Hey guys...I've seen it stated a couple of times that a big diameter skinny front tire (like on the S40 and S50) isn't a good choice for highway travel and/or highway speeds.  Why not?  (Sincere question...I have no idea what the dynamics are here.)

Cheers,
Dave

Skinny tires tend to follow grooves and ridges more than fatties...
They also have less centrifugal force keeping you upright...
A fattie front,.. tracks like a train... ...

Something tells me that more has to do with people raking out their bikes and putting on a tall skinny then mistaking their poor handling as the rim when it's their newly screwed up suspension geometry that's the real problem.

If people will argue that a hard-rubber square car tire handles better than a proper motorbike tire, I'm sure they don't have any clue as to what's really causing their bike to handle like crap.

Part of the problem with comparing different tire sizes is that they often come on different bikes with different suspensions, weights, weight distribution, and fork rake.  Generally speaking, a wider tire is more useful to going straight, a narrower tire is more useful to speed up corner entry and exit.  A bigger wheel and tire combination has a longer contact patch, which helps with going straight, and hurts handling.  Since the Savage/S40s are light bikes, they are fairly nimble, but bounce around a bit on the highway.  They are never going to track the slab like a heavy cruiser regardless of the tire mounted.  Unless you are riding into a 40 mile an hour gale, I can't imagine this bike being difficult to manage on the highway.  I would be more concerned with the soft, flexible front forks, and the overly hard rear shock/spring package than the tire size.  My bike is stock, but if I was going to invest in improved handling, a fork brace would be first on my list.

Cavi Mike wrote on 10/30/12 at 00:28:06:

I see nothing from the OP to suggest anything but a stock S40 or S50.

You really need to keep to the subject.

verslagen1 wrote on 10/30/12 at 11:37:39:


He never said what he heard was about the S40 or S50, he only said that the S40 and S50 have narrow tires which fall into the category of the rumours he has heard.

*edit* and I think it was a great analogy that I made - it should give him some insight to take what he hears with a grain of salt - because even experienced riders may not have a clue.

It depends on the bike.

I have had (back to back) a 99 Kawasaki VN800A, which ships with an 80/90/21 front 140/?/16 rear AND a 2005 Kawasaki VN800B, which shipped with 130/16F and 140/16 rear tires.

The A could take 30 mph on ramps at 60 mph, the B barely clunked through at 20mph.  The A was rock solid with the speedometer needle twisted as far to the right as it could go (to the point I broke the speedometer cable once, the hub drive the second time). The B couldn't clear 80 mph down hill with a tail wind wide open throttle. Not a good thing on freeways in Washington state..

Identical base engines and transmissions, identical rear wheels, tires and brakes from the factory. The A had been seriously hot rodded (more hp at the rear wheel than the B had at the crank per the owner's manual and a dyno run)... and it was still a better bike all around than it's 6 year newer, short fat front tire sibling. I found the 21" hooked LESS pavement irregularities than the 16".

That 05 800B was the last bike I'll ever ride with a front wheel the same size as the back wheel. 19 or 21 in the front, and if it came only with a 16 it is getting converted. Including a 1500 Drifter or Classic if I play my cards right... you can get a 21" wheel under the stock front fender, very common conversion for Road Kings and other Geezer Glides that get ridden more than just house to bar to house.

Skinny front tire not good for the highway? Can't prove it by me.