Tweety

Well... If you mount a 190 tire on the 5.5" stock rim, you squeeze it to a point where you end up with a pretty steep profile, giving you pretty vague feel at the end of the tire shoulder on normal riding where you aren't heating it like on track... That could put you in a ditch rather abruptly one day with cold tires...

Shoe horning a 200 on that rim, you are probably exceeding the mounting tolerances from the manufacturer, ie the profile is going to be even steeper, probably to the point where it actually becomes dangerous to ride it... That is if it's even possible to mount it...

Also, I'd say its a better than 90% chance you will end up with a tire that is rubbing on various points on the swingarm, probably at standstill, most definetly at speed...

In terms of wear, you will have absolutely no lifespan on that tire, since it's squeezed to hell, it will wear very fast in the middle, and have almost unused shoulders since you cant ride the edges without loosing grip...

In short... Stupid idea... And considering a 200 tire isn't cheaper, it's even dumber... And since I guess the general idea from your side on using it, is to make the bike "look cool" with a big fat rear tire, let me ask you this: Does it look equally cool with a 200 tire squeezed down to 180 width, to fit on the rim? It will probably just look daft, and ride like ****... Nuff said?

nath981

I posted this in another thread https://www.superhawkforum.com/forum...visited-25559/. Link shows dunlop's stated preference for 190x55 on a 5.50" rim as opposed to 6" unless it's a misprint.

Dunlop Racing » D211GP

Tweety

Agreed, that particular tire will work with the stock rim, in terms of fitting the rim since the manufacturer specifies that... But I'm pretty certain that it's an anomaly... I doubt you will find many manufacturers that specify a 190+ tire for less than a 6" rim... The 190 is probably "in between", ie it can go on a 5.5"... A 200 is definetly not a good fit on a 5.5"...

It's also a pretty sticky tire, that get's up to working temp quickly, and that's a big difference to a more road oriented tire... Like I said, on a track only bike, sticking a 190 tire on there is probably just fine... You keep them on warmers, you lean like hell, and you scrap the tire pretty soon... But even then, I doubt a 200 will fit in the swingarm without rubbing...

On road, it's a whole other ball game... You will have a very narrow profile (good on track, not so good on road) you will wear them in the middle pretty soon, and you will most likely end up with a cold tire edge sticking you in a set of bushes at some point...

Nath, you really need to take into account, that not all people ride the way you do... I admire your ***** to the wall, attitude and riding style... But you are an oddity...

When someone says "here and there", like insider did, I take that as "a bit faster than touring", at which pace that 200 will be medium warm in the middle, worn to hell, and cold and slippery on the sides... If he even get's it in there...

Ie, a 190 tire is a bit impractical, but if you know the bike, and know how it feels it's fine... If it's a style choice, then it's just dumb... A 200 tire however, will never ever be anything but a style choice, and that qualifies as stupid in my book...

2whltuner

Wow alot of banter on this subject, if you know the circumference of the tires (in mm) to be replaced as mounted, providing that your your chassis is to your liking and you know the circumference of the replacement tires (in mm) as mounted, then you can follow this simple formula to adjust either your front fork drop or to adjust your rear ride height (via spacers between your shock tower and the frame)

(NF-OF) + (OR-NR) / 2 X PI (2 x 3.14 = 6.28)

Where NF=NEW FRONT / OF=OLD FRONT and OR= OLD REAR / NR=NEW REAR

if the # is positive pull your forks up throught the triple clamps

if the # is negative push your forks down through the triple clamps

you can use this formula on either the front or rear or both

if the circumference of the "new" front tire is larger than the "old" front tire, then for sure you will have to raise the forks through the triple clamps and visa versa for both the front and the rear.

I run a 180/55x17 on a 6" rim, this gives me a much larger tire patch at lean than a 190/50x17 on a 6" rim.

imho, i would advise against running a 190/50 or a 190/55 on a 5.5" rim, this pinches the tire too much and doesn't allow for a proper mounting and contact patch.

nath981

Michelin says preferred rim for 190/55 is 6 but 5.50 is also acceptable accord to data in link:


190/55 Mich Pure's on 5.5in Wheel - Page 2 : Suzuki GSX-R Motorcycle Forums: Gixxer.com

Tweety

Yeah, that's the correct math for simply adjusting for the change in height... But it doesn't take into account what happens with the change, in terms of geometry...

The mounting isn't a problem... ½" isn't that much... But the contact patch is another matter enterily...

8541Hawk

Stephan

Recommendation from Roger is for forks and shock with proper spring rates matched to rider weight, and with oem rear height ...

better to say at first, I agree.

Tweety

nath981

Thanx for the diagnosis Tweets. Is there a name for this in the manual for psychiatric disorders, perhaps "deviant oddball off the wall syndrome"?

Since the usable tread on my Power Pures is increasingly looking like the skin on my head, I have been contemplating going to the 190/55 for a bunch of reasons which i probably should not discuss with anyone not similarly afflicted.

Tweety

Hum... Whatever the official name of the diagnosis is, I think we can safely consider me one of the similarily afflicted...

I have by now made the Power Pures I put on at the end of last season three sided... Flat in the middle, and flat on the sides with medium sized ridges in the part where you transition... I guess the diagnosis is enough commuting and highway mileage to wear the middle, combined with my prefered cornerspeed and lean angle to wear the edges...

And nope, I'm not going slow... I have the bike dialed in now to the point where the RR/SS squids are considered brake markers...

I'd probably recommend a 190/50... With a bit of squeeze, that would probably work out better than the 55, but that's just guesswork... BTW, I have a fresh set of Power Pures going on in a few days when they get here... And I'm going with a 190/55 rear (on my 6" rim)...

nath981

Your "similarly afflicted" descriptior might be something like "deviant oddball OCMD malaise", how bout it..

I know what you mean about the transition............weird feeling and you don't wanna be in a situation where you need too much traction at that particular point. I learned this the good way, doing that supermoto shuffle where the back is trying to pass the front on the gas. Lucky my reaction time is suffering age so i stayed on the gas because those highsides are ugly and they always hurt.

I had a 190x50 bto16, definitely mismatched with a worn-out Q2 front, so I think I'm going to do what i frequently do and go a little overboard with the 55, and then i'll know for sure. It's only a 4000 mile experiment, unless it's unacceptable at which time i'll take the loss and sell it like I did the 190/50.

nath981

I didn't get time yesterday, but since you have acknowledged that you are one of the "similarly afflicted", I need to share the reasons I'm going with the 190x55 on a 5.5" rim.

1) tire weight, ie, if it was another tire besides the mich pure, i would be very reluctant to add that much unsprung weight that far out on the spinning gyro.
2) mich and dunlop both specify that this is an acceptable alternative and dunlop even preferred it for the track and many track riders attest to this practice.
3) the increased height will jack up the rear a little higher so that i can stay at OEM fork height while improving turn-in geometry, and still maintain good ground clearance(since fitting the superbike bars, I rotated the foot pegs back down to OEM and have been scraping my new boots).
4) the increased diameter will improve bump absorption and ride quality on irregular surfaces which i frequently encounter, albeit these attributes may be somewhat mitigated by the additional weight of the 190 over the 180(speaking of which, would you be able to weigh your 190 when it arrives?).
5) the increased circumference will turn fewer times than the 180 likely reducing wear and bringing it closer to the front(my front tire is worn similar to rear on the sides, but not in the middle and of course this alters the compatibility at bit(now who's OCMD? haha).
6) the increased circumference will not adversely alter gearing since it is at the low end of the spectrum 15/44/520.

We'll see later, but would appreciate the weight of the 190/55 compared with the 180 if you can provide that info when you get yours. thanx.

Tweety

Well. I'll certainly pop it on a scale when I get it...

Actually, it's something you have thought through, so I think it's a worth while experiment... I think you will like the experience... I like the profile on 6" rim, and I don't think it's going to be a problem with a bit steeper arc...

nath981

apersheate it! shouldn't take me long to find out once i start riding it, but I'm still in the process of trying to make my worn tires slicks. Since i ride the xr650l more frequently, mostly because of the deplorable roads, the SH is resting alot now and it may be next month till I order the Pures.

thanx

Fozzy Bear

Just a couple of thoughts on the 120/60 front to throw into the mix.

The sharper steering that would come from the steeper fork angle would be negated by the flatter profile of the tire. The 60 tire would not tip in as quickly.
The increased contact patch size is nice, but would it reduce the angle of lean required to hit the edge of the tire? If so, the performance increase expected from the tire would actually reduce the bikes cornering speed due to basically running out of rubber earlier.

Just some musings over some beers. Have I missed something entirely?

nath981

speaking of beer, I like room temp Porter. Ummmm, dark color, foamy, great aroma and rich taste. Cold ruins the taste for me, but maybe I just have dysfunctional taste buds?

When I read the michelin chart linked earlier, the specs between 60 and 70 looked pretty much the same except for the sidewall height, so the profiles would likely be the same, but have no direct experience to base this on. My thinking was that the steeper geometry and shorter tire would speed up turn-in.

the problem with the smaller circumference is that it would be a little more susceptible to upsetting the suspension on irregular surfaces, the good point is the decrease in unsprung weight at the high point of the gyro. The shorter sidewall 60 would seem to be a little stiffer and i don't know what affect this has on grip at lean and speed as it may be more or less prone to losing traction. I don't know.

the shorter front tire of the 60 would likely wear out close to the rear which would be good IMO because running a high miles front with a new rear is at best a questionable practice for those with little or no chicken strips.

nath981

the link below says that 3mm shim translates to 12mm seat height increase. Is there a conflict with the 1 to 1.5 ratio you cited? Did you weigh that 190x55?


How to shim motorcycle rear suspension to adjust geometry - Motorcyclist Online

klx678

I wonder why racers alter geometry at the tracks if Honda was that smart to make it work for everyone? And if Honda is that smart, why didn't they apply some of it to that front cylinder cam chain tensioner?

I know, I'm a smart ***... But face it different people want, prefer, or ride better with different settings, usually based on what started as stock.

I went one profile range smaller on the front of my Kawasaki 550 Zephyr (I know, not a Superhawk, but it does have two wheels and an engine) along with raising the rear end by rotating the chain adjuster eccentrics the opposite way. Two reasons to do so:

1) I ride a quicker handling dual sport a lot and like the quick steering. When I rode the Zephyr it felt like a truck when changing directions.

2) Installing decent fork springs raised the front end over the junk stock springs that ate up 1/2 the travel in sag, probably added near 2" to the front ride height.

From past experience I knew that raising the rear and lowering the front would steepen the fork angle and shorten trail a bit and it could be done either through the suspension or the tires. I went to a 110/70 over the 110/80 and raised the rear end about 2" with the change in adjuster eccentric rotation. Quickened the handling to suit what I wanted.

No I am not a racer by any stretch, no I don't work my tires to the edges, but yes, I know how I'd like the bike to handle when I ride it. I don't profess to be an expert, I just know what I like and how it works for me.

I'm not going to try to stick a fatter tire on the back since a 550 doesn't have huge horsepower to pull more rotating weight and it's just more unsprung weight too for me. Just don't need it, the 140 works better than I do. I do want to put a wider set of rims on the bike to run a 120/60 on the front and get a better choice of rear tires on the back, but still run either a 140 or 150 based on what is available to me. The rims are in the garage, now to fit them. The 120/60 will be slightly larger diameter over the 110/70 based on the Bridgestone tire information and the width may slow handling just a tad, but I can live with that for the better front tire when it comes to braking and maybe a bit on wear too.

I think after someone has ridden a bike for a year or two they get a pretty good idea of what they would like it to do. Of course there are those who just do something because someone else does it. Kind of follow the leader. But I wasn't following any leads, I was doing my own thing. No one I ever saw in the forums for the Kaw actually put a smaller tire on the bikes. Seems everyone wants to go bigger/wider. But I knew what happened because I did the "bigger is better" on my old MotoGuzzi going up one tire width front and rear and found I made it handle like a dump truck. With that seat of the pants experience I then put one size smaller on an 83 standard GL1100 I had gotten to do a bit more two up riding with my wife, but wanted to quicken the handling since it has really slow touring bike geometry and handling - worked pretty good too. So learning and knowing a bit can work well once one knows their motorcycle.

As for Honda, Kawasaki, and the others - they can set it up in generalities, but they are not infallable and they don't know what will suit every rider in every circumstance. They can only engineer a baseline to start. I will say one should adehere to the tire to rim width recommendations though. What I did in tire size changes fell within Bridgestone's recommended size relationships. Squeezing radials on too narrow a rim isn't good.

But hey... that's just me, my "mini-bike" 550, and my opinion.

Tweety

Nath, true the link states that... But since no two motorcycle models have the same measurements on the swingarm and shock linkage the formula might be the same, but the exact ratio is unique to each motorcycle based on setup also... So, do the measurements, and math and you end up with the numbers for your bike... But basic geometry for the VTR says somewhere between 1.6-2 times the shim... For some bikes it's more, for some bikes it's less, based on setup of the shock...

nath981

well thanks for clearing that up> I'm trying to figure things out since I had to raise the front 10mm to accommodate the superbike bars in the forward position because of a conflict with the preload adjusters atop the forks. This increase makes the bike track or hold a line to a point I've never experienced, and in a way that it takes a definite and deliberate effort to alter your line at lean, whereas before there was a tendency to wander. This will all change with the 190x55.

So, 6mm shock shim translates to 10-12mm, plus 6mm for the 190x55 equals 16-18mm up in the rear with 10mm up in the front, so this appears alright for the front rear geometry. 838mm or 32.9" seat height or about an inch over OEM. Tall but great for ground clearance, similar to the R1 which is 32.8" seat height.

Oh don't worry about weighing the 190x55 cause tires are on the way. apersheate your help.

insider

Dude, I appreciate the advice, but cut me some slack. In case you had some doubts and thought I was that type of retard who would mount a 200 tyre just to look cool,i'm sorry to disappoint you,but you are sadly mistaking...
I asked about 200 just out of technical reasons. I know it's bad and dumb, I just wanted to know HOW BAD, since I can get 2 200 tires at a very low cost.

Stop judging people so easily..

nath981

I got a few hundred miles on my new power pures: 190x55 on 5.5 inch rim. So far i like the feel and the turning, but too early for definite conclusions. Like tweety said, steeper profile. This is the first time ever that the chicken strips on the front are smaller than on the rear. There are three lines at the edge of the tires and the front is at the first line while the rear is 1/4" away from the first line. unbelievable!

Running 30lbs front and rear. It will be interesting to see if I get more or less than 4400 miles and how tire wear will affect the steep profile over time. Will report later.

relative to geometry, the bike is 14mm higher in the front and 6mm longer shock(equals 12-18mm at the wheel, plus 6mm taller tire. These numbers translate to 18-24mm up in the rear and 14mm up in the front, or 4-10mm lower front than OEM.

Tweety

I'm not judging you... You are judging you... Grow a hide...

It's been discussed about a hundred times that putting a 190 tire on a 5.5" rim is possible but marginal... So, since that knowledge is rather easy to find, its rather obvious that you have read some of it...

It does have defenite adverse effects in terms of wear pattern, and grip... Some manufacturers recommend it for track use where mileage isn't an issue, and the steep V shaped profile is actually a benefit, since you get a lot of rubber on the ground in leaned over corners...

So then, when we are discussing the adverse effects of the 190 tire, you ask about squeezing the wider 200 tire on there... And that should by defenition be an even worse idea... And then you are surprised to get a negative reply?!

If you think my answer was harsh, well... It was intended to be, to make it clear that it's potentially dangerous to ride a squeezed tire outside the track, since conditions change a lot more... If you dislike that, don't ask stupid questions... The old saying "there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers..." are only half right... the kind of questions where the answer is obvious, and you ask anyway hoping to get another answer that you like better, those are infact stupid...

insider

dude..you were making false accusations about my person, and if that is not judging, then i dont know what is. If you wanna make a point you can do it without putting labels on a person, without suggesting what they think is cool or jdging their reasons..
My bad cause i m retarded and couldn t find out that 'easy to find knowledge, lying around here", i would avoided your 'smart' answers..

Tweety

If you are calling that making accusations, you have just done the same thing to the same extent yourself... Just saying... And I happen to think that there is a significant difference between "I guess you, ..." and when you haven't got that part in there, but never mind... Seriously, if you take offence to that, you should probably move to the knitting forum, where granny will say nice things to you...

Yeah, it really is "your bad" or whatever, since all it would have required you to do was to read the full conversation that you posted in, you wouldn't even have needed to search for other threads...

Other than that, some things are beyond obvious, and if you still feel the need to ask that question, you have to accept that somebody will tell you that, in whatever language they choose... It's part of human interaction... You don't get to choose, I do... And it works the same way the other way, you choose when you reply...

Besides, you did get a very throughout explanation on why in pure technical terms it's a bad idea... But you make your own decisions...

Also, you get replies like you ask the question... Put the fact that you know it's a bad idea, and you can get them cheap in the first post, and ask for the technical breakdown that way, and it's more than likely you get another tone in the reply... But you could figure that out couldn'y you?

insider

you're the kind of person who loves to read his own bullshit...good luck with that , mate.

you can simply tell me that it's wrong and fucked up to mount a 200 tyre,not yack on and about the false reasons behind this,reasons which have jack **** to do with my person...

not all of us feel to substitute the lack of inches in ***** length with inches in tyre width..

nath981

this has turned downright ugly. Insider, because you could get 2 grossly oversize tires cheap, you were trying to find a way to justify mounting them. I would say that if you really want to try it, go for it and report back your perceptions. I'm sure others have done it but i don't know what they thought of it. If it doesn't work out, you can recoup your money since you're getting a good deal.

This kind of exchange serves no purpose and diminishes all of us.

insider

nath i agree with what you say, and i wasnt trying to justify to somebody my actions, I just explained the reasons so i don't get misjudged (which I did,in the end)..
anyways, no tyres or anything since I m typing with only one hand now, and no, i didn't crash with the bike

Tweety

Insider and myself worked it out in PM, so I'll put my apology here, in public...

Just a small note... If you try the 200, insider... Keep in mind that once mounted, the tire grows at speed, so if it's tight stationary, it's likely to rub while moving... And be careful getting the tire up to temp, it's probably easy to slide the rear out until the tire is heated up...