nath981

You're right, 28 is too low for the rear. I always push down on the tires before I ride and i get too much flex on the rear at 28lbs. Sometimes I don't learn fast. haha. I jumped it up to 34lbs cold and much better. 34 turns into 38-40 pretty quickly when warmed up and so I'm feeling happy with that for now. I've been running 28-30psi front and when I push down, it's hard, and it's showing relatively little wear at 3500 miles, and it grips well despite heavy trail braking(so far that is, haha). Must be the comparatively narrow rim/tread. Dunlop Q2s.

Please measure your pure across the tread arc and let me know mms if you get time. thanx.

Tweety

Well... Next time I'm wrenching I will do that... Right now though I'm having to much fun playing... I think I finally have my bike dialed in to where I want it...

nath981

dialed in for sure, and those light tires have to be a major attribute to the equation. hey, don't go to any trouble, just put a rule across the rear tire and let me know the mm when you get a minute.

relative to tire companies, i believe trying to get the compound info is like trying to get the cook to reveal her best recipies. Who knows what the hell they're puttin in these things except the cooks in the kitchen and the engineers specifying the mix.

My feelings are that when they say medium compound, it is not a constant among various models, but a relative designation for public consumption only. I don't believe that they want to commit to saying a street sport tire has a hard compound(as they do for race tires) for liability reasons. At least if we had all the specs/dimensions, we could draw more perceptive conclusions to help us figure out what's going on a little better before buying.

Oversimplification: In terms of pressure, I believe pressure recommendations are largely based on load ratings (in relation to speed and other forces of course), i.e., potential weight of bike, rider, passenger, and cargo, and i'm at 175 and these load ratings far surpass my combined weight. Therefore, manufacturer recommendations error on the side of overinflation. I start from the other end of the spectrum and therefore tend to error on the side of less pressure. The tires function as components of the suspension in that they absorb road imperfections/irregularities, and thus can improve grip, help stabilize suspension, reduce vibrations, and improve comfort/ride quality, or with too much pressure the opposites of these.

What i've learned thus far with the Q2s, is that 28-30 is plenty for the front and 32-34 is good for the rear. You are right that 28 for the rear is a little too low for the street, and it took me longer than it should have to realize that, but at least it handled great and rode smoothly. Hahaha. On hot days, the lighter pressures and for cold days the higher and for real cold a couple higher yet. that's my story anyway.

VTRsurfer

I just got a pair of Bridgestone BT 016's yesterday, and I thought I'd post my impressions so far. This is after 2+ runs (I did my favorite part 4 times) on my favorite canyon road, and a total of 204 miles.

I've been running Qualifiers (1st generation) for the last 34,000 miles...5 rears, 3 fronts. My old front was really badly worn (triangle effect) for good cornering, so I know anything would have been a huge improvement, and I've always noticed much better handling with new front and rear installed at the same time. Even still, what I noticed right away was much quicker tip-in when cornering, and easier mid corner corrections for rocks, etc. I also felt more confident at maximum (for me) lean than with the 1st generation Qualifiers. I realize the Q2's probably have similar characteristics with the steeper tread profile, but they're a little more pricey.

I measured the width of my old Qualifier rear, and the BT 016 is the same width, 7 13/32".

The only downside is slight roughness cruising on straightline pavement at 40 to 50 or so mph. I'm sure this is due to the BT 016 having a steel belt versus the Qualifier's fabric belt. That also accounts for the Qualifier's lighter weight.

One thing I do know is that I'll never try to stretch 1 front to 2 rears again. It just doesn't pay off when it comes to fun factor.

colinlinz

I haven't used Dunlop for a long time. I've used mainly Michelin's over the last decade or so. Mainly Hisports early on, then the Pilot Powers when they came onto the market. I then changed to a sports/touring tyre, the Bridgestone BT020's. I hated them. The feedback just wasn't what I like. As for traction, they weren't too bad on the road, but overheated badly on the track. Then I went to Pirelli Diablo's. I've been very happy with them, but they are in need of replacing now. I'm thinking of trying the Dunlop Q2's, it sounds like they have solved the inconsistent production problems they had with the older Qualifiers.

nath981

what is the measurement if you lay the rule on the tread from edge to edge including the arc?

If you're running max pressure, it will be rough.

VTRsurfer

Nath, I'll check it in the morning. But the BT 016 has an installed profile much steeper than the 1st gen Qualifier (as does the Q2). It really does instill confidence, knowing that you have a wider contact patch at full lean.

And I'm running 38 in the rear. I ran 35 in my rear Qualifier, installed last November, and I didn't notice any difference canyon riding. But that was Winter (yes we do have Winter here in SoCal, daytime highs can get into the low 50's). There's no problem getting the tire warmed up quickly this time of year. It was over 100 for my new tire break-in runs yesterday and today. I had much more fun after washing the tire mounting lube off this morning though. Yesterdays break-in canyon run was straight from the dealer...easy does it.

nath981

thanks VTR. All i'm trying to do is find out what's going on with these tires in terms of tread width of arc and I'm not having much luck so far.

1)180x55 BTO-14 is approx. 220mm
2)present Q2 180x55 is approx 240mm
3)and previous 190x50 BTO16 was about 240mm also.

relative to the above, #1 was or is the norm, #3 is understandably wider, but #2 is a bit baffling to me because it's as wide as the 190 BTO-16. Is the Q2(i.e., extra wide steeper arc the new standard for all the sport tires or is the Q2 an anomoly?

By the way, did you weigh your rear BTO? Is it a 180?

I did finally figure out that 28psi for the rear was a little to low for the BTO and the present Q2. Jumped it up to 36 and found that to be too much for my tastes, now at 32-34 cold, depending on how hot it is when I take off.

VTRsurfer

Mine's a 180. I measured the tread arc, and as close as I can get it, it's 9 1/16". As I'm sure you know 180 is the section width in mm, measured when installed on the correct size rim, and it seems to vary slightly from manufacturer to manufacturer even on automotive tires. The actual tread "width", measuring across the surface of the tread, will of course vary depending on the steepness of the arc. The Q2 does appear to have a steeper arc to me. But the BT 016 has a steeper arc than the 1st generation Qualifier. A good compromise for my liking, since I don't ride on the track.

seanvtr

i think youl find i get to the edge if you look closely, i just dont open the throttle til i tart to pick her up

back last 600 miles and front last 700, which is why i have bought the vtr..... steady me up a little, pluss i hang off like a focused baboon so dont need to put her on her side

nath981

thanks for the measurement VTR.

9 1/16" is approx. 230 mm, which is interesting. It's looks like the old version of the 180x55 has been replaced by a newer version with a steeper arc, thus the difference from 220mm to 230mm. The Q2 being one exception so far being 240mm for a 180x55.

I'm getting to the end of my Q2(4000mi so far) and I still have a 1/4" chicken strip. So far it's been grippy with good feedback. I'm still trying to get Tweety to measure his power pure to see if it concurs with your BT0-16 or follows the Q2 route.

thanks again, nathan

you didn't weigh or know the weight of your BTO-16 I'm assuming?

Travelinguy1960

----
Late to the party, but maybe a useful update.
I am running Pilot Pure's.
Love them, keep them at 36/42 in cold Seattle and I weigh 155.
As far as wear, great at 3000 so far, but these are radials and you still have to have enough air in the tire to force the middle out. It is the farthest from the center of the rim and eats psi causing middle wear.
I know the fad is to run them soft and squishy, but physics demands some serious psi or they will burn up.
Nevertheless, all new radials today last minimum 1500 miles longer than the standard ply tires available in say 1979.
Best,
Gunny

nath981

you may be correct, but 36/42 seems a bit much in light of how much pressure increases when the tire heat heat up, e.g., 40/46, and in light of michelin's own info presented in the chart linked below. I have to take issue with the notion of a fad thing since I have done my own homework and believe that others have done likewise. That said, I am admittedly more interested in feel and traction than mileage, albeit it wouldn't break my heart to have them last longer.

I believe the 36/42 thing is more a bike manufacturer "cover-your-***" type thing, one which the tire manufacturers are reluctant to openly contest.


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

wsharpman