|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Rubber Side Down! >> different rear tire size /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1357050930 Message started by ajhoff83 on 01/01/13 at 06:35:29 |
|
Title: different rear tire size Post by ajhoff83 on 01/01/13 at 06:35:29 I know the stock rear tire is 140/80-15. I want to get some whitewalls and theyre hard to find in the exact size. I found one that's 150/90-15. It should only be a little wider and taller. Anyone had any problems or success running a slightly different tire in the back? |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by verslagen1 on 01/01/13 at 08:35:29 There are few issues with going wider, taller tires. Don't go over 26" diameter or you won't get in in the swingarm. And depending on the actual width, you may need to change out the stock fender bolts with button head allens. taller tires may require a longer shock, but this is actually an improvement as the stock shocks have short travel. The progressive 412's 11" shock is a little over 1/2" longer but also has 1/2" more travel. These are all things you have to checkout with every tire purchase. |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by WD on 01/01/13 at 08:40:13 Look again for 140/90-15. Not as common as 150s, but they fit like they were made for the bike. Use VS800 as the bike you want to search with. |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by ajhoff83 on 01/01/13 at 08:44:52 thanks for the tip. I really want white walls and cant find any in that 140/90-15. I would really rather get the tires Ive found. Just wondering if anyone knows for sure if I can fit 150/90-15 in there. |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by ezornes239 on 01/01/13 at 15:11:54 So 140/90-15 WILL work? I know the Shinko rear I have now is a 140/80-15, but can't seem to find the same tire again... |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by verslagen1 on 01/01/13 at 15:38:37 search for 150 and tire and you'll see some history |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by ajhoff83 on 01/01/13 at 17:54:26 thanks! it looks like a 150/90-15 is the biggest you can run on a stock Savage. thanks all! picking up my white walls soon! |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by WD on 01/01/13 at 20:10:11 Ezornes239, 140/90 is fine, have had one on my ride for quite awhile. Even with a full rear fender there is plenty of room. Kenda Kruze and Kenda Challenger aren't physically any larger than a stock Savage tire, even though they are both listed as 140/90. Cheap tires tended to run a touch undersized when I was still working the bike shops. |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by Demin on 01/02/13 at 07:40:27 The 150 Maxxis is very tight in the swingarm.Look in some of my pics,I run 150s on all of my bikes.All brands are tight,that I've used. |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by ohio thumper on 01/02/13 at 13:21:52 Denim, do you have any issues with rubbing while running a 150? sorry to hi-jack your thread ajhoff |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by Wolfman on 01/03/13 at 04:47:22 Been running a 140/90/15 for over a year now. Speedo is accurate but two up or a real hard bump makes the tire rub against the heads of the rear rail bolts. Id think a 150 is going to rub bad unless you find some button head bolts(which ive been unable to find locally). Got to find me a new rear now. Ran a roofing nail through it and seen where i got cords showing in a small spot. And my local shop just closed for good. $@#&^!! Only got about 6-7000 out of the tire to. |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by MShipley on 01/03/13 at 05:48:13 Dont know about a 150 but I just took a 140/90 off the bike and it worked fine. |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by Demin on 01/04/13 at 08:22:42 3F293B382126293C273A79717F78480 wrote:
On my '86 bobber,it was very close to theswingarm,where vthegusset is welded on. The purple '87 Idid awhile back.I had to slot the fender mounting holes.Fender was off center just slightly.And button head bolts inside the fender.VERY close,but it worked. |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by ohio thumper on 01/10/13 at 09:17:52 just might have to find me a 150 white wall tire then. thanks denim |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by Rocket Man on 02/14/16 at 18:46:01 NEW QUESTION: Does the height and weight of the rear tire make a notable difference in top speed and acceleration? the reason i ask is i recently had to go with the 140/90 instead of the 140/80 low profile which came on the bike due to availability. After replacing the back tire with one 10% taller (80 to a 90) i noticed a significant reduction in acceleration and top speed. I assume this is the new tire in action but i'm not sure. Thanks for any responses 8-) |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by cheapnewb24 on 02/14/16 at 18:57:11 I'm considering going from 140/80 to 140/90 myself. Possibly higher weight and larger diameter might contribute to some flywheel effect, but one thing a taller tire will certainly do is give you a little taller effective gearing. Of course, I'm no authority here. :-X |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by KennyG on 02/14/16 at 20:13:52 Here we go again. |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by cheapnewb24 on 02/14/16 at 20:21:47 ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by verslagen1 on 02/14/16 at 20:23:55 3F273A2C323F3D3A3C207E71480 wrote:
As far as top speed goes... 102 vs 97, now that won't be your indicated speed as far as I'm concerned the 140/90 makes the speedo right on. for the 140/80 you're going 4% slower for the indicated speed. and I'd guess that it's 4% slower off the line too, but if you can sense that... you've spent a lot of rubber at the drag strip. I'd check to make sure you got everything back in place right. fat spacer on the left, tire not rubbing, belt with 90° twist in tension and in the center of the pulley. have you tested your petcock? |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by Kris01 on 02/15/16 at 13:45:16 Tires act like gears as far as the engine is concerned. A taller tire effectively raises the overall gear ratio and "softens" the acceleration. The 140/90 is about 4% taller than stock (using Verslagen's number), so it makes the stock gearing feel 4% higher. |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by Tocsik on 02/15/16 at 14:50:37 Yep. I went with the 140/90 but I totally get the valid arguments (backed up by sound mathematics and great images ;)) pointed out by folks like Dave regarding the use of available tread and the width of our rims. I actually like the look of the wider rear tire but my bike's not cafe'd out. What I really like is the drop in revs at highway speed and I mostly use my bike as a commuter/daily driver. I replaced the bolts holding my saddle bag brackets for button heads and have had no clearance issues with the Mich Commander II. |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by zipidachimp on 02/16/16 at 01:39:30 Bought a 140/90 kenda last summer. Big mistake, weighs a ton more than stock, and looks like a triangular (all the wear will be on a strip 1" wide). Next tire will be a 130/90. Cheers! 8-) |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by Kris01 on 02/16/16 at 18:21:40 I'm running a 140/90 Pirelli and don't notice any weight difference. Maybe it does weigh more but I'm saying I don't notice it. Feels like the same bike (except geared slightly higher because of the added tire height). |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by cheapnewb24 on 02/16/16 at 22:02:21 7D464A5A4042290 wrote:
If I recall correctly that rim/tire size chart in Dave's cafe tire thread, that chart seems to suggest that the 140/90 is more suited to the rim than the factory 140/80. Just something I noticed. Did anyone else see this from the pattern of the chart? Can anyone see why this is so? I think I can. ;) Not arguing against the 130/90, just comparing those two. |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by Dave on 02/17/16 at 03:41:42 The Cafe' Tire thread should not be referenced for the stock sized rim....the rims/tires on those conversions is a completely different issue...those tires are a lower 70/80 aspect ratio and the rim is narrower. Here is a thread that discusses the new tire options for the bike with the stock sized wheels. http://suzukisavage.com/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1448021014/0 The stock rear rim is 2.75" wide. The available tire sizes fit the following rim widths. 130/90 2.50, 2.75, 3.00, 3.50 140/80 2.75, 3.00, 3.50 140/90 2.75, 3.00, 3.50 There is virtually no difference in the "suitability" of the tires based on rim width. The stock rim is always going to be at the lower end of the fitment guide - but all the tires sizes are approved for use on the stock rim. The bottom line in the long tire thread is: The stock 140/80-15 tires size is not common, and the only tire commonly available in that size is the stock IRC GS-18 tire....which is not all that great of a tire. The 130/90-15 is almost a direct replacement. It is only about 1% larger in diameter, and the width measured nearly identical. I measured a stock IRC GS-18 on the rim and it was 132mm wide, and a Shinko 230 in the 130/90 measured 136mm when mounted. Handling, speedometer reading, etc. will not change. The tire visually appears to be the same size when mounted on the bike. The 140/90-15 is a larger and heavier tire, and it looks noticeably bigger on the bike. The tire is 4% bigger in the circumference, and it does slow acceleration down a bit, slows the transition into and out of curves a bit and makes the bike a bit more stable in a straight line, and it will change the speedometer reading. Folks who ride mostly highways or use the bike to commute like the taller gearing and more stable ride. And if you put a lot of miles on your bike.....tires like the Michelin Commander can get you as many as 25,000 miles on a back tire (MMRanch). You most likely will spend more time figuring out which "brand" of tire to buy....than you will what "size". If you are on a biking budget.....the Shinko 230 is a great buy in the 100/90-19 front & 130/90-15 rear tire combination. |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by cheapnewb24 on 02/17/16 at 08:52:56 Since this is not the place to play this kind of game, I'm moving the discussion elsewhere. http://suzukisavage.com/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1455727802/0#0 |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by Dave on 02/17/16 at 09:24:18 There is no reason to start a new thread.....ask your question in a way that it can be understood. If you need a tire chart to reference.....here it is: http://i61.tinypic.com/291nvvt.jpg |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by cheapnewb24 on 02/17/16 at 09:43:49 The question is this: I noticed a pattern of fit on the above chart which (theoretically) favors the 140/90 over the 140/80. Can you figure out what I found? Do you understand the reason for this pattern? Don't spoil it for everyone if you don't have to. It's a game. ;) I'd like to see how many people can find it. Any takers? |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by cheapnewb24 on 02/17/16 at 10:07:50 Everyone can just pm me with their answers . I'll post everyone's responses and the answer after some people have a chance to guess. |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by cheapnewb24 on 02/17/16 at 12:35:10 I'm being serious. Does anyone want to play my game? |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by justin_o_guy2 on 02/17/16 at 19:22:31 I Would, But I'm Tired. |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by FickAJ on 03/10/16 at 09:52:26 im currently caught in this dilemma. i dont want to pay the big bucks for the 140/80. the 130/90 is a great price but id really like to not go down in size. so will the 140/90 fit?? i have saddlebags with stock brakcets, my shocks are stock and i do take the wife out alot. im not at all worries about performance loss/gain just purely on looks id like to have the 140/90. but if its gonna be a rubbing situation then i wont even mess around with it the 130/90 will be it. its an 05 s40 and i have a kenda cruiser in front already and need to decide on this rear. any help is appreciated thankyou++++ Fick |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by Dave on 03/10/16 at 10:35:13 0C2329210B004A0 wrote:
Well it certainly doesn't sound right - but the 130/90-15 only appears to be a step down in size - it is actually bigger than the 140/801-15 (or at least it turned out that way for me with the tire I used). The 140/80 tire was most likely measured on a 3.50" wide rim which is listed as the "standard" size for that tire - so when it is mounted on the Savage 2.75" wide rim the tire is no longer 140mm wide....the stock IRC tire measured 132mm wide on the stock rim. The 130/90-15 Shinko 230 tire was actually 136mm side on the Savage when mounted....in increase of 4mm over the stock IRC tire. Here is a link to the more complete discussion on tires: http://suzukisavage.com/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1448021014 Don't be afraid of the 130/90-15 tire - it is actually a slightly larger tire in both width and diameter, and you have a much better selection of tires in that size.....you only have one choice of a 140/80-15 size. |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by Kris01 on 03/10/16 at 13:52:29 Cheapnewb24, just fill us in. I don't see any pattern except what tire size fits what size wheel. :-? |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by KennyG on 03/10/16 at 14:00:56 I just installed a Shenko 230 in size 130/90-15 on the back end of my S40 and I would be hard pressed to tell you that it appears smaller, or larger, than the factory IRC tire. It is a nice looking tire..... Kenny G |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by FickAJ on 03/10/16 at 16:55:48 well that settles it for me then. just ordered my 130/90 and all the peace of mind that comes with it. thanks guys Fick |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by Kris01 on 03/10/16 at 18:05:04 1D3338152437253E560 wrote:
According to my calculator, the 130/90 is only 0.3937" taller than the stock 140/80. To put that in a round number, it's only 10 mm. |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by cheapnewb24 on 03/10/16 at 21:42:35 704952480B0A3B0 wrote:
Alrighty then, ;D Since everyone is either stumped or uninterested, I'll get on with it. Here goes... There is a pattern found in this chart correlating with aspect ratio. As it increases, smaller rims become increasingly compatible with a given width. For example, the smallest rim recommended for a 130/60 is a 3 incher, but a 130/90 can go down to 2.50 inch rims. Here's why-- at least in my not-engineer opinion ;D-- Higher aspect ratios give a longer sidewall height, which allows less angle from the rim to the tread, curling the edges of the tread less., thereby giving a better profile and a wider tread compared to the smaller aspect ratio. Remember Dave's tire geometry discussion in the Cafe Tire Thread? Same ideas, but with an additional complication-- aspect ratio. (And yes, Dave, the tires are of different sizes, but the discussion is related.) In a sense, higher sidewalls are more flexible and can accommodate more rims, while low profile tires are more picky. I bet that low profile car tires are extremely picky about rim size. Their squarish treads can't curl like bike treads, can they? http://suzukisavage.com/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1435340395 http://i61.tinypic.com/291nvvt.jpg About ready to drop the money on a couple of shinko 712 rears-- one for myself, and one for my Dad's 750 Shadow. His has a worn Dunlop 140/90 on it. Looking at it, it seems like a lot of rubber for the poor little Savage, but it's mounted on a 3.5 inch rim. Looking to get 'em from Bike Bandit and get free shipping. Are there any better deals out there? http://www.bikebandit.com/tires-tubes/motorcycle-tires/shinko-712-motorcycle-tire From what I remember, it seems that some people here don't like this company. I haven't tried them yet. Any particular recommendations on tubes or rim strips? |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by Dave on 03/11/16 at 04:42:11 Larger profile tires are able to fit a wider range of rim sizes...on motorcycles, cars and trucks. I buy my tires from Bike Bandit, and most of my online parts. Bike Bandit stocks clothing and a lot of the aftermarket stuff they have on their website - but most of the complaints about Bike Bandit apply to every other online company when it comes to OEM parts - they don't stock the parts and they order them from the Suzuki warehouse - and if they are not in stock at Suzuki it can take a while for your part to arrive. For tires they are fine most of the time - once they sent me a tire that fit the front of the ST1100 that was 3 years old....I complained, they sent me a fresh one. BikeBandit and most of the other companies never see the tires they send you - they contact a distributor and the tire gets shipped from a warehouse that is close to you. The good news is that by not stocking the tires themselves, they can offer a very low price and within a day or two you will have your tires - the bad news is that the warehouse may not care if they send you an aged tire (However Bike Bandit will intervene and make it right if you notify them of the problem). |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by Demin on 03/11/16 at 05:30:03 Just throwing this in.Here is a 140/80 beside a 150/90 |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by Dave on 03/11/16 at 05:44:12 6A6B6367600E0 wrote:
YIKES! :o Does that thing fit under a stock fender? |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by badwolf on 03/11/16 at 06:09:22 Not a "stock" fender. This 150/90 shinko 230 on my bike is on a 3.5" rim and the under fender bolts have been swaped out for button heads. http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp198/carlrphair/s40/IMG_0250_zpsean1vamj.jpg Even then the spacing has to be perfect. 78" roll out really changes the gearing. My pulleys have both been changed, moving the axle back in the slots. Might not clear the swingarm, or front of the fender with stock pulleys. I'm not sure if a 140/90 will clear if you just change the front pulley. Anyone tried it? |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by Dave on 03/11/16 at 06:15:14 MMRanch runs a 140/90-15 Michelin Commander with the Kawasaki front pulley. The tire does clear the front of the swing arm and it does work - but there is not a lot of clearance. |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by cheapnewb24 on 03/11/16 at 07:14:07 To modify or correct the ideas I mentioned, the chart also seems to suggest that higher profile tires don't fit very wide rims as well compared to low profile tires. It seems that low profile tires like large rims and high profile tires like smaller ones. Thanks for the review on Bike Bandit. I'll probably end up buying from them. |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by Dave on 03/11/16 at 09:52:00 22292420312F2436237375410 wrote:
You are looking at the chart without considering what it represents. The wide rims are a new fangled idea, and one that came along as tire and suspension technology (and fads) changed. New bikes have wide rims and low profile tires....some for good handling and some for macho looks - and the improved suspension systems have allowed low profile tires to be used on modern motorcycles. (Roads have also improved - and narrow rims and balloon tires helped to protect the rims from damage on early roads). Older bikes had limited suspension travel - and the taller tire profiles functioned as a part of the suspension, and the narrow rims were necessary to allow the tires to have curved sidewalls that could compress and rebound. The tire chart just reflects the fact that the newer bikes have wide rims and low profile tires - while the older bikes have narrow rims and high profile tires. The chart doesn't reflect that the different aspect ratios are "generally" made for bikes that have entirely different functions....low profile for sport bikes, medium profile for sport touring and touring, high profile for vintage bikes or modern cruisers. (All rules and common sense are thrown out for those foot wide tires used on show bikes). |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by cheapnewb24 on 03/11/16 at 12:40:04 78434E5948445F59424A47582B0 wrote:
You are looking at the chart without considering what it represents. The wide rims are a new fangled idea, and one that came along as tire and suspension technology (and fads) changed. New bikes have wide rims and low profile tires....some for good handling and some for macho looks - and the improved suspension systems have allowed low profile tires to be used on modern motorcycles. (Roads have also improved - and narrow rims and balloon tires helped to protect the rims from damage on early roads). Older bikes had limited suspension travel - and the taller tire profiles functioned as a part of the suspension, and the narrow rims were necessary to allow the tires to have curved sidewalls that could compress and rebound. The tire chart just reflects the fact that the newer bikes have wide rims and low profile tires - while the older bikes have narrow rims and high profile tires. The chart doesn't reflect that the different aspect ratios are "generally" made for bikes that have entirely different functions....low profile for sport bikes, medium profile for sport touring and touring, high profile for vintage bikes or modern cruisers. (All rules and common sense are thrown out for those foot wide tires used on show bikes). [/quote] Isn't the chart there to tell what works, regardless of what is popular? I'm not thinking design-- what it's "made for." When mods are done, they are often things which were not really meant for that bike in the first place. The chart should be for which combinations work well within a reasonable margin, not for typical installations. It's all about what works, not all these complications and special applications. Any rebuttals? Maybe for some reason high profile tires are not recommended for very wide rims. Maybe the bead seating is not as secure? I wonder. :-/ Any ideas? |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by Kris01 on 03/11/16 at 12:53:55 Rule of thumb, not hard science: You want the wheel width to be at least 70% of the tire bead width. That puts a 140 tire on a 3.86" wide wheel. A 3.50" wide wheel is close enough. If there were a 3.75" option, that would be better. |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by Dave on 03/11/16 at 13:04:39 High profile tires are not recommended for wide rims......because they are not designed or made to work on wide rims. The high profile tires are made to work on the narrow rims, and the tread profile will be the proper shape. Low profile tires are not recommended for narrow rims.....because they are not designed or made to work on narrow rims. The low profile tires are made specifically to work on wide rims, and the tread profile will be the proper shape. If you mount a tire on wider or narrower rim than it was designed to fit.........the handling and performance and tire life (and possibly safety) will be affected. |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by Demin on 03/11/16 at 15:13:32 1F24293E2F23383E252D203F4C0 wrote:
YIKES! :o Does that thing fit under a stock fender?[/quote] With s little modification it did.Had to slot the holes in the fender and run button head bolts. |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by Demin on 03/11/16 at 15:14:44 Rear view |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by KennyG on 04/09/16 at 09:58:35 I recently installed a pair of the Shinko 230 tires on my S40 and now have about 330 miles on them. I had to make an emergency/panic stop on an older asphalt road with a slightly more coarse surface than what I would call smooth. I was able to get to a completely dead stop even quicker than I expected. The bike stopped in a perfectly straight line and there was no sign of the rear wheel trying to "kick out'. I am satisfied with the Shinkos and I am hopeful that they will be satisfactory in the rain. I got 5000 miles from the stock IRC tires and I anticipate getting a few more miles than that out of the Shinkos. Kenny G |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by badwolf on 04/09/16 at 10:46:49 Kenny, What size 230's did you put on? Stock or changed rim? What does the back tire measure for width & roll out? We should start a list of these measurements for reference. My 150/90-15 Shinko 230 on a 3.5'' rim is 6.25'' wide with a 78'' roll out. With both Kaw pulleys it slows the engine down to just under 3400 rpm at 60mph in 5th a drop of about 700 rpm. Puts 4th real close to a stock 5th. Also throws the speedo off by about 20-22%, so I go by a gps app on a phone mounted on the handlebar clamps now. On state roads I cruse in the low to mid 50's at 3 grand to 3200. Engine & me are very happy. With my first windshield I would get 60 - 63 mpg, I built a bigger one & now I get 58 -60. (I'm in south Fla. = no hills) Tripping to Columbia, SC next weekend for a roller derby tournament, hope to average just under 60 mpg for the whole trip. |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by KennyG on 04/09/16 at 12:24:24 Wolf, I stayed close to the factory size tires. 130/90-15 rear tire and 100/90-19 front tire. I haven't taken any measurements on the tires and I probably should have found a better place to post my experience with the Shinkos. The Shinkos feel good on the corners and in my opinion the tires are going to be superior to the the IRCs. Kenny G |
|
Title: Re: different rear tire size Post by justin_o_guy2 on 04/09/16 at 14:10:28 in my opinion the tires are going to be superior to the the IRCs... I don't know of one that isn't. My OEM tires held air for five thousand miles, but the front was cupping at three and the rear always felt like it was Just about to slide out from under me. I rode it, knowing that I was learning how to ride. It's treacherous nature made me a better rider and Forced me to Not thunder through a turn. Ahhh, but the replacement got some work. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |