Upsizing Rear Tire to 190/55 (w/ pics)

[art miller]

str8, Thanks for sharing the web site.

 

[Top_Speed1]

Since when is a spin balance on a motorcycle tire more accurate than the static method?

Go to an AMA, World Superbike, or MotoGP race, and see how they balance their tires. They all use the static method. Wheel hung until the heavy spot is at the bottom and add weights until there is no clear heavy spot.

Don't waste extra money on a spin balance, it is not worth it.

True if you don't have a qualified and knowledgeable tire techie AND the correct modern computerized equipment.

If the balancer is one of the new style computer units and the tech knows how to use it, the static doesn't stand a chance for true accuracy comparatively. And if you choose to think so you most likely are static balancing yourself and choose to brainwash yourself of this as the best method. Oh well, whatever floats your tires I guess and I do agree probably static is good enough for most of the folks. Heck it's not like the FJR is vibration free where you can feel a slight mis balance anyway.

 

[ULEWZ]

I guess and I do agree probably static is good enough for most of the folks.

Good enough for ALL folks, and racers! When was the last time you saw a spin balancer machine at a race (pictures required), no value added. Not my opinion, just fact.

As far as mounting a 190 tire on a 5.5 inch rim, please read:

Click Me

 

[wheatonFJR]

...the static doesn't stand a chance for true accuracy comparatively...

The Marc Parnes static balancer works (overkill even...it is so sensitive) up to FJR redline in top gear.

When was the last time you balanced a set of tires? Geez.

 

[gumba]

The last time I static balanced a BT023 rear for my scoot it came feather close w/o any weight. Then I noticed that I had forgot the valve stem cap. Put it on and it was dead nuts. Now that's close enough for the girls I run with. I had put the dot at the heaviest point on the rim (not the stem).

 

[JasonB]

Jason,

Where does the "X2" come from? Looks to me like the total height increase is 5.5mm which I calculate to be .2165 inch or ~ 7/32 inch increase in rear tire height.

Slardy

Slardy, overall height (diameter) of the tire increases 5.5mm X 2, sidewall at top and bottom of tire. Will increase ride height 5.5mm, only one side of the tire in contact with the road (radius). I can adjust out the increased ride height if need be with my spankin' new Penske shock. :yahoo:

Correct (thanks for clarifying it for me), in my original responce i was thinking in terms of the person who requested a measurement from the top of the tire to the ground.

 

[Top_Speed1]

When was the last time you balanced a set of tires? Geez.

3 weeks ago when I started this topic, dealer done; perfect, and no additional charge for balancing. Geez.

 

[John d]

You could get the latest and greatest spin balancer, but it all comes down to how much weight the installer ends up putting on the wheel. So if the balancer says put 17.6 grams at a certain location are you going to put 2 or 3 seven grams weights on it, or are you going to nip off part of a weight and weigh that on some sort of micro scale to get it just right? In the end if the tire is within one seven gram weight you are good to go up to the top speed of any bike out there. Let's not split hairs, static balancing can easily get within the tolerance of one seven gram weight.

Edit for spelling.

 

[wheatonFJR]

When was the last time you balanced a set of tires? Geez.

3 weeks ago when I started this topic, dealer done; perfect, and no additional charge for balancing. Geez.

The only reason I asked...was because you talked like you knew something about balancing. It's clear by your response that this balancing work is done for you, and you are just sucking up the dynamic balancing koolaid from those you pay money to...

 

[RadioHowie]

 

[Top_Speed1]

When was the last time you balanced a set of tires? Geez.

3 weeks ago when I started this topic, dealer done; perfect, and no additional charge for balancing. Geez.

The only reason I asked...was because you talked like you knew something about balancing. It's clear by your response that this balancing work is done for you, and you are just sucking up the dynamic balancing koolaid from those you pay money to...

You may have a better system, I was pretty much going off the tire changing (balancing) methods that was had at the NERDS parking lot. Granted it was an "on the fly" type of ordeal but I wasn't impressed to say the least at that static method. I think they did 2 or 3 tires that way on the Sat nite and it was after a few cocktails

I may be just too anal about this as well and as said static is probably good enough for the FJR with it's already noticeable vibrations.

 

[wheatonFJR]

You may have a better system, I was pretty much going off the tire changing (balancing) methods that was had at the NERDS parking lot. Granted it was an "on the fly" type of ordeal but I wasn't impressed to say the least at that static method. I think they did 2 or 3 tires that way on the Sat nite and it was after a few cocktails

I may be just too anal about this as well and as said static is probably good enough for the FJR with it's already noticeable vibrations.

Couple of things...and I promise no more spit or venom.

First: Do you know that those "low tech" methods at NERDS did not balance well at high speed...or are you guessing cuz it didn't have a MagicBell-GizmotronR that rang when perfect balance was achieved?

Balancing mass on a wheel is not in the high physics realm of blasting ions from a laser beam. Who knows, they could have achieved perfect results at NERDS up to 155mph, and just because there wasn't some complicated balancing machinery involved, you thumbed your nose at the process.

I've had my bike creamy smooth up to 155 with no noticeable vibration at all...and I am one of the least mechanically inclined on this board. Balancing is not hard...nor is it rocket science to get it right.

Second: The sorts of vibrations you get from an out of balance tire and an FJR engine are entirely different.

I had a weight thrown during an off-roading incident (caused by a murderous cager) on my way to Ohio one year. I didn't notice it the rest of the way to my destination that day...as I kinda stayed close to the speed limit after my near death adventure. However, the next day as the FJRs were out and about getting rambunctious, I noticed that at speeds above 85 (during passes) that the vibrations were pronounced and increased exponentially (got really big) as the speeds increased. Scary vibrations. When we stopped at our first break, I noticed the weight was gone...and replaced it with the weights I had brought. No more scariness.

My FJR is creamy smooth at 4k and the vibrations just let me know I'm in the power band when I'm having fun in the curves between 5k and 7k. Nothing scary, pronounced, or unpleasant in any way. I love the sound the FJR makes at 6-7k...course then, maybe it's because I am having fun whenever I hear that sound.

So...I used to have a CB550...I know what an unpleasant tingliness is. The FJR isn't unpleasant at all...especially when I pass those chrome tractors.

 

[GeorgiaRoller]

A Guy posts that he has a 190/55 tire...then people argue over the best mathematical equation to figure out the MM circumference difference over the stock 180/50...then others argue over static vs spin tire balancing :blink:

I swear you people are all nuts sometimes.

 

[RadioHowie]

A Guy posts that he has a 190/55 tire...then people argue over the best mathematical equation to figure out the MM circumference difference over the stock 180/50...then others argue over static vs spin tire balancing :blink:

I swear you people are all nuts sometimes.

 

[wheatonFJR]

I swear you people are all nuts sometimes.

Guilty as charged. :lol:

 

[Top_Speed1]

It's all good, this is what forums are all about!

I'm saying the static method being preformed that night was (well lets do a review of some of the verbiage)....

"

OK, you need, no wait, this side, OK, no that's not right, well over a bit. I think that's.. no, a hair more, no wait its now heavy to the other side, smaller weight maybe, no move it here, yeah that looks like it, well maybe...

"

Now it might of ended up being spot on but and I'm not sure this was because of the high end equipment and/or personnel?. It was sure cheap enough ($0) so I tip my hat to those boys for that.

I know it's not rocket science stuff but I will just give the job to my MC dealer who has the right equipment and mounting and he already includes balancing (no discount if I forgo it). I do a lot of stuff myself and it does save, this is just one job I let the professionals do. It's done by the time I get done with a burger and a bump at the next door pour/poor-house.

---

Now back on track, YES, I do believe you could fit a 200/55 wide tire but just barely, not sure on how she would ride on the rim however?. I did post this back about 20 posts ago and said this could be my next experiment.

 

[beemerdons]

A Guy posts that he has a 190/55 tire...then people argue over the best mathematical equation to figure out the MM circumference difference over the stock 180/50...then others argue over static vs spin tire balancing :blink:

I swear you people are all nuts sometimes.

Hey RH, if Wheatie uses the term creamy smooth one more time he'll have Bustanut joker on the phone trying to engage him in phone ***! jes' sayin' and nuff' said!

 

[HotRodZilla]

A Guy posts that he has a 190/55 tire...then people argue over the best mathematical equation to figure out the MM circumference difference over the stock 180/50...then others argue over static vs spin tire balancing :blink:

I swear you people are all nuts sometimes.

Hey RH, if Wheatie uses the term creamy smooth one more time he'll have Bustanut joker on the phone trying to engage him in phone ***! jes' sayin' and nuff' said!

Yeah, "creamy smooth" was freaking me out too. ******* Wheaton weirdo.

 

[carlson_mn]

...He was running a 190 rear...

He liked it - he's tall so the additional seat height was no big deal for him, and he mentioned something about better turn-in, but I don't understand **** like that.

I still really like my "FatSider" 190/55 and they do turn-in quite well. Coming from old rubber is a huge difference (of course!) so you have to recall that memory of when you had the 180/55 as still virgin-ess. I know in theory a wider tire is more "lazy" entering turns but I am running 42-44lbs (as another 190/55 user suggested) and it wants to dive into the turns quite nicely.

FatSider #1 :lol:

Glad you like it. Actually a 190/55 has even more aggressive profile than a 180/55 so there should be no problem with quickness or turn in. There's a reason all the new SS bikes use them.

The 190/50 was wider and flatter than the 180/55 which gave it the idea of a slightly slower turn-in.

 

[Top_Speed1]

...He was running a 190 rear...

He liked it - he's tall so the additional seat height was no big deal for him, and he mentioned something about better turn-in, but I don't understand **** like that.

I still really like my "FatSider" 190/55 and they do turn-in quite well. Coming from old rubber is a huge difference (of course!) so you have to recall that memory of when you had the 180/55 as still virgin-ess. I know in theory a wider tire is more "lazy" entering turns but I am running 42-44lbs (as another 190/55 user suggested) and it wants to dive into the turns quite nicely.

FatSider #1 :lol:

Glad you like it. Actually a 190/55 has even more aggressive profile than a 180/55 so there should be no problem with quickness or turn in. There's a reason all the new SS bikes use them.

The 190/50 was wider and flatter than the 180/55 which gave it the idea of a slightly slower turn-in.

I do really like the fatsider 190/55 and +1 about what you said. My 2013 Beemer K1600 (on order) comes equipped already (F/R) with the exact same tire setup I'm now using on the Feejer! Can't be all that bad and I'm thinking it just may be a tad better especially for us tall/big riders.