|
Whipitnow
|
 |
« on: January 29, 2013, 11:15:12 AM » |
|
I just rode the bike home from the shop with the new 404, my last tire was a 404 150 80 17 and it was quicker handling than the tire I had on it before that. This new tire is smaller than the old 404 and is even quicker handling, does it create any noticable draw backs compared to the stock tires in any way?
I know I give up a little stability at speed. Any input would be great. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
vanagon40
|
|
« Reply #1 on: January 29, 2013, 01:42:32 PM » |
|
. . . I know I give up a little stability at speed. Any input would be great. Thanks!
That's what I found. I have a rear tire that was originally designed for an automobile, and I found that at speeds over about 85 indicated, the bike was not as stable as with the original 150/80-17. But seeing as how I ride at speeds less than 85 MPH 99.9% of the time, it did not bother me much. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
John Schmidt
Member
Posts: 15243
a/k/a Stuffy. '99 I/S Valk Roadsmith Trike
De Pere, WI (Green Bay)
|
|
« Reply #2 on: January 29, 2013, 02:12:17 PM » |
|
Since that will affect your speedo reading, I'm wondering how much of a change you noticed.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
vanagon40
|
|
« Reply #3 on: January 29, 2013, 02:35:10 PM » |
|
Yep, the 130/90-17 is just barely smaller (in terms of diameter) than the 150/89-17. According to the comparison chart, the speedometer error is less than 1%. Actual speed of 100 will show as 100.90. Not sure if you can make out the details on the attached.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
olddog1946
|
|
« Reply #4 on: January 29, 2013, 07:06:38 PM » |
|
I haven't noticed all that much difference in the handling on my D404, other than it is far better than a worn out Avon, lol. I've found it grips better, rain or dry, but haven't noticed any difference in the mountains or the twisties. But it may be I just don't ride it hard enough as I am seldom dragging the floor boards.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
VRCC # 32473
US AIR FORCE E7, Retired 1965-1988
01 Valk Std.
02 BMW k1200LTE
65 Chevelle coupe, 1986 Mazda RX-7 with 350/5spd, 1983 Mazda RX-7 with FOMOCO 302/AOD project, 95 Mustang GT Convertible 5.0, 5 spd
Moses Lake, Wa. 509-760-6382 if you need help
|
|
|
|
vanagon40
|
|
« Reply #5 on: January 29, 2013, 11:00:39 PM » |
|
By eye it looks like more than 1%, if I was a highway rider I would use a bigger tire but for around town I like it.
It probably looks smaller because it is not as wide as the 150/80-17. The more narrow front tire improves low speed handling and cornering. But there is no such thing as a free lunch, so high speed handling is slightly diminished. Most claim to not notice the difference, but my bike felt different immediately. Despite the positive factors of the 130/90-17, I am returning to the 150/80-17. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ricky-D
|
|
« Reply #6 on: January 30, 2013, 01:07:09 PM » |
|
Regardless of what tire you replace a worn tire with, the fact remains that a new front tire will always feel considerable different in a good and positive way. Size not withstanding.
The only other consideration with a real world affect to how a tire feels is air pressure. A harder tire will feel less sluggish.
We're talking front tires here!
***
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
2000_Valkyrie_Interstate
|
|
|
|
PhredValk
|
|
« Reply #7 on: January 30, 2013, 10:32:47 PM » |
|
I run a D404 130/90-17 bias rear on the front of my Valk. I love the handling at any speed, and slightly narrower means fewer concerns in the rain. It replaced an Elite 3 that I despised because of the high speed wobble. I can ride for miles without touching the bars (I don't do this on a regular basis, just occasionally as a test for stability). I have over 21K miles on it, and don't need to change it out for a while yet. Dyna Beads for balance, 40 PSI.  At 17K miles last summer. Fred. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Growing old is mandatory, growing up is optional.
VRCCDS0237
|
|
|
salty1
Member
Posts: 2359
"Flyka"
Spokane, WA or Tucson, AZ
|
|
« Reply #8 on: January 31, 2013, 05:14:16 AM » |
|
PhredValk was your front tire reversed? Great milage!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
My rides: 1998 GL1500C, 2000 GL 1500CF,2006 GL 1800 3A   |
|
|
MP
Member
Posts: 5532
1997 Std Valkyrie and 2001 red/blk I/S w/sidecar
North Dakota
|
|
« Reply #9 on: January 31, 2013, 05:19:26 AM » |
|
I put that tire on my 97 with a General Altimax on the rear. It made the CT handle MUCH better! I REALLY like it with the CT. I had not heard of that happening, and was not expecting or looking for that to happen. But, it did. MP |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 "Ridin' with Cycho" |
|
|
|
Ricky-D
|
|
« Reply #10 on: January 31, 2013, 02:18:25 PM » |
|
In looking for a front tire replacement with a wish for more mileage,,, installing a motorcycle (rear specific) tire on the front is likely candidate.
All tire manufacturers publish their tire specifications although some make it very difficult to find the specifications you need.
The depth of tire tread is the one you want to compare from tire to tire.
You will normally find rear specific motorcycle tires have generally 4/32" more depth of tread than comparable front specific motorcycle tires.
This difference can be assumed to give more miles driven with a rear specific tire.
Naturally riding habits and all the other bullshit that some can find to denigrate this assumption will also apply.
But, the fact will remain, more rubber on the road will result in more driving miles available.
***
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
2000_Valkyrie_Interstate
|
|
|
|
PhredValk
|
|
« Reply #11 on: February 02, 2013, 06:39:33 PM » |
|
Not reversed. I'm concerned with water shedding in the rain, not so much tread lamination.
Fred.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Growing old is mandatory, growing up is optional.
VRCCDS0237
|
|
|
|
