[stick405]

Took one of Trialsmans 175/60 16 off his hands and ran a hundred miles yesterday. This tire does what all the CT's are doing that we have been running, safe and sure footed. Being 20mm narrower it makes for the closest thing to a MT and yet have the advantages of the CT. This baby rocks. It just drops right into the corners at slow and high speeds and has virtually zero imput steering on uneven surfaces.
I really think we may have found the Holy Grail in the CT.

Thats the "Holy Grail" now here's the "holy moley" I've included some pics on how I change out my rears with a tow hitch bike. Probably the best thing about it, I can lower the bike til the studs line up with the holes in the wheel then just slide it on. Thats it. Takes about 30 mins and don't forget to let the air out of the larger tires. Have done several tires like this without any problems. The second pic is the 175mm. Cheers....:doorag:

 

[Rackets]

Tire

Stick
How does this tire compare to the MT on diameter and the speedo?

 

[KA7W]

.


Anyone know what the load rating is on that tire ??

Thanks


JMHO :lol:


:lol:

 

[Mtnarcher1]

1,047# @ 51PSI

Running a winter compound in summer heat is still a problem for me. I was sold on the Vanco 2 and ready to pull the trigger only to find it's being discontinued. FARK!

 

[FrostyWing]

stick405,
Thanks for the report. Is the rpm higher and the speedo error off more?
Your bike jacked up that way sure looks scary4: ! When jacked up is the bike just resting on the front tire, side stand and the jack :shock: ?

 

[KA7W]

1,047# @ 51PSI

Running a winter compound in summer heat is still a problem for me. I was sold on the Vanco 2 and ready to pull the trigger only to find it's being discontinued. FARK!

Thanks for the info on the tire !! Was hoping it was higher than that though LOL . It is a good looking tire in the picture !

I am running the Vanco 2 on mine and sure do like it. it is a 195/65r16 and speedo is accurate. It is wearing very well, Only problem is a slight rubbing on the inside of the swing arm. Get up over 100MPH and you can smell the rubber getting hot there LOL, Leaves a real thin black line on the outer edge of the tire, right hand side looking from the back.


JMHO :lol:

 

[Biggles 607]

OMG, that looks really scary up on the jack like that, please tell me the
CofG is well behind the side stand fulcrum, and I didn't notice, but did you chock the front wheel, or perhaps cable tie the front brake lever tightly to the right grip to apply the brake ?

Tire looks great, loads of meat on that, thanks for the photos.

John

 

[Nando]

KA7W,
You need someone to worry about you, it might as well be me. I am concerned about your tire rubbing like that....especially at 100mph.

Is there anyway you can create a clearance in the wheel well so that your tire don't rub off like that. Tom, that ain't right. And what da heck are you doing towing that tanker-trailer behind you at 100mph. Listen, I got enough troubles of my own without having to worry about your safety all the way over here...dont make me report this to Laen! 4:

If that tire does not fit in your wheel well you got to let it go my friend...
I hope others jump on this concern also...

"Lets be careful out there"
Hill Street Blues sarge

 

[stick405]

Stick
How does this tire compare to the MT on diameter and the speedo?

This thread may answer some of your questions.
http://gl1800riders.com/forums/showthread.php?t=203103

I had my Speedo healer set for the 195/55 16 Winter sport and found that this new tire is within .5 mph so it's close enough for me.

The center line of gravity of the bike is still somewhere between the side stand and the jack. I don't strap anything down as the three points of the front wheel, side stand and jack all have straight downward pressure. :22yikes: The bike cant go anywhere. Also in the future with the narrower tire I wont have to go so high to drop the 175mm as I did with the 195mm. You may notice I had the rear tire out over the concrete drop which gave a little more room.

Cheers...:doorag:

 

[stick405]

Nother thing, the tire may be a knats hair smaller in diameter to the stock tire. I found that raising the bike suspension more than makes up for it. Started out at 25 then 20, finally went back to my usual 12.

There is absolutely no noticable difference in engine RPMs or gearing whatsoever even tho there is. Just gets a little more torky. I'm doing 80mph at about 3400rpms Cheers....:doorag:

 

[trialsman]

My speedo error was 4 mph off with the stock tire or the 195-55. With the 175-60, Honda says I'm doing 80, Garmin says 74. I believe Mother Garmin.

As I've written before, I never pay attention to my speed in the mountains and I go by the GPS on the slab. So, that's not a factor.

It does require a little more rpms, but, again, that doesn't concern me. It's barely perceivable.

I've got 1000 miles on this tire now and, if I weren't already married, I'd propose to it. :yes1: Did several hundred in the mountains yesterday and I pushed it hard a couple times. Felt just like my rear 180-60 Metz when being flicked back and forth in the turns:excited:.

 

[KA7W]

.

Nando, there is clearance until I get over 100mph, the tire swells a bit at higher RPM's.. Another couple miles at 100 plus and it will stop touching the tire to the swing arm LOL.

Please, please don't report me to laen, that is the worse thing you can do to me, please don't !!


JMHO :lol:

 

[TrappersWING]

Ordered two 175/60's today

Because the 175 is a winter tire, I ordered two of them. I can't wait to get it mounted on the spare rim.

I just love when the guys at the tire shop ask what vehicle it's going on!

Response: I'm not sure yet, can you get the tire? After they take your money, tell them it's going on a bike. Trust me, it's priceless!!:wrong:

 

[Biggles 607]

When you order your tire, tell them it's for a rope swing in the garden and that you're a snob and wouldn't dream of using a scrap tire, see what reaction that gets.....

:lol::lol:

 

[Rocky]

The reason in my opinion why you guys are stating what you are is natural.
You are going from a much wider tire 195 to a 175 which is much narrower,So if you think about it,The flickability (is that a word?) increases dramatically with the 175..For me I'd rather have the wider griping tread contact patch...

It's noted here that I'm quite happy with the wider 195 and that I've also tried the winter compound on my own bike and found what I needed to know.

I have no issue flicking my 195 in any situation.we all like different things and have adjusted to what feels best for each of us..
I've done some past experimenting and came back to what I like for me..I like to see others do the same thing as with this 175..
The only way you'll know what you like is to try it for yourself just like so many have done trying different brands of MT's before becoming a Darksider...

 

[Nando]

ROCKY,
Have you tried the 175? No? then your opinion on it is speculative in nature, is it not?

 

[Rocky]

ROCKY,
Have you tried the 175? No? then your opinion on it is speculative in nature, is it not?

No I haven't,and yes you are correct-I'm just speculating here..:shrug:
It does make sense though wouldn't you think??

 

[Nando]

I tend to agree with you--ever so slightly. Because, I always thought the problem here is that the 180 OEM is too small of a tire for touring on the Wingabego. I searched high and low on the possibility of a 200 on the rear and every-single-person who tried have super negative reports...

...along come the 195 runflat...more footing...

However, tomfranken makes a point that the 175 still has plenty more footprint than any OEM....and on the lean, I have not heard a good viable perspective between the 195 vs the 175 footprint

what scares me is the higher rpm with an even shorter tire...there is no doubt in my mind that the 70 OEM makes the gear ratio the way it is supposed to be. the 60s are already too short for this gearing set up.

 

[stick405]

The reason in my opinion why you guys are stating what you are is natural.
You are going from a much wider tire 195 to a 175 which is much narrower,So if you think about it,The flickability (is that a word?) increases dramatically with the 175..For me I'd rather have the wider griping tread contact patch...

It's noted here that I'm quite happy with the wider 195 and that I've also tried the winter compound on my own bike and found what I needed to know.

I have no issue flicking my 195 in any situation.we all like different things and have adjusted to what feels best for each of us..
I've done some past experimenting and came back to what I like for me..I like to see others do the same thing as with this 175..
The only way you'll know what you like is to try it for yourself just like so many have done trying different brands of MT's before becoming a Darksider...

Rocky, you seem to forget that you have been duly noted in the national registry of "Flickers". for some time now.:lol: However, if I may.

All the CT videos I've seen and through observing CTs' from the rear myself, the contact patch is roughly two thirds of the width of the tire in the turns. The weight of the bike at a common tire pressure would still displace the same amount of rubber on the road whether it be a 195 or a 175mm. In fact, it may be a smidgens more with the 175mm as there is 10mm less offset of rubber on the inside of the tire in the turns. This would allow for a greater weight of lbs per sq inch distribution closer to the centerline of the bike. This is getting konfuzing.

Heck all these CTs' have about 500% better contact patch than a regular MT. so I think thay are all well within the galactic standards for rubber on the road with a WOCT. This seems like a mute point.

Now if this ain't Nando reasoning in alignment with the Milky Way then I don't know what is and with that, someone else may have the scientific mumbo jumbo to explain this line of BS.. Cheers...:doorag:

 

[Biggles 607]

When I used to fit tyres, eons ago, back in Blighty, one of the most popular sizes for nearly all saloon cars was 155 or 165/70 x 13 's.

The rims they fitted on were stamped with the designation 5 or 5 1/2 J. The 'J' suffix being the width between the beads. It was considered fashionable and trendy to be running on 'five and a half J's', all the cool dudes were using them on their 'Cortina's'

Anyway, here's the point.

I didn't notice when my 195/55 x 16 was shoehorned onto my rear rim but I'm guessing that the width between the beads is about 5 1/2 - 6", and now it's shod with a tire 30mm wider than would naturally fit that 'J' size.

Therefore I can see how the 175 might be the Holy Grail, in that no static sidewall stresses are existing due to the rim width.

These are just my thoughts, no criticism or concerns, I'm over the moon with my Kumho, just wondered if anyone else has considered the wider tread options we use might be squeezing the beads a bit to close together and possibly upsetting the loading of the tire sidewall.

I'm sure someone has looked at all the dynamics, and since we are using a tire in an application it's not designed for this is probably moot anyway, just thinking out loud.

Hope you're all having a wonderful day.

Hang in there Bev, we're all thinking of you.

John