M109 Rider Forums banner

1 - 20 of 38 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I 've been reading many discussions about puting 160/60 tire on the front, but I don't like the look with too fat tire on the front and also don't like the idea of riding with rear tire no matter is it reversed or not. I think there is a reason for that being a rear tire, and why there is not that size for front tire on 18''. Ok I understand that it could be more comfortable because it is fat , but regarding performance and handling, why all other bikes which are made for curves doesn't have fat tires?
I would like to put stock size on front but it looks that Metz doesn't have that size marked with V, so I am thinking 130/60 would be best, does anybody has expirience or picture with that?

I have lowered my bike 2.25", and put kuryiakin stilleto footpegs and I scrap with it in every shorter curve, and when I am on the edge of stock rear 240, I still have a lot of space to reach the edge on front stock tire...so basicly this discussion about hard driving with this bike in curves and which tires are best for that is unnecesary because you scrap way before you rich the edge of front rear especially with the 280 on rear.
I was also thinking that shorter sidewall like on 130/60 is better for high speeds and more stable then those with long sidewall, that is why is that size rated with V among other things...I am no expert, just my thinking - I would like to hear somebody who rides 130/60 on front...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 · (Edited)
Explain please Pegasus, I saw that you know about tires a lot, so please bit my arguments...I would appreciate that..I have red a lot of posts about that ,yours among that , but nobody mentioned 130/60 tire, like I sad I am not an expert but why is that tire made for and rated with V if it is not good, and if that 160/60 is so good why they didn't make that size for front tire?
I am going to purchase 10'' with 280 in next few days but I can't made up my mind about the front...I was thinking 4.25'' rim with 160/60 or 3.5'' with 130/60 but after I red all posts on that topic these questions are still in my head...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,555 Posts
I went with the 160 and i will never go back 2 stock this is one of the best mods i have done.Wish i would have done it sooner.
 
G

·
Explain please Pegasus, I saw that you know about tires a lot, so please bit my arguments...I would appreciate that..I have red a lot of posts about that ,yours among that , but nobody mentioned 130/60 tire, like I sad I am not an expert but why is that tire made for and rated with V if it is not good, and if that 160/60 is so good why they didn't make that size for front tire?
I am going to purchase 10'' with 280 in next few days but I can't made up my mind about the front...I was thinking 4.25'' rim with 160/60 or 3.5'' with 130/60 but after I red all posts on that topic these questions are still in my head...
The reason you need a bigger wider tire on the front is because of the big wide low profile tire on the rear. A bike turns because of the profile of the tire, not because you turn the handlebars. The handle bars make the bike lean and the tires when leaned, do the turning. The front and rear tires need to turn in a circle of about the same diameter when leaned at the same angle. The smaller narrower front 130 turns a much smaller diameter circle than the rear at any lean angle. This reqires countersteering the bars to the opposite direction of the turn to keep the bike down in a turn.

You are going to the 280 on a 10" rim and that is going to make it worse as it is wider and lower. You have your bike lowered and that means you have alot less cornering clearence. Your gonna hit your pegs much sooner than a stock bike. You can gain some of that clearence back with the taller wider 160 front tire. and you won't have to countersteer as much. The 130/60 will have a better profile for turning but it is a shorter tire than stock and you will loose even more gound clearence. I know it looks cool to be low and wide, but a motorcycle has to lean to turn. Your low wide bike will not be able to turn half as tight a corner as a stock bike. Just because you can't lean it over without scaping the ground much sooner. So the taller wider 160 is your only choice if your want to get your bike to turn as best as it can with a 280 on the rear. It still won't be as good as the 260 on a stock wheel and stock height bike. But it will be much better than keeping the 130/70 on the front. And way more ground clearence than the 130/60 even though it would provide more nuetral steering up to the point at which you scrape. You can get a Dunlop D205 front tire in a 150 or 160, but I would recommend the Metz 160 in reverse before mixing brands.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Thank you for your explanation Pegasus, I have red it carefully and I must say everything you sad about countersteering because of much narrower front tire is logical and I can feel it when driving, also that makes logical that wider tire on the front would need less countersteering. And of course that clearence will be better with 160 than 130/60, this is logical thing...
But why are you saying then that 130/60 has better profile for turning and that it has more neutral steering then 160/60 ? I didn't understand that...? It means that 130/60 is worse only because of the clearence then, or...?:dontknow:
and why did they make 280 rear and not 160 front if it is needed in setup with 280 rear and works much better that way? that is what concerns me...

I know that low and wide bike is not good for perfrmance and curves, and that is what I sad at first place, but I bought this bike because of the looks at first place and then because of the handling and performance...If performance and handling would be on the first place for me I would by totaly different bike... 8)
Usualy I ride with my friend who rides FJR1300 Yamaha, and I can't follow him on curves no matter how hard I am driving....I am just to low and too heavy for that...but when we stop, it is always crowdy around my bike not his 8)
 
G

·
Thank you for your explanation Pegasus, I have red it carefully and I must say everything you sad about countersteering because of much narrower front tire is logical and I can feel it when driving, also that makes logical that wider tire on the front would need less countersteering. And of course that clearence will be better with 160 than 130/60, this is logical thing...
But why are you saying then that 130/60 has better profile for turning and that it has more neutral steering then 160/60 ? I didn't understand that...? It means that 130/60 is worse only because of the clearence then, or...?:dontknow:
and why did they make 280 rear and not 160 front if it is needed in setup with 280 rear and works much better that way? that is what concerns me...

I know that low and wide bike is not good for perfrmance and curves, and that is what I sad at first place, but I bought this bike because of the looks at first place and then because of the handling and performance...If performance and handling would be on the first place for me I would by totaly different bike... 8)
Usualy I ride with my friend who rides FJR1300 Yamaha, and I can't follow him on curves no matter how hard I am driving....I am just to low and too heavy for that...but when we stop, it is always crowdy around my bike not his 8)
The 130/60 has a better profile compared to the 130, not the 160. The 160 is still the best we can get in that reguard. Tire and bike manufacturers make what is cost effective. Not neccessarily what is absolutely the best working. For a bike in this catagory, handling is not tipcally top of the list of prioirities. They choose the tire that will do the job for the least cost. As long as it works well enough and suits the style of the bike they'll choose from what is readily available. The fat tire craze has made that evident. they use the same front tire on other bikes with much narrower rear tires. They need to produce and sell enought bikes and tires to make it worth the cost of manufacturing. Also from a liability standpoint the tire makers don't want to recomend or privide anything other than what the manufaturer has recommended for the bike. Cost cutting and leagal concerns modify the bikes we get more than most of you realize. The only reason we have any choice in different tire sizes is that the other sizes come standard on other bikes. And when there are not other bikes that use a tire size you need for the results you want, you end up usen a rear tire on the front. I emailed Avon about getting a larger wider front tire. All they would do is say that their recommended 250/130 combination would provide superior handling over stock due to their special construction and high quality product, and had no plans of making or recommending any other fitment. They refused to answer the specific questions I asked them about profile compatability. That can't publicly state anything contrary to the manufacturers recomendations for fear of leagal problems. Whether the manufacturer got it right or not. The wide fat tire and alternate size stuff was started buy the custom chopper craze and they are small independant businesses that design outside the box to begin with so they were able to get the tire companies to make the big fat tires, without leagal concerns. They sold and became popular enough for the bike manufactures to want to copy the look and sell more bikes. That's the only reason we have big fat rear tires. They didn't see the need to spend more to make the bikes handle by haveing a custome size front tire. Cause every one knows a chopper doesn't handle well. But that doesn't mean it can't handle much better with different tire choises. They just don't see the need to spend the money to do it. Especially now when they can't sell enough of them.

Just because your bike wasn't intended to be able to keep up with a sport bike by design, doesn't mean it shouldn't handle and stop as well as it can within that design. Tires are critical to being able to do that. That little extra room to manuever or stop could save you life.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
I presently run a 130/60 with 280 on a 10" rim on rear. Bike has not been lowered and I probaly wont because I like the way it handles as is. Have not had any issues after 5000 miles with these wheels. I have thought about going with bigger front tire but have no intention of lowering bike.
 
G

·
I presently run a 130/60 with 280 on a 10" rim on rear. Bike has not been lowered and I probaly wont because I like the way it handles as is. Have not had any issues after 5000 miles with these wheels. I have thought about going with bigger front tire but have no intention of lowering bike.
All I can say is you don't know what you're missing.

Check out stavros's post on this thread. http://www.m109riders.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1339606&posted=1#post1339606
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
I've read the STAVROS' post...I new already that there is a lot of guys riding that setup and that every one of them praise it...OK you convinced me, I will order 4.25'' rim with 160/60 on the front...I belive now that it should be a winning combination with 10'' 280 on rear...
Just one more question, as this tire is tight in front fender, is there enough space when tire spreads at higher speeds? And it doesn't make fender hot or melting or something?
I have read one post somebody sad something about his fender is melting because of lack of clearence....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
556 Posts
Just last week I went with the 260 rear, 160 front metzlers and WOW, steering is more crisp, not as much push in the corners, actually had to get use to not as much lean in a long sweeping corner as before, had to lean more in corners before, now, well as everyone says, should have done it long before now. The fender is quite close at the back bottom and I will probably raise the fender in the near future but the top still has a good clearance. One more thought for you,,,, I believe the 160 on a stock wheel pulls the tire in to more of a round look, more like a front tire should look like, if you go with the wider front wheel, it certainly might look like a back tire on the front, the bike handles very nice with above mentioned set up. Good luck with your choice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
well I don't know...I am thinking that you can get best from tire if you put it on the rim manufacturer says it is the best for that size....
 
G

·
I've read the STAVROS' post...I new already that there is a lot of guys riding that setup and that every one of them praise it...OK you convinced me, I will order 4.25'' rim with 160/60 on the front...I belive now that it should be a winning combination with 10'' 280 on rear...
Just one more question, as this tire is tight in front fender, is there enough space when tire spreads at higher speeds? And it doesn't make fender hot or melting or something?
I have read one post somebody sad something about his fender is melting because of lack of clearence....
That's one of the bennefits of the rear tire on the front. The stiffer carcus keeps it's shape at speed. There are no tire growth issues at speed. The problem that one person had was with a 150/70, a taller tire. And the 1/4" difference in rim width, 1/8" per side, isn't going to make alot of difference. But it will, being spread a little wider, give a little more fender clearence as it with be a hair shorter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
130/260 Metzeler

Would this be a good combo when I like to drive fast, really fast?? Now I know there is a lot written on the subject, but I like to keep it simple. I going to buy the 2010RZ and I like to have the wide look, will I get this with the 260??

thx

Alex
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
180 Posts
are you all running the 160/60 on a stock wide wheel?:-\

That's one of the bennefits of the rear tire on the front. The stiffer carcus keeps it's shape at speed. There are no tire growth issues at speed. The problem that one person had was with a 150/70, a taller tire. And the 1/4" difference in rim width, 1/8" per side, isn't going to make alot of difference. But it will, being spread a little wider, give a little more fender clearence as it with be a hair shorter.
 
G

·
are you all running the 160/60 on a stock wide wheel?:-\
Yep. But those getting aftermarket wheels are able to get a wider front rim an it is probably good to do so. There's no problem with running the 160 on the stock width. The difference isn't that much.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
Not to hi-jack the thread...

I recently acquirred a slow leak in my stock rear tire (less than 5000mi on the bike) to the point that it looses about 10lbs of pressure a day. Been doing a lot of reading through the search and have a question...

I have decided on the Metzeler ME 880 XXL series of tires and came across this one:

http://www.motorcycle-superstore.co.../Metzeler-ME-880-Marathon-XXL-Front-Tire.aspx

140/70H-18

First and formost, I see that it is a 'H' rated tire, but I can not see myself going above 100mph anytime soon so with a max speed of 130 I am pretty sure I will be safe.

Back tire will of course be the ME 880 XXL 260/40VR-18.

So my question is simply this, has anyone tried this combination of tires? And I guess not knowing alot about tires, moving from the stock 130/70r18 to the 140/70r18 will I run into any clearence issues?

Thanks in advance...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
I guess I have another question...

DLP lists the same front tire as a Bias Ply tire, but not even Metzelers web site will tell me what the rear is. For those of you that run the Metzeler 260/40VR-18, is it also a Bias or is it a Radial?

Thanks again...
 
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
Top