Yet another tire question: How fat is fat?

[tmfp]

I'm talking motorcycle tires, car rears are illegal over here.
I know that 180 section is the widest recommended for 5.5" rims, but different brands have different profiles, and I doubt that anyone crashed and burned by fitting a 200.
The question is simply visuals: what tire looks fattest?
Any pictures appreciated.
 

[Ricky-D]

I think a 200 tire will always appear wider than a 180 tire

The difference, 20mm is enough to notice from a 3m distance.

***

[quexpress]

I'm talking motorcycle tires, car rears are illegal over here.
I know that 180 section is the widest recommended for 5.5" rims, but different brands have different profiles, and I doubt that anyone crashed and burned by fitting a 200.
The question is simply visuals: what tire looks fattest?
Any pictures appreciated.
 

Many Valk riders (myself included) have installed and ridden with 200 tires without a problem ... and IMHO a 200 tire on a Valk looks great! 

[Gear Jammer]

I had an Avon 200 before CT.  I'd go back with the same if I were to change back to MT. No problems, and looks mean

[tmfp]

I think a 200 tire will always appear wider than a 180 tire

The difference, 20mm is enough to notice from a 3m distance.

***

Thanks Ricky, I didn't make myself clear, 200 tyres don't always measure 200.
I understand, for example, that an Avon Cobra 200/60 is 196 mm wide, but other 200/60 m/c tyres are 205 to 210 in actual width. This came from an isolated 'wing forum post, he didn't specify what 'other' tyres, or whether the measurements were on or off a 5" rim.
So it's really an inter brand question, as opposed to asking whether a 200 is bigger than a 180, which I had worked out for myself.
 
Edit:
Just been looking on  http://www.rattlebars.com/vtx/metzeler.html and the actual measurements are quite interesting, on a stock 5" rim, a 200/60 Metzeler actually measures 193.67 and an Avon 180/70 comes in at 184.15, less than 10 mm difference. 

[Ricky-D]

I agree with you.

From my own personal experience I have found that the Dunlop tires are generally larger when comparing them to Metzlers.  Actually I think Metzlers run small size for size when measuring them against a standard.

It is very difficult to find the necessary information regarding actual tire size (real world). Some tire manufacturers seem to want to limit the ease to which someone can find the information.

Even more so, being able to find the same information with regard to the particular rim width, the tire is to be mounted, is very illusive.

I feel the tire manufacturers basically do not encourage customer comparison between the brands and will not enable this employment in any positive way.

My take on the whole subject boils down to this.

When comparing tires of the same size, look at the weight of the tire. Heavier is better, lighter is the poorer choice.

***

[Farther]

When comparing tires of the same size, look at the weight of the tire. Heavier is better, lighter is the poorer choice.

On what do you base this?

[Ricky-D]

All of these tires are wide.  A quick look indicates that a 180/70R16 Bridgestone has about a quarter inch gap between the driveshaft tube and the tire.  You may find something a little wider, but it will be a real close fit.

Good luck with it. 

It funny you should say that. My 205/55/16 car tire has about the same amount of room there even though it's a bit larger in width.

There was a short discussion about his very subject some time ago.

It is hard to get a hold on this specifically and I guess it's has something to do with manufacturing tolerance build-up.

Some have reported rubbing in the same area with just a step up to the next size (over stock) tire .

Some also have suggested reworking the swing arm to gain extra clearance.

Pretty knotty regarding this, I think.

***

[tmfp]

All of these tires are wide.  A quick look indicates that a 180/70R16 Bridgestone has about a quarter inch gap between the driveshaft tube and the tire.  You may find something a little wider, but it will be a real close fit.

Good luck with it. 

Thanks, yes, that's a good rule of thumb way to measure the width of tires. I think the tread pattern can play visual tricks as well, making some look wider.
As a matter of interest, if anyone does fit a tire which fouls the driveshaft housing, you can safely grind at least 2mm of metal off without worry. I have my R&W in a million pieces at the mo, and there is plenty of meat in that (badly welded on) plate on the swing arm.

So, to change my question slightly, has anyone mounted a m/c tire which fouls the swingarm?

Off topic, whilst checking that Ricky and Farther are safely 3,000 miles apart, I discovered the fascinating story of The State of Jefferson.

[Farther]

Off topic, whilst checking that Ricky and Farther are safely 3,000 miles apart, I discovered the fascinating story of The State of Jefferson.

Internet bravado is a wonderful thing. 

[hubcapsc]

So, to change my question slightly, has anyone mounted a m/c tire which fouls the swingarm?

Once I took my FLSTS to a local shop for a tire. I was there while they laboriously
searched the Dunlop catalog for the right tire, so it is not as if they were too lazy
to try to get the right tire...

It scrubbed the swingarm a little. The local shop went out of business before I
got around to showing it to them (didn't ride the Harley much)...

I took the Harley into the dealer for some "tune up" stuff a while later... they replaced
the tire with the correct one... it was a Dunlop, but it actually said "Harley Davidson"
in the little embossed writing on the side of the tire...

-Mike