insider

once my hand will heal & my leg, i ll test the tyre and provide some input as to how bad it is with running a 200 :P
I d like to apologize as well to tweety & other members for my offensive attitude :*

nath981

awesome! I'm glad it has all worked out in an amiable manner. This shows that we have some very good people riding superhawks and this makes me proud to be a member.

stormingjoe

Hi guys, on my Storm (Hawk) I have 120/60 front, on the road turns quick and light plenty of grip and feel(using standard fork settings as apposed to dropped forks with the 120/70), done a track day and was fine until obtaining a good speed when the feeling from the front started to get vague and understeering quite badly, so ok for road not so hot on track(will be fitting 120/70 again and drop forks3 mill), also on the rear I have a 190/55 the reason for this was because I was running out of lean on 180/55(falling off the edge resulting in a low slide!), now destroys the hero blobs(now shorter)with a good half inch of tyre left, seems to help with turn in and had a very slight increase in speedo accruacy(checked using satnav), rubs on the chain guard though. If you do go too extremes with the rear too high and dropping forks too low the front tyre will be overloaded thats what I think happened with 120/60 and will still apply to the 120/70 if too extreme.

nath981

welcome stormingjoe! interesting comment because i was thinking of the 120/60 but stayed with the 70 because of the added height and the obvious advantages of bump absorption. I am having the same experiences with the 190/55 in terms of the chicken strips on the rear. The front is closer to the edge than it was with the 180/55. I agree with your perceptions relative to the 190. I have removed the chain guard so no rubbing. Also, you can raise the front level with the fork tops to alleviate 120/60 issues in terms of adversely affecting the geometry.

nath981

update: so far i like the feeling of the 190x55 power pure in terms of stability at lean. Chicken strips on rear are nearing first indicator line(i.e., not the one at the tire edge;1/8" away) and are at that line on the front tire.
So, with the same lean angle as with the 180, the 190 has half inch of tire edge left, albeit at a steeper angle.

prognosis: my theory is that the 190 on a 5.5" rim will wear longer and better than the 180. Longer because of less revolutions of course; better is still to be determined. If my theory is correct, as the tire wears, I'll be able to get closer to the tire edge and still have greater contact patch than with the 180. Might just be mindless conjecture, otherwise known as hogwash. Too early to tell for sure, but time and miles will hopefully reveal.

still running the same roads with 28-30psi cold(as with the 180) which should result in a fairly accurate comparisons.

nath981

forget about it! This is a waste in terms of most manufacturers like michelin and bridgestone, the exception being Dunlop. Steep sides at the edges are exacerbated when mounted on a 5.5". The other issue is that there seems to be more stressors placed on the front tire where you end up closer to the edges than the rear. It's an imbalance in terms of what i have learned to be normal patterns over the years and this didn't occur when the rear tire was a Power Pure 180x55 on a 5.5" rim.


That said, a lot of the front tire side was used when mounted with the 180 for sure, but never greater than the rear. With the 180, the front tire had a similar chicken strip as with the 190, whereas the 180 rear had none. Also, i hadn't experienced the front tire at its limits as much as with the 190x55 on a 5.5" rim. It felt like the front tire was working harder to maintain grip and it slipped easier when letting off the front brake and adding throttle at lean, and i don't mean ham-fisted either. The balance and stability of the front that was evident with the 180 was noticeably diminished when paired with the 190. Maybe the front started to crown earlier, but can't say for sure because I didn't record miles and wear.



180X55:



FRONT WITH 180:




190X55:



FRONT WITH 190:

nath981

I feel like I should add my latest experiences some of which have been addressed in below thread. Please ignore if you've heard this elsewhere.

https://www.superhawkforum.com/forum...ar-tire-26758/

Background:
Loved the power pure 180x55 and thought i would try the 190 on my 5.5" rim. Put 4000 +miles on them and experimented with low, middle and max pressures, forks from 10+ to 10-, rebound front and rear, shim rear shock, etc., and basically everything i could think of to make them feel planted. No freakin way anything worked. The front as you can see in the pics that the front chicken strip was smaller than the rear(a first in 40+years of riding). Finally took them off before I saw threads because i just had it with them.

The front tire slid on me several times and a couple of them flat puckered me up. I felt that there was an inordinate amt of stress on the front tire based on the steep edged rear and wouldn't recommend this configuration to anyone, not even to someone i hate. A failed experiment, but I did learn some significant things.

In the process of trying to get these tires to work, i learned that i could improve things a bit by altering suspension and geometry and still carry fairly good speed in turns despite the mismatch.

geometry:
front lowered 10mm.
rear raised 3mm via shim, 6mm longer f4I shock courtesy of JD, and additional tire height of the 190x55(approx 12mm) or a total of 21mm up on the *** end(21mm shim under side stand sits about right). @links removed from chain shortens wheelbase and changes leverage accord to tweety and JD.

suspension:
sprung for my weight, and preload ended up at full light front and rear. The other thing I learned with the bigger rear tire was to increase the rebound both front and rear, possibly due to increased leverage of swingarm? Increasing rebound made a huge difference in stability over undulating bumps during lean at speed.

The above changes i've carried over to the present tire, a 190X55 Q2 on 5.5"rim, and they feel perfect. So as things turned out, not a complete waste.

So, based on the above experiences, i would strongly recommend the 190x55 Q2 on a 5.5" rim; I would not recommend either the michelin or the bridgestone(not as steep sided, but still nothing close to the stabiility of the Q2).

I believe that anyone interested in a tire that feels stable and surefooted in turns should not hesitate to purchase a 190x55, or the 50, Q2 for their 5.5" rim because this is now my all time favorite tire. Ride this tire 500 miles and tell me if you feel the same. For those with a 6" rim, i believe a 200 Q2 might be in order.














.

Fozzy Bear

Yer chain needs some lube.....

nath981

think it looks pretty dry, huh? i alternate dupont teflon chain lube and silicone applied to warm chain. I figure that chains are o-ring sealed internally lubed and I just apply a little light external lube for the o-rings, sprocket teeth and rollers.

nath981

2500+ miles so far........ and i wanted to add that the Dunlop Q2 190x55 on 5.5" 0EM size rim is the best tire I've experienced so far. I love the michelin power pure 180/55 better than the 180 Q2, but this 190 Q2 flat rocks...that is, it provides a serious contact patch with a little room at the edges for extra lean if needed(earlier post pic), and a very planted, confidence-inspiring neutral feel on many and varied road surfaces and conditions.

Of course, the Q2 190x55 tire changes geometry as it lifts the ***-end up a 1/2", but if you want to stay the same rear height, the 190x50 Q2 would be a better choice. That said, you really can't depend on tire manufacturers' adherence to standard sizes anyway. For example, the Q2 rear is said to be shorter and the front is a bit taller than some other major brands, but I haven't confirmed this yet.

In terms of affecting geometry, the tire is only one of many factors, some of which i hadn't been aware of. Paul Thede of Race Tech pointed out some things in his "suspension bible".

Changes that increase rear anti-squat or maybe what tweety and JD refer to as leverage:

1. raise the rear end(increase the swingarm angle) with adjustable rear shocks or frame ride height adjusters or lengthen the shock internally.
2. smaller countershaft sprocket and/or larger rear sprocket-note that these can also affect swingarm length in terms of effect.
3. shorten effective swingarm length by cutting chain to move adjuster forward.
4. raise front end ride height-note that this also affects rake and trail.
5. smaller rear tire has miniscule effect.

My hawk's geometry, which is narrowly focused to suit riding preferences and is probably one of the most radical I know of on this forum. This is not to say it is better or worse, just different. It has evolved from things i read here and elsewhere as well as through personal experimenting. It works pretty well for me so far and naturally it's a work in progress.

10mm lower front, 21mm higher rear(+26 to 27mm actual at the tire acc to tweety) is really only part of the geometry story as i learned from Thede's statements above. The shortened 520 chain(-2 links) on a smaller front(15 tooth) and bigger rear(44 tooth) have not only changed gearing, but apparently have altered geometry relative to chain and swingarm angles and thus affects rear anti-squat. There are many other variables as well.

The point of bringing this up is that, like the allchaos post above, unless you have a GMD computrack to get you close, once you start changing ****, including even sprockets and chain size/length, you have stepped into a trial-and error mode, and unless you are willing to see it through, it can quickly get out of hand.