You forgot the Dunlop K555 in 140/80-15/. My tire of choice since years. Just got a new one last spring. Was $115 less mounting at the local bike dealer. Lasts double as long as the IRC on my bike, and handles better

I bought a new set of Shinko 230's from Bike Bandit to install on the Rescue Bike.....riding on 12 year old tires just didn't seem like a good idea even though there is plenty of tread on them.

The tires were ordered on Friday, and delivered on Tuesday...the 130/90-15 rear tire was $ 66.31, the 100/90-19 front tire was $ 56.42....total cost was $ 122.73.  The tires were built in November 2015 - so they are nice and fresh!

Now for the surprise....the 130/90-15 tire is not a downgrade in width from the 140/80-15 IRC.  I measured the width of the 140/80 IRC before I took it off, and it was 132mm wide......and the 130/90 Shinko measured 136mm wide when mounted.  I suppose that this can be explained by looking at the following chart.  The 140/80 tire uses a wider 3.50" rim as the standard size....and it can be mounted on rims between 2.75" - 3.50" wide - so the Savage rim pulls the sidewalls in 3/4" narrower than what is "standard" for the tire.  The 130/90 tire is acceptable on rims from 2.50" - 3.50" - so the Savage rim is right in the middle of the range for that size tire.




So I believe the 130/90-15 tire is definitely a good replacement tire for the standard 140/80 rear tire.  It is just a bit taller and will change the gearing by only 1%, and there will likely be no noticeable change in the handling (except for the improvements that a new tire allows).  The even taller and wider 140/90 tire will increase the gearing by 4% and the extra weight and inertia does slow the bike handling and acceleration down a bit.....and for some folks that is a beneficial change as they like the extra stability and reduced engine rpm when cruising.

Dave wrote on 01/27/16 at 03:25:15:


I've got around 1000 miles on my 230's now and they're better than ever...just love 'em!

I didn't weight the tire prior to mounting - but I have been weighing the complete wheel/tire assembly and will weigh it before I put it back on the bike.  I did notice there is a lot of rubber on the Shinko, and it is considerably heavier than slightly worn IRC I took off.

I have to disagree with you there Kris.
the size or wt. of the tire won't have an affect on top speed, only acceleration.

of course a really tall fat tire will have more drag and rolling friction, but that's not what we are talking about here.

Well I got the new Shinko's mounted last night...they look good and the 130/90-15 rear tire is every bit as nice looking as the original 140/80-15 tire.

I did weigh the complete wheel/tire assemblies - but it is not going to be of much use as the tires are different brands, and they had different amounts of wear.

IRC  GS-18 140/80-15, 5mm tread depth (4,000 miles) 29.8 lbs
Shinko 230 130/90-15, 6mm tread depth (new)   31.0 lbs
Dunlop D404 140/90-15, 4m tread depth (worn) 32.0 lbs

It was 56 degrees in KY today....so I got to take a ride around the neighborhood on the new Shinko 230's.  They are round, seem to roll fine, and didn't do anything weird.

It was nice to put a few miles on a bike....my first ride for 2016!

Kruzader wrote on 04/29/16 at 09:09:51:


No....the 100/90 is fine for the Cruiser.

Some folks just feel the need to put really big tires on the bike - so the bike has the appearance that makes them happy.

I run a 100/80 on my Cafe' bike, and I have even run a 90/90, and they both have plenty of tire to make the bike handle well.