190 tire ???
mec...@juno.com
what are the pros and cons in running a 190 size MEtzeler MEZ-1
on a 5.5 inch wheel , the bike is a ZX-9R. Original equipment was 180
need some feedback.
thanks
AZRAEL
Jeff Sussna
mec...@juno.com wrote:
The bike will turn a little slower. For the street you don't need it. I
switched from the stock 190 on my 916 to a 180 and it made the bike turn
a lot quicker with no loss of traction.
Jeff Sussna
MoMoMork
>what are the pros and cons in running a 190 size MEtzeler MEZ-1
>on a 5.5 inch wheel , the bike is a ZX-9R. Original equipment was 180 need
some feedback.
A 190 is designed for a 6" rim. If you put it on a 5.5" rim it will pull in the
sides slightly and change the profile from what the engineers designed. You
will end up with less contact patch when leaned over. More contact patch while
straight up and down. I would rather have it the other way around. Stay with a
180.
Brian Mork
ex AFM #254 (86,93,96 GSXR 750's)
street Hawk nt650 (80K and still going... :) )
Wayloud
Not much. With a ZX9 you might find a little less cornering. Bigger tires
are for big horsepower bikes. You need the big footprint to grab the ground
so you don't always smoke the tires. If 180's came on it leave em on.
Gorf
GSJCB1
[You Wrote]
<<<I switched from the stock 190 on my 916 to a 180 and it made the bike turn
a lot quicker with no loss of traction.>>>
The reason the 180 made your 916 work better, is because the bike comes fitted
with a 5.5" wide rear wheel from the factory. This size wheel *is* designed to
use a 180 sized rear tire. I never could figure any logical reason why Ducati
was fitting this bike with a 190 sized rear tire from the factory. My only
assumption, is that they were doing it for the sales value of advertising the
bike as having the same sized "big fat rear tire", as some of their competitors
bikes (bike's that DO have a 6.0" rear rim fitted accordingly). This is a rare
situation where switching to a different sized tire, than the one that
originally came on the bike from the factory, is actually a GOOD decision.
Best regards, Gary ("The Deerhunter 2")
Benjamin Justin Cain
mec...@juno.com wrote:
: what are the pros and cons in running a 190 size MEtzeler MEZ-1
: on a 5.5 inch wheel , the bike is a ZX-9R. Original equipment was 180
: need some feedback.
--
Ben Cain : Biker Scum - Yellowshirt Brigade #514
AMA HRCA TMGP CMRA/WERA DoD # 1/137 KoK3
1990 VFR750F "Deal's Gimp"
1989 YSR50/3 TMGP Endurance #49
1988 Ninja 600 CMRA Endurance #46
http://www.users.cts.com/king/d/drlubell/bscum.html
"So basically if we hit turn one wide open, we oughtta be ok. Right?"
- BS Nathan, waxing philosophical at Texas World Speedway -
Mr. Paul
I have a 5.5 on my GSXR and running a 190 with it as well. After it wears
down, i will switch back to a 180. Its difficult when i went up to the
canyons for tha past few weeks, and have been dead last in our group.
I can't get as much lean as I had before as the 190 tends to flatten out
when you use the 5.5.
If you just like the 190 for around town, and just like the "FAT" rear end
look. Then go for it, but if you frequent canyons. Stick with the 180.
Sic,
Paul
Ken Russell
Jeff Sussna wrote in message <3508E7CE...@kuantech.com>...
>mec...@juno.com wrote:
>
>> what are the pros and cons in running a 190 size MEtzeler MEZ-1
>> on a 5.5 inch wheel , the bike is a ZX-9R. Original equipment was 180
>> need some feedback.
>>
>
>switched from the stock 190 on my 916 to a 180 and it made the bike
turn
>a lot quicker with no loss of traction.
For the ignorant: what width wheel does a 916 have - 5.5" or 6"? When
you changed tires you kept your original wheel, right?
Ken Russell
MoMoMork wrote in message
<19980313080...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>>what are the pros and cons in running a 190 size MEtzeler MEZ-1
>>on a 5.5 inch wheel , the bike is a ZX-9R. Original equipment was 180
need
>some feedback.
>
pull in the
>sides slightly and change the profile from what the engineers designed.
You
>will end up with less contact patch when leaned over. More contact
patch while
>straight up and down. I would rather have it the other way around. Stay
with a
>180.
I beg to differ. If the sides are pulled in more it would have a more
triangular profile giving a bigger contact patch when leaned over & less
when running straight.
GSJCB1
Ken Wrote:
<<<For the ignorant: what width wheel does a 916 have - 5.5" or 6"? When
you changed tires you kept your original wheel, right?>>>
Ducati was "trying to keep up with the Jones'", when they installed a 190
sized rear tire from the factory, on their 916's. The stock 916 only has a
5.5" wide rear wheel, and as such is intended to fit nothing bigger than a 180
sized rear tire. The use of the 190 is more for "show" than for "go", in this
case, and changing from the factory mounted tire size, back to a 180, will only
tend to improve the bike's overall performance (which is pretty darn impressive
to start with, from my personal experience of riding my friend's on Mine's
road).
Happy riding....... Gary
MoMoMork
>I beg to differ. If the sides are pulled in more it would have a more
triangular profile giving a bigger contact patch when leaned over & less when
running straight.
This is what I was told by Dunlop Sportire services several years ago when
people were running 160's on 4.5" GSXR rims (86-87). I guess Dunlop was wrong.
GSJCB1
I have to agree with Brian, on his original concept on what changes occur in
the tire's characteristics, when fitted to a too narrow rim. In the most
recent conflictin statement, that proposed the idea that the narrow rim will
cause the tire to have *more* contact patch when leaned over, and less when
upright, assumes that the tire will simply fold at the center of the tread,
when the beads are pulled inward, thereby resulting in a more triangulated tire
profile at the center.
Based upon what I've seen in actual practice, with tire's that have been
mounted on excessively narrow rims, I have to disagree with this concept. In
actual practice, due to the fact that the carcass of the tire, across the tread
area, is fairly stiff (partially due to it's numerous layers of "belting");
when the sidewalls are pulled inward to match the rim width, the main tread
surface area doesn't really change it's contour all that much (though it will
slightly). Therefore the majority of the deflection occurs with the very edges
of the tires pulling inward, causing the last 1/2" of tread on the sides to be
more vertical, as a result. This pulled inward edge of the tread, makes for a
bike that's less stable at maximum lean, and has less actual contact patch area
at these angles, as well. To prove or disprove this concept, if you ever have
a new tire in your hands, try pulling the bead area inward slightly (about 1")
from it's relaxed position, while observing the effects on the tire's tread
surface. I believe that you will then see the "lion's share" of the bending,
occuring at the outer edges of the tire.
The Dunlop tire Reps. statement (that Brian referenced) is pretty good
supportive evidence that this philosophy on the tire's change in character,
when subjected to narrow rim widths, is most likely accurate.
Dgrisez
>
>>I beg to differ. If the sides are pulled in more it would have a more
>triangular profile giving a bigger contact patch when leaned over & less when
>running straight.
>
>This is what I was told by Dunlop Sportire services several years ago when
>people were running 160's on 4.5" GSXR rims (86-87).
I've got said bike, with said dunlops (sportmax I), but 170's. My "middle
third" is indeed close to the original profile. The outer thirds are about
straight up, looking like a truck tyre! This gives a ride akin to falling off
a wall when turning in, and very little patch to accelerate on. I'd guess that
the hard arc "reinforces" that little shoulder, letting it flex less. It's
unstable in sweepers and slides way too easily for me. I'll be replacing with
bias ply (metzelers most likely). Oddly, my dealer suggests that 160 size
also!
Dgrisez
>>This is what I was told by Dunlop Sportire services several years ago when
>>people were running 160's on 4.5" GSXR rims (86-87).
>
>I've got said bike, with said dunlops (sportmax I), but 170's.
I suck. I just looked at my bike. It's a 160, not a 170 on the rear. My
dealer recommended the 150's as max fitment. Still handles like an 85mph
pushbike thru the turns, though.
Dennis
Aaron Ladd
A 916 has a 6 inch wide rim.
GSJCB1
Your Wrote:
<<<A 916 has a 6 inch wide rim.>>>
I can't say that I have actually looked at the wheel on a brand new *1998*
model 916, but every year up to this has come equipped with only a 5.5" wide
rear wheel, (I'm positive of that, as I've actually read the numbers off the
wheel, on several occassions)
Have a look at the size numbers (5.5 x 17) cast into the rear wheel on the
next 916 that you actually have a chance to see parked. Then get back to the
newsgroup and report your findings. I think you'll be surprised.
Regards, Gary
Samuel Olampi
Jeff Sussna wrote:
> The bike will turn a little slower. For the street you don't need it. I
> switched from the stock 190 on my 916 to a 180 and it made the bike turn
> a lot quicker with no loss of traction.
By the way, 748s come stock with a 180x55 + 120x60 combo that
make them real flickable.
The 60 up front do make a difference.
Unfortunately, the 60 is only safe on a light bike. Don't try it
on a big-fat bike.
--
-- Sam ( Samuel...@cindy.cma.fr )
Toshiya Fukagawa
Ken Russell wrote in message <6efg4v$cei$1...@toto.tig.com.au>...
>For the ignorant: what width wheel does a 916 have - 5.5" or 6"? When
>you changed tires you kept your original wheel, right?
916 has 5.5" rim but equipped with 190 tire