posted February 21, 2002 12:38 AM
Ping : Redelk Hi Redelk,
need your opinion about tyres on the 12.
you've put a 180/55 on rear and a 120/55 on front, is it a good choice ??? you won't regret it ??? (not too small)
grip, longevity, handling, Prefered Brand ???
I know some users put a 190 tyre (busa) but i'm interressed by the 180 size.
I'm a careful rider,rode under all weathers, and far distances. sometimes i love to play with twisties...but not all the times...my first priorities are security, longevity after grip and handling
Thx for your feedback...
Moderator
Please... speak to the hand.
Posts: 3212
posted February 21, 2002 10:40 AM
Hand me that rubber, will ya? I've tried the 200/50, 190/50 and 180/55 on the rear, as well as a 120/70, 120/60 and the 120/65 up front. Being as slow as I am and never having drug a knee puck (the only way mine get scuffed is when I check tire pressure), I'm not too sure I'd be the best source of information on this. STILL, as everyone knows... I DO HAVE OPINIONS!
and here they are...
For the rear, my choice is the 180/55... hands down. Depending on the brand (I use Pilot Sports), the 180/55 is very close to the 200/50 in all measurements with the exception of width. The 190/50 has similar widths to the 200/50, but in many cases is shorter in height.
IMHO, the 180/55 turns in substancially quicker and gives the bike a lighter feel. The nice part is that I actually get BETTER mileage out of the 180 then I did out of the 200. That's when comparing 180 Pilot vs. 200 Pilot. The difference is a mere one or two hundred miles, but either one did better then the Dunlop D207 by over 300~500 miles!
The front was where the REAL LESSONS were learned! MY GAWD! The 120/60 used to be the tire of choice for the "serious" road racer. At one time, the 120/60 was even OEM on some sportbikes. THe key phrase here is "USED TO BE". Many club racers have gone back to the 120/70 and a few are using the 120/65.
The 120/60 makes the bike WAY TOO twitchy. In some aspects, it feels as if ANY input is TOO MUCH! I spent more time "correcting" then I did in actually "steering". I'd be hard pressed to put a 120/60 back on my bike if it was the only tire my dealer had. I'd almost rather wait for a 120/65 or 120/70, then ride with a tire that made me so nervous. I'm not familiar with a 120/55, but I'd would thing that such a small tire would be suicidal.
I am torn between the 120/65 and the 120/70. With the 120/70, I raised my forks a 1/2" in the triple clamp. I moved them back down for the 120/60 and 120/65. Now that I have changed the oil in my forks, I moved them back up while still running the 120/65. I'm not sure of why I appreciate this configuration. Is it because of the tire, the fork location or the fresh oil?
This is the rub of tire sizes and even tire brands. A 120/70 is not exactly the same size when they are from different manufacturers. The same applies to rear tires. When ever someone changes brands of tires, one really needs to re-evaluate all their suspension setting. This becomes even more important when change tire sizes.
For many of use, the "quest" for that "perfect" suspension setting is endless. After two years, I'm still looking. When changing tire brands and especially tire sizes, your right back at "square one". IMHO, the suspension settings can make or break one's opinion of a tire's performance. The same could be equally said for the simple aspect of tire pressure.
So.... it boils down to that in the twisty back roads, I prefer the 180/55 on back and I'll NEVER run another 200/50. I'm not so sure about the front tire. I might run another 120/65, because of the changes in my fork oil and the forks position in the triple clamp. Still, odds are that I'll most likely be going back to a 120/70.
With so many variables involved (tire brand, air pressure, suspension settings and so on), which front size is best will always be debatable. I do feel that anything smaller then a 120/65 would be way too much for the overall geometery of the bike's frame and suspention to deal with. I just don't think that it can be adjusted enough to get the full potential out of such a small front tire.
Of course, that's just my opinion. What the hell do I know? Well, I better go out and do some more tire pressure checkin'. I hope the concrete is that rough type. It scuffs the knee pucks a lot better, you know?
____________
There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.
-Ernest Hemingway
Needs a life
Full throttle!
Posts: One MEEEEEELLION
posted February 21, 2002 11:39 AM
Here's my thoughts:
The 180/55 is a great size on the 12. Traction is not a problem, even with 195 hp at the back tire. The turn in is just so much quicker with the narrow tire. With regard to 120/60 - 120/65 - 120/70, I don't think I understand how a 120/60 makes the bike feel twitchier, but I'll take RedElk's word for it. The 120/60 has a lower sidewall aspect than the 120/70, right? So the 120/70, when leaned over, is putting more rubber on the ground than a 120/60, if I'm thinking correctly. I think I'll stick with the 120/70.
Moderator
Please... speak to the hand.
Posts: 3212
posted February 21, 2002 01:51 PM
I guess I need to "clarify"... I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK I'M TALKIN' ABOUT! In other words, when compared to more competent riders, I hardly have any room to be talkin' about taking a tire to IT'S performance edge. That's probably because my "edge" arrives a lot soon then that of the tire's!
Actually, "TWITCHY" might not be a good choice of words to describe the 120/60's feedback. I guess it could be compared to a motorcycle video game. When playing the game on a slow computer, one could have great lap times and win many races. Play the same game on a faster, more powerful computer and one would spend the majority of the race turning into guardrails.
The slight inputs on the slower computer would have little to no effect on the bike in the game. Now, with the faster computer, it would seem that if you just exhaled, the bike would go flying off the track. THat's the way it felt with the 120/60.
Since I'm just about as good at computer games as I am at riding, I hated it. Yeah, it responded to input a lot quicker and with a lot less effort. It also responded to input that would not have been noticed or had any effect on the bike's direction, using a 120/70. It was as if it was responding BEFORE I had even done any form of input.
A CMRA racer rode my 12R while it had the 120/60 on it. He gave what at first, I thought was a "compliment". He said that my 12R handled similar to his GSXR 750 race bike. I thought that was great, until he said that it also required as much work to ride at speed as his race bike.
Handling charistics like that might be great for a sprint race at the track, but for a day of riding the back highways, I feel that one doesn't need to be blindly focused on how to approach EVERY corner. When it comes to "perfect & exact" handling, it's often at the expense of it's ability to "forgive" a "not so perfect" input. That's just way too much work for a slow fat ass like myself.
Is the 120/60 the "perfect" tire for race track-like performance. IMHO... no. Anything one could do with a 120/60, could be easily matched with a 120/65 or 120/70. Just like there is no "perfect" suspension setting that works in EVERY enviroment, the same would apply to tires. The frustrating part is that the two are so intertwined that no matter how great your tires are, if the suspension isn't set to take advantage of it, it's just a waste. The same could be said for the opposite, just as easily!
Swft, I'm going to e-mail ya a suspension question later. I've already "done it" and am too embarassed (for now) to talk about it on the board. After all, if I screwed up, I'd rather "admit it" after I know what I did wrong! That is if I REALLY did something that is "wrong"! For those that really gotta know, it's about fork oil weights.
____________
There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.
-Ernest Hemingway
Needs a job
as a Deal's Gap tour guide.
Posts: 4767
posted February 21, 2002 05:08 PM
Edited By: Ninjaman12R on 21 Feb 2002 17:09
You Bastards......... You guys are going to have me buying a 180/55 just to see what it's all about.
I really like the way my bike turns in with the 010s, but will admit that it took more effort with the 207s. I think that a lot of it had to do with the profile of the front tire. I think the 010 has a more triangular profile. As far as the rears go, I haven't a clue. All I know is my bike works well with the suspension set up like it is, and using the 010 tires.
Here are my suspension settings: (Note that I'm a member of team lardass weighing in at a ready 275 )
Rear Spring Preload: increased 1.5 turns over stock
Rear Compression Dampening: 5 clicks back from full on
Rear Rebound Dampening: 6 clicks back from full on
Front Spring Preload: 2 rings showing
Front Compression Dampening 2 clicks back from full on
Front Rebound Dampening: 1 click back from full on
The bike works great and even on shit rear tire (changed it yesterday) on cold asphalt I was scrubbing the hell out of the sides of my boot soles with nary a bobble. Turns in pretty neutral and holds its' line well (damper may help here some) and reacts to mid corner changes well. I'm not eboz by anyones standards, but I've rubbed the pegs on my 12 several times(protekks, slash cut) and used all the front and rear tire had, no strips. I think that's decent handling for a big heavy bike with an even bigger Kentucky fried chicken eatin' MF on it. BUT, would the 180/55 make it even better???????? I'd also like to add that since I went to a full system the weight loss had a VERY positive affect on the handling. We all know this I know, but I'm having to use even less effort to turn in now. I haven't rode it with the new rear tire yet, I know it will be even better. The old one was toast,.........with a capital T. ____________
What we're dealin' with here is a complete lack of respect for the law.
HOME
NEW TOPIC
posted February 21, 2002 12:38 AM
posted February 21, 2002 10:40 AM
posted February 21, 2002 11:39 AM
The 120/60 has a lower sidewall aspect than the 120/70, right? So the 120/70, when leaned over, is putting more rubber on the ground than a 120/60, if I'm thinking correctly. I think I'll stick with the 120/70.
posted February 21, 2002 01:51 PM
posted February 21, 2002 05:08 PM
Edited By: 
)