160/70 tires

[isaac]

So I'm lookin at tires and can get a great deal on an Avon Azaro, but it's only in 70 profile, not 60.

Is there anything wrong with that, or should I go for it?

Thanks!

[ovlovder]

Well, taller rear tire = taller gearing, if that matters to you.

[isaac]

Well, taller rear tire = taller gearing, if that matters to you.

I'm just asking about reduction in handling and swingarm clearance. The extra .1% gearing change I don't really care about.

[SMF]

if you're got the stock rim you shouldn't go bigger than a 160, the 170 will bulge and you'll actually lose contact patch. if you've got the vfr rear setup there are a few options:
1. vfr 5'' rim - 170 or 160 will fit. 160 is cheaper, but the tire may have a flatter profile. not sure.
2. vfr 5.5'' rim - 170 is the way to go, 180 won't clear the swingarm and 160's typically aren't meant to mount on a 5.5'' rim (at least not the ones i use).

of course all these things vary somewhat by tire manufacturer, but that's pretty much how it should go.

[ovlovder]

based on the 6% difference in section height, guessing, you'd be looking at at least 60mm (conservitively) or so longer rollout, it adds up quickly. Notably more then .1%

someone correct me if Im wrong.

[isaac]

based on the 6% difference in section height, guessing, you'd be looking at at least 60mm (conservitively) or so longer rollout, it adds up quickly. Notably more then .1%

someone correct me if Im wrong.

60mm is 2.35" taller tire.

160 x .70 = 112
160 x .60 = 96
the difference between those is 16mm
16mm x 2 = 32mm (height increase of the 70 profile tire)

3.2cm = 1.26" taller tire.

So yeah, it's gonna be notably more than my hyperbolous answer, but not as much as your conservative guess.

What I'm mostly worried about is how that extra .63" of sidewall at either side of the tire is gonna adversely affect handling response and be too loose and uncommunicative.

[NT696]

2. vfr 5.5'' rim - 170 is the way to go, 180 won't clear the swingarm and 160's typically aren't meant to mount on a 5.5'' rim (at least not the ones i use).

180/55 tires will clear the swingarm - almost.

Dunlop 208's on a VFR 5.5" 5-spoke rim: (looking down at the ground)

The swingarm needed just a little bit of assistance fron a half-round file to give some running clearance. Not significantly weaker, as the casting is at least 1/4" thick there.

The 180 rear is just for looks, not needed by a bike this size.
Scott is right, different manufacturers vary in size away from the theoretical numbers. A Dunlop 180 may actually measure 175 to 185 across the outer edges.

[slo1]

The pilot road 70 series had too much side wall and the tread doesn't wrap around enough. When running on the Kart track I actually ended up riding on the side wall, which does not provide much traction (Canyonchaser can verify this ). Switched to the 60 series (014's) and problem solved.

dale

[canyonchaser]

The pilot road 70 series had too much side wall and the tread doesn't wrap around enough. When running on the Kart track I actually ended up riding on the side wall, which does not provide much traction (Canyonchaser can verify this ). Switched to the 60 series (014's) and problem solved.

dale

Truer words have never been spoken! Definately get the 70 series rear tire.

dp

[slo1]

The pilot road 70 series had too much side wall and the tread doesn't wrap around enough. When running on the Kart track I actually ended up riding on the side wall, which does not provide much traction (Canyonchaser can verify this ). Switched to the 60 series (014's) and problem solved.

dale

Truer words have never been spoken! Definately get the 70 series rear tire.

dp

He meant 60

dale

[LeftRightLeftThrottle]

I have a set of Pilot Roads, great tire for commuting and touring twisties, great wet traction. I have a 160/60 on the back and for some reason a 110/70 on the front.

[ovlovder]

based on the 6% difference in section height, guessing, you'd be looking at at least 60mm (conservitively) or so longer rollout, it adds up quickly. Notably more then .1%

someone correct me if Im wrong.

60mm is 2.35" taller tire.

160 x .70 = 112
160 x .60 = 96
the difference between those is 16mm
16mm x 2 = 32mm (height increase of the 70 profile tire)

3.2cm = 1.26" taller tire.

So yeah, it's gonna be notably more than my hyperbolous answer, but not as much as your conservative guess.

What I'm mostly worried about is how that extra .63" of sidewall at either side of the tire is gonna adversely affect handling response and be too loose and uncommunicative.

Really my idea is not to offend or argue, I feel misunderstood, the 60mm or more is roll out or circumference, not height, I agree with you and your math, mine looks about the same. 32mm of height should be around 100mm of rollout.

Understanding your interest is not about gearing changes, I feel these posts are for everyones good and that possibly in the future someone searching the forum may find the information useful.

I guess also of note is that almost 2/3" height increase to the rear end will quicken the steering slightly.

[canyonchaser]

I stand corrected.

You want a 160/60 as opposed to a 150/70.

Dale rode his 150/70 to the sidewalls (actually scuffed the words Michelin on the sidewalls) during a track day (I was an eye witness to the event).

While my 160/60 had "chicken strips" still on the sides.

Both Michelin Pilot Powers BTW - so same tire, just two different sizes. Just looking at them back to back, its quite amazing the difference.

dp