Better cornering

[jimmyboy]

I know there have been numerous posts on tires, but.....  I just wanted to post this:

I put a 200/60/16 Metzler Marathon 880 radial tire on the rear about a year ago, as I wanted to increase road clearance for cornering (which it did, and gave good stability), but it also slowed down the handling, causing some under-steer, so I needed to keep more pressure on the handlebars to keep it heeled over, and it was not so easy to increase the lean angle mid corner, which was a tendency I liked about the Valk when I bought it.

Last week I fitted a 140/75/17 front tire (instead of the standard 150/80/17) and this has resulted in quicker, more responsive handling and much less under-steer, and surprisingly does not seem to reduce road clearance for cornering or reduce the stability. I can highly recommend this combination of tires to anyone looking to improve handling and road clearance for better cornering, such as on the twisting roads we have here in NZ.

BTW I have replaced the Metzler Marathon 880 on the front with a Michelin Commander II radial. The Commander II is also available as a 200/60/16 radial (on back-order) which I will put on the rear next month.

I will post how it handles with this tire, and what mileage I get. The Marathon on the back has done around 7000 miles and will be good for another 500 -1000 I think. The front one still had about 30% left, but I wanted to try the smaller tire.

[big poppa pump]

Been there, done that. As good as the MC-II front tire improves the handling, if you have a tourer/standard, the smaller size of the tire really messes up your speedo reading. Your speedo will be off anywhere between 10-15 mph. Did not really like this and I switched back to the oem size, went with an Avon Cobra.

BTW.....I got a little over 11,000 miles with my MC-II 140/75/17.

[Glenn-B]

Here in the UK we don't have many straight roads either. My set up is standard size Cobra's, but with up-rated suspension. Progressive springs in the front and Hagon Nitro shocks on the rear. She as never touched down since. Even two up. Before the exhaust's used to scrape 

[Ricky-D]

A new tire, when compared to an old and "being used" tire, will ALWAYS

result in all of the "wonders in improved handling" that you describe.

You'll have the same comments later on when you again put a new tire

on your Valkyrie.

***

[Jess from VA]

I have that Michelin Commander II front, and it is as good a front tire as the best Metzler 880 in the right size.  Still waiting to see what kind of total mileage I get on it.

[SteveBC]

Jimmyboy,

                i'm puzzled, you state that you wanted to increase road clearance but then fitted a smaller diameter tyre ??

                OK, it may of looked very slightly larger being a new tyre next to a worn out tyre of original size, but i think that would of been very minimal, look at this comparison chart.

http://www.tacomaworld.com/forum/tirecalc.php?tires=180-70r16-200-60r16

Ricky-D,    i fully agree with what you state.

SteveBC.

[jimmyboy]

i'm puzzled, you state that you wanted to increase road clearance but then fitted a smaller diameter tyre ??

Hi Steve I spent some time comparing tire sizes, putting the 200/60 beside the 180/70 it was about 1/4" larger diameter measured with a straight-edge, despite the maths saying it should be the other way around. The increased volume (large circumference across the tire) also provides an added boost to the clearance. At the same speed on corners I ride often it made a surprising amount of difference.


A new tire, when compared to an old and "being used" tire, will ALWAYS

result in all of the "wonders in improved handling" that you describe.

Hi Ricky-D, the previous tire was not worn out (it still had about 1/3 of its life in it), and it was correctly inflated. I compare all tires at 36lbs front and 41 lbs rear. The Marathon was a very good tire.

The quicker handling is more likely due to the slight but definite reduction in the steering head rake (lifting rear 1/4" and dropping front 1/4"). I have not found the MCII to have any better "feel" or inherent advantage over the Marathon, and it does follow pavement irregularities just as much as the Marathon despite what others have posted (tire pressure would be a factor there).
I have found I am consistently riding a particular "S" bend sweeper precisely 5mph faster than before (with same feeling of control).


Some of this would be due to the speedo difference - around 2% or 1.3mph at 55mph. Whether thats the MCII itself, or just a function of the smaller size improving the overall geometry, it still is noticeably better in tight, fast sweepers.

If the MCII gives the mileage others claim, it represents good value and is at least as good a tyre as the Marathon, but the main point I am making is the improvement in the geometry and corning  of the Valk with this setup. I can highly recommend this tire size combination.

 Your speedo will be off anywhere between 10-15 mph.

Hi Big Poppa, to get 10-15mph difference, you would have to reduce your overall tire diameter by about 25% (maybe if you put a bicycle tire on it?).

[big poppa pump]

Your speedo will be off anywhere between 10-15 mph.

Hi Big Poppa, to get 10-15mph difference, you would have to reduce your overall tire diameter by about 25% (maybe if you put a bicycle tire on it?).

Get your bike to 85 mph on the speedo and compare it to the speed displayed on a gps. Do the same with 120 mph as well and let me know.

[jimmyboy]

Get your bike to 85 mph on the speedo and compare it to the speed displayed on a gps. Do the same with 120 mph as well and let me know.

I hear you Big Poppa. The maths says maybe 2.4mph at 120mph. I think there would be a larger manufacturer's in-built error. I'm not that worried about a 2% discrepancy in speed, heck it'll make me 2% less likely to get a ticket

[jimmyboy]

p.s.  nice looking bike btw  BIg Poppa 

[98valk]

I know there have been numerous posts on tires, but.....  I just wanted to post this:

I put a 200/60/16 Metzler Marathon 880 radial tire on the rear about a year ago, as I wanted to increase road clearance for cornering

a 200 series is shorter is dia than a 180 series so u actually reduced your road clearance.

I use a Continental Conti-Go rear tire 130/90-17 on the front
http://www.valkyrieforum.com/bbs/index.php/topic,12541.40.html

excellent profile for handling completely transformed the bike.

[gordonv]

I know there have been numerous posts on tires, but.....  I just wanted to post this:

I put a 200/60/16 Metzler Marathon 880 radial tire on the rear about a year ago, as I wanted to increase road clearance for cornering

a 200 series is shorter is dia than a 180 series so u actually reduced your road clearance.

I use a Continental Conti-Go rear tire 130/90-17 on the front
http://www.valkyrieforum.com/bbs/index.php/topic,12541.40.html

excellent profile for handling completely transformed the bike.

Are you sure CA? The 200 and the 180 is the width of the tire. Nothing to do with height. It is the next number, which represents the % of the width of the tire, transferred to the height.

200/50 is 100 height. a 200/75 is 150 in height.

So a 200/60 is 120 high, and the 180/70 would be 126. Numbers given in mm.

[98valk]

I know there have been numerous posts on tires, but.....  I just wanted to post this:

I put a 200/60/16 Metzler Marathon 880 radial tire on the rear about a year ago, as I wanted to increase road clearance for cornering

a 200 series is shorter is dia than a 180 series so u actually reduced your road clearance.

I use a Continental Conti-Go rear tire 130/90-17 on the front
http://www.valkyrieforum.com/bbs/index.php/topic,12541.40.html

excellent profile for handling completely transformed the bike.

Are you sure CA? The 200 and the 180 is the width of the tire. Nothing to do with height. It is the next number, which represents the % of the width of the tire, transferred to the height.

200/50 is 100 height. a 200/75 is 150 in height.

So a 200/60 is 120 high, and the 180/70 would be 126. Numbers given in mm.

yes I'm sure
BT-20 200/60/16 is 25.5 od, metz is the same or close
E3 180/70/16  is 26.06

[jimmyboy]

I know there have been numerous posts on tires, but.....  I just wanted to post this:

I put a 200/60/16 Metzler Marathon 880 radial tire on the rear about a year ago, as I wanted to increase road clearance for cornering

a 200 series is shorter is dia than a 180 series so u actually reduced your road clearance.

I use a Continental Conti-Go rear tire 130/90-17 on the front
http://www.valkyrieforum.com/bbs/index.php/topic,12541.40.html

excellent profile for handling completely transformed the bike.

Are you sure CA? The 200 and the 180 is the width of the tire. Nothing to do with height. It is the next number, which represents the % of the width of the tire, transferred to the height.

200/50 is 100 height. a 200/75 is 150 in height.

So a 200/60 is 120 high, and the 180/70 would be 126. Numbers given in mm.

yes I'm sure
BT-20 200/60/16 is 25.5 od, metz is the same or close
E3 180/70/16  is 26.06

Despite what the numbers claim, I found the 200/60 was a slightly larger diameter overall than the 180/70 I compared it to (both Marathons from memory, but that was a year ago). Remember these numbers are only a guide, not a true measurement, just like the Valk is not exactly 1500cc.

The increased cornering clearance is partly the result of the larger, fatter tire (200 wide) putting more height on the rear of the bike when it is leaned over, not when vertical. In fact, it is only at maximum lean that the ground clearance matters, so overall diameter is only one factor. Thats my 2 cents worth anyway.

[Jess from VA]

I was about to weigh in and point out a car tire with square(er) edges has the effect of raising the back end up a little bit more than a round profile bike tire when hard cornering and up on half the tread (with a flexed sidewall).  I do believe you can get a bit tighter cornering (before dragging parts) on a car tire than a bike tire.  (Of course there are other factors, like the road crown and line you take thru the corner)

I don't know about a 180 vs 200 bike tire if the tread is uniformly round all along the contact patch before the sidewall (with little to no sidewall flex).  I never ran a 200.... but I ran a bunch of 180s and 3 CTs.

[jimmyboy]

I use a Continental Conti-Go rear tire 130/90-17 on the front
http://www.valkyrieforum.com/bbs/index.php/topic,12541.40.html

excellent profile for handling completely transformed the bike.
[/quote]

Hi CA I was thinking of going to the 130 front tire, but was worried it may result in loss of stability at speed and also cause have a tendency to keep dropping into a turn rather than being balanced. How does your bike handle in those respects, for stability and cornering. What about ground clearance and speedo readings?

[Jess from VA]

Not CA, but I have run a 130 Avon Roadrider rear bias on front reversed, and now a 140 steel belt front Michelin Commander II (a 140/75-17 instead of the OE 150/80-17 and maybe a third to half inch shorter than OE as well as the slightly narrower tread).  The size of either was really no issue at all on the front.  It may turn a bit quicker when you want a quick turn, but goes straight and level down the road or in easy curves with no noticeable difference from a stock 150.  Remember the 1500 and 1800 Wings run 130 stock front tires, as do a number of other big bikes.

The 130 Roadrider was mostly fine but lacked a bit of guts in hard cornering (not a tough enough carcass for my tastes) and took 200 miles of slippery riding (often in the rain) to scuff in.  I ran it to about 8-9K, but didn't want another.  The Michelin Commander II is a keeper.  I really do not notice any loss of cornering or any fast turn-in at all.  And it sticks to the road as good as an ME880 steel belt (with almost no scuff-in required).  I am not finished with it and am not sure what kind of total miles I will get, but it should get at least the 9K I can usually expect on a front, maybe a bit more.  I may continue to run the (off size) Michelin CIIs with my car tires.  Around $50 bucks cheaper than my ME880s.  

There are a truckload of very positive reviews on the Mich CIIs all over the web on different bikes.  And for guys who run bike tires in back, they make one for the rear, but it is also a bit shorter (like maybe a quarter inch), though a 180 in height. (180 65 16 instead of OE 180 70 16)

I run them on interstates with electronic speedos so it is no more screwed up than the normal 5% off.  A shorter tire will have some effect on the std/tourer cable speedos.  But a 130/80 instead of an 150/80 should make no difference on cable speedo bikes.... they're both 80s and the same height.

[98valk]

I use a Continental Conti-Go rear tire 130/90-17 on the front
http://www.valkyrieforum.com/bbs/index.php/topic,12541.40.html

excellent profile for handling completely transformed the bike.

Hi CA I was thinking of going to the 130 front tire, but was worried it may result in loss of stability at speed and also cause have a tendency to keep dropping into a turn rather than being balanced. How does your bike handle in those respects, for stability and cornering. What about ground clearance and speedo readings?
[/quote]

stable as can be, fantastic handling in corners, extremely smooth transition. odo spot on now, speedo indictes 75mph actually doing 70 mph

[big poppa pump]

Not CA, but I have run a 130 Avon Roadrider rear bias on front reversed, and now a 140 steel belt front Michelin Commander II (a 140/75-17 instead of the OE 150/80-17 and maybe a third to half inch shorter than OE as well as the slightly narrower tread).  The size of either was really no issue at all on the front.  It may turn a bit quicker when you want a quick turn, but goes straight and level down the road or in easy curves with no noticeable difference from a stock 150.  Remember the 1500 and 1800 Wings run 130 stock front tires, as do a number of other big bikes.

The 130 Roadrider was mostly fine but lacked a bit of guts in hard cornering (not a tough enough carcass for my tastes) and took 200 miles of slippery riding (often in the rain) to scuff in.  I ran it to about 8-9K, but didn't want another.  The Michelin Commander II is a keeper.  I really do not notice any loss of cornering or any fast turn-in at all.  And it sticks to the road as good as an ME880 steel belt (with almost no scuff-in required).  I am not finished with it and am not sure what kind of total miles I will get, but it should get at least the 9K I can usually expect on a front, maybe a bit more.  I may continue to run the (off size) Michelin CIIs with my car tires.  Around $50 bucks cheaper than my ME880s. 

There are a truckload of very positive reviews on the Mich CIIs all over the web on different bikes.  And for guys who run bike tires in back, they make one for the rear, but it is also a bit shorter (like maybe a quarter inch), though a 180 in height.

I run them on interstates with electronic speedos so it is no more screwed up than the normal 5% off.  A shorter tire will have some effect on the std/tourer cable speedos.  But a 130/80 instead of an 150/80 should make no difference on cable speedo bikes.... they're both 80s and the same height.

Got 11k out of my MC-II, could have got a another 2k out of it but I was impatient to switch it out to a taller tire.