and the coefficient of friction .
Basic physics , contact area never shows up in the equation .
The force per unit area is all that matters .
Dusty
Basic physics bears you out Dusty, Newton says you are correct. I'm thinking of the dragster argument though also. The larger contact patch will dissipate the heat over a larger area in more extreme cases like dragsters and Moto GP et al. However back to the top, I think a large amount could be fashion. I guess the more tyre area that is AVAILABLE for use, the more km the tyre should last, allowing softer compounds and the opportunity to employ the "mechanical grip" aspect you mentioned where the tyre actually conforms to the shape of the road surface. You think also?
-
Not on concrete , that happens because the COE of rubber to rubber is already something like 1.15 to 1 . Those incredibly soft tires are literally glued to the rubber laid down during the burnout .
Oh , and once again , simply increasing contact patch does not increase traction . Softer compounds , heat , increased loading yes , not contact area . A dragster under initial acceleration transfers 90 percent of its weight onto the rear tires , thus increasing traction , and as it increases speed the down force goes up keeping traction as more or less a constant despite the tire losing over half of its width .
Dusty
You may find this interesting , drag slicks..
http://www.onallcylinders.com/2016/07/14/drag-slicks-traction/ (http://www.onallcylinders.com/2016/07/14/drag-slicks-traction/)
-
Counter-steering is a myth. Just like the theory of electrons is also a myth.
[/quote If you were to get a push bike for example and push it up to a high speed say 50 mph. The bike will continue in a straight line counter steering for itself. There is no external force available to stop yours or my bike falling on it's side unsupported other than the constant re positioning of the point of support under the centre of mass. Why do do hold the opinion that countersteering is a myth and what argument do you gave to support it? And please, no analogies.
-
Easy Peter , HD goose was being sarcastic to make a point .
Let's not let our emotions run away , keep this civil please .
Dusty
-
You may find this interesting , drag slicks..
http://www.onallcylinders.com/2016/07/14/drag-slicks-traction/ (http://www.onallcylinders.com/2016/07/14/drag-slicks-traction/)
Good article , the doubters all need to read it . Thanks .
Dusty
-
Honestly, I would never presume to know more than the engineer who designed my vehicle.
-
Honestly, I would never presume to know more than the engineer who designed my vehicle.
If the designs were not re thought we would all still be riding bikes un altered from the start of last century. Also, you can build the best bike in the world but you still have to be able to sell it to someone. Fashion has a masssive bearing on how our bikes are styled.
-
If the designs were not re thought we would all still be riding bikes un altered from the start of last century. Also, you can build the best bike in the world but you still have to be able to sell it to someone. Fashion has a masssive bearing on how our bikes are styled.
I understand the allure of "upgrading" your vehicle to some people, however I must disagree about the cause and effect of owners modifying their vehicles driving manufacturers' evolution.
Sure, it happens every now and then, but I doubt it would be a primary motive in evolution of design.
Me, I am happy with a stock bike, stock tires and engine/fueling/ignition, shocks etc. Other than windscreens and luggage etc I have never been so unhappy with a motorcycle as to change it from basically stock.
-
If not for counter steering iron butt riders would ride right off the edge of the earth wouldn't they?
-
Where else would you want the HP to go?
HP doesn't "go" anywhere... It's torque that's applied to the road and the equal and opposite vector drives you forward. HP is a mathematical expression of the Rate of doing Work. Forcexdistance / Time. (Again)
-
I understand the allure of "upgrading" your vehicle to some people, however I must disagree about the cause and effect of owners modifying their vehicles driving manufacturers' evolution.
Sure, it happens every now and then, but I doubt it would be a primary motive in evolution of design.
Me, I am happy with a stock bike, stock tires and engine/fueling/ignition, shocks etc. Other than windscreens and luggage etc I have never been so unhappy with a motorcycle as to change it from basically stock.
You are obviously comfortable in your own skin and don't feel like you have to buggerise around with something to express yourself. Hats off to you :thumb: Have a look at the last bike conceived in Meriden versus the first one from Hinckley. A basket case of un saleable good bikes to instant road and sales success. The new bikes were styled towards Japanese super bikes with head down ass up stance and wide (ish) tyres. We are all victims of stylists when we sign the cheque in the showroom, it just becomes the "new normal"
-
Boy, we sure are into basic physics lately!!!
Can someone explain why it's harder to countersteer with a tire having a larger contact patch if your engine has a 270/450 firing order?
Assume the tire is inflated with nitrogen, and assume the torque tube is unobstructed and drains all excess torques away.
-
Boy, we sure are into basic physics lately!!!
Can someone explain why it's harder to countersteer with a tire having a larger contact patch if your engine has a 270/450 firing order?
Assume the tire is inflated with nitrogen, and assume the torque tube is unobstructed and drains all excess torques away.
Yeah , and just mow much HP does a horse make ?
Dusty
-
Why do people use different size tires than stock? Because some think outside the box. :azn:
-
Good article , the doubters all need to read it . Thanks .
Dusty
The article has no absolutes and does mention situations where a larger tires does offer more traction for drag racing...However, for the street bike example I will yield to your opinion until I find proof you are incorrect.... :grin: :grin:
-
Can't you guys just accept that what a Moto Guzzi does is MAGIC and complete understanding won't add to the experience...do your maintenance, watch that oil, ride it regularly, and have a beer once in a while...this ain't rocket science, it's a TRACTOR motor...peace out!
-
HP doesn't "go" anywhere... It's torque that's applied to the road and the equal and opposite vector drives you forward. HP is a mathematical expression of the Rate of doing Work. Forcexdistance / Time. (Again)
Everything in the universe is a potato or not a potato!
-
Honestly, I would never presume to know more than the engineer who designed my vehicle.
This is my point and was at the outset.
I have experienced larger tires than those that came on Guzzis, SPs, EVs and others... they just seem to steer in a truck-ish slow manner with tires that are larger than those they were designed for.
Even just putting a 120 rear vs a 110 on an 80's Tonti has made a difference.. to me.
Best,
Rob
-
This is my point and was at the outset.
I have experienced larger tires than those that came on Guzzis, SPs, EVs and others... they just seem to steer in a truck-ish slow manner with tires that are larger than those they were designed for.
Even just putting a 120 rear vs a 110 on an 80's Tonti has made a difference.. to me.
Best,
Rob
I guess a bad difference to you? Whereas to me it makes a good difference. So then our expectations of X bike must be different. :azn:
-
I guess a bad difference to you? Whereas to me it makes a good difference. So then our expectations of X bike must be different. :azn:
I guess... an odd difference for me, I just did not care for the feel, I tried but have always gone back to what I consider the proper size tires. I do not road race though.
What is "X" bike...?
Best,
Rob
-
I guess... an odd difference for me, I just did not care for the feel, I tried but have always gone back to what I consider the proper size tires. I do not road race though.
What is "X" bike...?
Best,
Rob
Right now my X bike is CX100 or Convert. Then there's my 750 Breva that had a 130/80 but now has a 130/90 rear tire , or my Suzuki VX800 that had a 150/70 but now has a 130/90 rear tire. :azn: They all have taller rear tires for longer lasting rubber & taller gearing. As for handling, I feel little difference, but do get more ground clearance.
-
They all have taller rear tires for longer lasting rubber & taller gearing.
Does your speedometer reflect this taller gearing?
-
Does your speedometer reflect this taller gearing?
With these changes my speedos are more accurate than they were with stock gearing. Most MC speedos are 7-10% fast compared to real mph. This also gives you more accurate mpg and odometer reading.
-
Boy, we sure are into basic physics lately!!!
Can someone explain why it's harder to countersteer with a tire having a larger contact patch if your engine has a 270/450 firing order?
Assume the tire is inflated with nitrogen, and assume the torque tube is unobstructed and drains all excess torques away.
Nah mate, no idea !
-
Can't you guys just accept that what a Moto Guzzi does is MAGIC and complete understanding won't add to the experience...do your maintenance, watch that oil, ride it regularly, and have a beer once in a while...this ain't rocket science, it's a TRACTOR motor...peace out!
You leave any time you want, but we like it ! You'd make someone a good wife TW, just can't stand to see a guy enjoy himself ! :thewife:
-
With these changes my speedos are more accurate than they were with stock gearing. Most MC speedos are 7-10% fast compared to real mph. This also gives you more accurate mpg and odometer reading.
Most speedos are optimistic by around 5%. Legally they are allowed to show too fast (up to a limit), but under no circumstances may they read too slow!
But odometers are usually more accurate. A Speedo correction (like can be done in Guzzidiag or with bigger tyres) likely means the odometer shows less distance covered than reality.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
-
You are obviously comfortable in your own skin and don't feel like you have to buggerise around with something to express yourself. Hats off to you :thumb: Have a look at the last bike conceived in Meriden versus the first one from Hinckley. A basket case of un saleable good bikes to instant road and sales success. The new bikes were styled towards Japanese super bikes with head down ass up stance and wide (ish) tyres. We are all victims of stylists when we sign the cheque in the showroom, it just becomes the "new normal"
Quite true regarding those stylists. They know how to push my moto button!
-
This is my point and was at the outset.
I have experienced larger tires than those that came on Guzzis, SPs, EVs and others... they just seem to steer in a truck-ish slow manner with tires that are larger than those they were designed for.
Even just putting a 120 rear vs a 110 on an 80's Tonti has made a difference.. to me.
Best,
Rob
I just changed back to the stock sizes on my CX as I didn't care for the larger sized tires for the same reason. The Bridgestone Spitfires didn't help, as I hated those tires compared to the Sport Demons. Just putting the bike on the center stand with the larger rear tire was a pain.
-
I just changed back to the stock sizes on my CX as I didn't care for the larger sized tires for the same reason. The Bridgestone Spitfires didn't help, as I hated those tires compared to the Sport Demons. Just putting the bike on the center stand with the larger rear tire was a pain.
If you went from a 100/90 on the front to a 110/90, that was a mistake on a CX, unless you downsize the rim height too like I did, 18" to 16" like my `87 LM IV had.
On my LM IV going from a 120/80 front to a 110/90 front tire fixed it's sometimes head shake. :thumb: Trial & error is how I find out what works for me. :smiley:
-
I am amused when people argue their "opinions" against the actual facts. It's particularly percious when an actual fact gets labeled opinion because the fact differs from an ignorant belief system. This topic has been most entertaining in those respects. Thanks to everyone who played.
So Dusty -- 'splain us the 18 wheeler in this context. 25 words or less. Ready . . . . . GO!
-
Well , it has 18 wheels , therefore 18 tires , what else ya wanna know ? :laugh:
Dusty
-
Well , it has 18 wheels , therefore 18 tires , what else ya wanna know ? :laugh:
Dusty
The one I drive in Australia has 34 wheels and it needs them all due to the 70 tons (max) trying to push it towards the earth's core! In the case of the bike, I'd be tempted to think that the tyre size requirement is also a function of the amount of torque it will be expected to transmit and the mass it supports, without destroying itself in the process. I wonder what would happen if you took a tyre off an early Le Mans and cobbled it onto a Hyabusa? Traction might be ok, but it wouldn't survive the first few hard launches. Maybe the thicker walls that are required for modern powerful bikes, would mean a narrower tyre would not have the requisite flex required for a nice ride ??? :undecided:
-
The one I drive in Australia has 34 wheels and it needs them all due to the 70 tons (max) trying to push it towards the earth's core! In the case of the bike, I'd be tempted to think that the tyre size requirement is also a function of the amount of torque it will be expected to transmit and the mass it supports, without destroying itself in the process. I wonder what would happen if you took a tyre off an early Le Mans and cobbled it onto a Hyabusa? Traction might be ok, but it wouldn't survive the first few hard launches. Maybe the thicker walls that are required for modern powerful bikes, would mean a narrower tyre would not have the requisite flex required for a nice ride ??? :undecided:
If you took a tyre off of an old Lemans it would be really old :laugh:
You are getting the concept Peter , the short sidewalls of modern street and race tires are much stiffer than the stuff we grew up with , but with modern suspension the tires don't need to flex , except modern radials are designed to flex . Confused yet ?
Dusty
-
If you took a tyre off of an old Lemans it would be really old :laugh:
You are getting the concept Peter , the short sidewalls of modern street and race tires are much stiffer than the stuff we grew up with , but with modern suspension the tires don't need to flex , except modern radials are designed to flex . Confused yet ?
Dusty
Was from the start. That's what I love about having a lousy ability to store facts, I get hear new and interesting things every 10 minutes !
-
I did notice that my Ducati 996 did turn faster with a 180 rear tire versus the stock 190. After 2 180s, I did go back to buying 190s. On the street, which is where all my riding is done, it just didn't matter.
-
I did notice that my Ducati 996 did turn faster with a 180 rear tire versus the stock 190. After 2 180s, I did go back to buying 190s. On the street, which is where all my riding is done, it just didn't matter.
I rode a 996 once....it was so overpowered for the street I couldn't imagine using it for that. 1 time I met an older rider at Sears Point raceway who had a Huyabusa. Asked him how fast he'd had it up to. He said never over 80 mph. :shocked: Said he used it for touring.
-
I rode a 996 once....it was so overpowered for the street I couldn't imagine using it for that. 1 time I met an older rider at Sears Point raceway who had a Huyabusa. Asked him how fast he'd had it up to. He said never over 80 mph. :shocked: Said he used it for touring.
When I first bought my 996 back in 1999, I too thought it was overpowered for the street. Then I bought my 2015 Ducati Monster 1200S last year......cured me of thinking the 996 was overpowered......