Michelin Tire 190 size? What ya think?

[AdrianR]

First of all, I would like to comment on the current tire, *not good* thread.

I don't know what some guys are doing, but I have got about 5K on my Michelins, and they show very little wear...  The roads SUCK where I live in northern Illinois.

Tires pressures man...gotta stay on them.  I check mine every other ride, or if the bike as been sitting to long.

ANYWAY...

When I do change out the tires, I am thinking for going to the Michy 190 size as opposed to the 180.

Looks like there is plenty of clearance to mount it... 

Reason I am thinking about this is to gain a bit more stability on the tar snakes, and of course for looks. I know I will probably give up a little bit of it's *snappyness* but I think the amount would be very small..and worth the benefit.

What says you?

[hubcapsc]

My PR4 was a 190... it is fine, but I don't think you'll notice
any difference...

-Mike "wait... I'm talking to Adrian  "

[_Sheffjs_]

First of all, I would like to comment on the current tire, *not good* thread.

I don't know what some guys are doing, but I have got about 5K on my Michelins, and they show very little wear...  The roads SUCK where I live in northern Illinois.

Tires pressures man...gotta stay on them.  I check mine every other ride, or if the bike as been sitting to long.

ANYWAY...

When I do change out the tires, I am thinking for going to the Michy 190 size as opposed to the 180.

Looks like there is plenty of clearance to mount it...  

Reason I am thinking about this is to gain a bit more stability on the tar snakes, and of course for looks. I know I will probably give up a little bit of it's *snappyness* but I think the amount would be very small..and worth the benefit.

What says you?

I started the thread by saying I am religious about making sure my tire pressure is correct.  So that element is out.  The heat of the roads here might be a factor, not sure.  

Mostly two up is another factor.  

I grew up in your stomping grounds.  You are correct, the roads suck. 

[Robert]

I dont think it will make that much difference. I put the info into the tire size calculator so you can see the difference

https://www.tacomaworld.com/tirecalc?tires=180-55r17-190-50r17

[Dragunslayer]

I dont think it will make that much difference. I put the info into the tire size calculator so you can see the difference

https://www.tacomaworld.com/tirecalc?tires=180-55r17-190-50r17

First of all, putting a 190/50 on would be a terrible idea. That tire is usually the one a manufacturer would put on at factory. The 190/55 will actually have a greater circumference and drop RPMs slightly.

There will be a noticeable difference on turn in at corner entry since there is more radius to the tire which will require slightly more effort to lean in. Then at a certain point at least on the Valkyrie it will feel like it is falling into the turn. Granted this may be due to the fact that this is one of the few times I have not replaced the front an rear together to save some dough.

You will most likely gain a 1/2" to 3/4" ground clearance and will have roughly 1/4" clearance on the drive shaft.

I have been running the 190/55 for almost 2000 miles in the PR4 GT. And you will not gain crap on tar snakes. They are what they are and the only thing you can do to combat them is get comfortable with the bike squirming around under you.

Just for the record as well a tire calculator is nice but depending on the manufacturer of the tire the width and so forth will very. A 190/55 Dunlop does not have the same sidewall height and tread width as say a Michelin.  Or diameter for that matter.

[st2sam]

What say me?

Not the best idea, waste of money, might throw speedo off, a 180 fits better on a 5.5in. rim than a 190.


Then again - IMO, if your really set on running a 190, run a 190/55...

I used to run 190/55's on my Kawasaki C14, it had a 6in. wide rim.

[Dragunslayer]

Just to prove a point here is a chart from an actual test of tires that shows even though all the tires were the same aspect ration, they did not have the same measurements.

This is also a prime example of why some handling issues can also be effected by the characteristics of the tire manufacturer.

[ledany]

Adrian likes it as big as possible, de gustibus et coloribus non disputandum !

[Robert]

First of all, putting a 190/50 on would be a terrible idea. That tire is usually the one a manufacturer would put on at factory. The 190/55 will actually have a greater circumference and drop RPMs slightly.

There will be a noticeable difference on turn in at corner entry since there is more radius to the tire which will require slightly more effort to lean in. Then at a certain point at least on the Valkyrie it will feel like it is falling into the turn. Granted this may be due to the fact that this is one of the few times I have not replaced the front an rear together to save some dough.

You will most likely gain a 1/2" to 3/4" ground clearance and will have roughly 1/4" clearance on the drive shaft.

I have been running the 190/55 for almost 2000 miles in the PR4 GT. And you will not gain crap on tar snakes. They are what they are and the only thing you can do to combat them is get comfortable with the bike squirming around under you.

Just for the record as well a tire calculator is nice but depending on the manufacturer of the tire the width and so forth will very. A 190/55 Dunlop does not have the same sidewall height and tread width as say a Michelin.  Or diameter for that matter.

I think the 190/50/19 would do pretty well

 Your statement that he will most likely gain a 1/2" to 3/4" ground clearance and will have roughly 1/4" clearance on the drive shaft. Is true for the 190/55/17 tire but not for the 190/50/17 tire which you will actually be 1/4 inch lower

If you look at the circumference and tire wall height between the 2 tires the actual opposite is true. You loose about 1/4 inch. He is coming from a 180/55/17 to a 190/50/17. Its not pure 180 vs 190 its an aspect ratio that is different with the other numbers involved. A 180/55/17 to a 190/55/17 would be true to your reasoning. Not to mention you pick up about 1/2 and inch in width also coupled with the 1/4 inch lower and only 10 revolutions per mile difference sounds pretty good to me.

So that takes away most of your argument

The variation in tire size is small remember 1 millimeter = 0.0393701 of an inch so most differences in your charts are given as MM not Inches and therefore most measurements are not big

Until you try it no one can say good or bad in the feel of the bike.

[Dragunslayer]

First of all, putting a 190/50 on would be a terrible idea. That tire is usually the one a manufacturer would put on at factory. The 190/55 will actually have a greater circumference and drop RPMs slightly.

There will be a noticeable difference on turn in at corner entry since there is more radius to the tire which will require slightly more effort to lean in. Then at a certain point at least on the Valkyrie it will feel like it is falling into the turn. Granted this may be due to the fact that this is one of the few times I have not replaced the front an rear together to save some dough.

You will most likely gain a 1/2" to 3/4" ground clearance and will have roughly 1/4" clearance on the drive shaft.

I have been running the 190/55 for almost 2000 miles in the PR4 GT. And you will not gain crap on tar snakes. They are what they are and the only thing you can do to combat them is get comfortable with the bike squirming around under you.

Just for the record as well a tire calculator is nice but depending on the manufacturer of the tire the width and so forth will very. A 190/55 Dunlop does not have the same sidewall height and tread width as say a Michelin.  Or diameter for that matter.

I think the 190/50/19 would do pretty well

 Your statement that he will most likely gain a 1/2" to 3/4" ground clearance and will have roughly 1/4" clearance on the drive shaft. Is true for the 190/55/17 tire but not for the 190/50/17 tire which you will actually be 1/4 inch lower

If you look at the circumference and tire wall height between the 2 tires the actual opposite is true. You loose about 1/4 inch. He is coming from a 180/55/17 to a 190/50/17. Its not pure 180 vs 190 its an aspect ratio that is different with the other numbers involved. A 180/55/17 to a 190/55/17 would be true to your reasoning. Not to mention you pick up about 1/2 and inch in width also coupled with the 1/4 inch lower and only 10 revolutions per mile difference sounds pretty good to me.

So that takes away most of your argument

The variation in tire size is small remember 1 millimeter = 0.0393701 of an inch so most differences in your charts are given as MM not Inches and therefore most measurements are not big

Until you try it no one can say good or bad in the feel of the bike.

Well while I have not ridden on a 190/50 on this bike I have ridden it on a fair amount of sportbikes. The handling can be described in one word "SUCKS".

You assume that he is referring to the 50 series since he stated 190. I assumed he meant 55 series since to me that is the next logical step since our bike came with a 55 series.

The 190/50 is a flatter wider profile which will react just as i stated " more input required" the difference will come in that a 190/55 will finally reach a tipping point where the bike will exhibit a feeling of falling.

The 180/55 Michelin is a narrower tire than the stock Dunlop when mounted I assure you. When I mounted the Michelin I thought I was putting a bicycle tire on the bike compared to what i took off. This is the reason that I went to the 190/55 on the second Michelin rear.

Most of my calculations are based on the fact that we would be squeezing a tire intended for a 6 in rim onto a 5.5" rim. Which actually give the tire a balloon effect.

I assure you that most anyone that has a 190/50 tire on their bike thinks they are crap and will replace them or the other is the guy that thinks that since that is what came on the bike it must be the best choice.

My CBR1000RR came from the factory with a 190/50 and once i switched to a 55 the bike became a beast. Before that it was a workout in the corners.

[AdrianR]

First of all, putting a 190/50 on would be a terrible idea. That tire is usually the one a manufacturer would put on at factory. The 190/55 will actually have a greater circumference and drop RPMs slightly.

There will be a noticeable difference on turn in at corner entry since there is more radius to the tire which will require slightly more effort to lean in. Then at a certain point at least on the Valkyrie it will feel like it is falling into the turn. Granted this may be due to the fact that this is one of the few times I have not replaced the front an rear together to save some dough.

You will most likely gain a 1/2" to 3/4" ground clearance and will have roughly 1/4" clearance on the drive shaft.

I have been running the 190/55 for almost 2000 miles in the PR4 GT. And you will not gain crap on tar snakes. They are what they are and the only thing you can do to combat them is get comfortable with the bike squirming around under you.

Just for the record as well a tire calculator is nice but depending on the manufacturer of the tire the width and so forth will very. A 190/55 Dunlop does not have the same sidewall height and tread width as say a Michelin.  Or diameter for that matter.

I think the 190/50/19 would do pretty well

 Your statement that he will most likely gain a 1/2" to 3/4" ground clearance and will have roughly 1/4" clearance on the drive shaft. Is true for the 190/55/17 tire but not for the 190/50/17 tire which you will actually be 1/4 inch lower

If you look at the circumference and tire wall height between the 2 tires the actual opposite is true. You loose about 1/4 inch. He is coming from a 180/55/17 to a 190/50/17. Its not pure 180 vs 190 its an aspect ratio that is different with the other numbers involved. A 180/55/17 to a 190/55/17 would be true to your reasoning. Not to mention you pick up about 1/2 and inch in width also coupled with the 1/4 inch lower and only 10 revolutions per mile difference sounds pretty good to me.

So that takes away most of your argument

The variation in tire size is small remember 1 millimeter = 0.0393701 of an inch so most differences in your charts are given as MM not Inches and therefore most measurements are not big

Until you try it no one can say good or bad in the feel of the bike.

Well while I have not ridden on a 190/50 on this bike I have ridden it on a fair amount of sportbikes. The handling can be described in one word "SUCKS".

You assume that he is referring to the 50 series since he stated 190. I assumed he meant 55 series since to me that is the next logical step since our bike came with a 55 series.

The 190/50 is a flatter wider profile which will react just as i stated " more input required" the difference will come in that a 190/55 will finally reach a tipping point where the bike will exhibit a feeling of falling.

The 180/55 Michelin is a narrower tire than the stock Dunlop when mounted I assure you. When I mounted the Michelin I thought I was putting a bicycle tire on the bike compared to what i took off. This is the reason that I went to the 190/55 on the second Michelin rear.

Most of my calculations are based on the fact that we would be squeezing a tire intended for a 6 in rim onto a 5.5" rim. Which actually give the tire a balloon effect.

I assure you that most anyone that has a 190/50 tire on their bike thinks they are crap and will replace them or the other is the guy that thinks that since that is what came on the bike it must be the best choice.

My CBR1000RR came from the factory with a 190/50 and once i switched to a 55 the bike became a beast. Before that it was a workout in the corners.

Hey DS dude...  I meant 190 fifty five!  Not sure how this turned into 190 fifty??   An assumption perhaps?  Having said that, what do you think of the 190/55 on the Valk? How does it compare ride wise and looks?

Thanks man..

[Robert]

Well while I have not ridden on a 190/50 on this bike I have ridden it on a fair amount of sportbikes. The handling can be described in one word "SUCKS".

You assume that he is referring to the 50 series since he stated 190. I assumed he meant 55 series since to me that is the next logical step since our bike came with a 55 series.

The 190/50 is a flatter wider profile which will react just as i stated " more input required" the difference will come in that a 190/55 will finally reach a tipping point where the bike will exhibit a feeling of falling.

The 180/55 Michelin is a narrower tire than the stock Dunlop when mounted I assure you. When I mounted the Michelin I thought I was putting a bicycle tire on the bike compared to what i took off. This is the reason that I went to the 190/55 on the second Michelin rear.

Most of my calculations are based on the fact that we would be squeezing a tire intended for a 6 in rim onto a 5.5" rim. Which actually give the tire a balloon effect.

I assure you that most anyone that has a 190/50 tire on their bike thinks they are crap and will replace them or the other is the guy that thinks that since that is what came on the bike it must be the best choice.

My CBR1000RR came from the factory with a 190/50 and once i switched to a 55 the bike became a beast. Before that it was a workout in the corners.

Dang, with the above post looks like you were right not to mention I always liked your input.   

[Dragunslayer]

Well while I have not ridden on a 190/50 on this bike I have ridden it on a fair amount of sportbikes. The handling can be described in one word "SUCKS".

You assume that he is referring to the 50 series since he stated 190. I assumed he meant 55 series since to me that is the next logical step since our bike came with a 55 series.

The 190/50 is a flatter wider profile which will react just as i stated " more input required" the difference will come in that a 190/55 will finally reach a tipping point where the bike will exhibit a feeling of falling.

The 180/55 Michelin is a narrower tire than the stock Dunlop when mounted I assure you. When I mounted the Michelin I thought I was putting a bicycle tire on the bike compared to what i took off. This is the reason that I went to the 190/55 on the second Michelin rear.

Most of my calculations are based on the fact that we would be squeezing a tire intended for a 6 in rim onto a 5.5" rim. Which actually give the tire a balloon effect.

I assure you that most anyone that has a 190/50 tire on their bike thinks they are crap and will replace them or the other is the guy that thinks that since that is what came on the bike it must be the best choice.

My CBR1000RR came from the factory with a 190/50 and once i switched to a 55 the bike became a beast. Before that it was a workout in the corners.

Dang, with the above post looks like you were right not to mention I always liked your input.   

Sorry if I come off cocky, it's just that I spend a lot of time researching tires in the past. I use to change a fair amount and mount them as well when I worked for NoMar Tire Changers.

I learned a long time ago that just because Bill in Ohio gets 15,000 miles out of tire, it does not necessarily mean others unless they live near Bill will get the same results.

There are many different types of pavement used in the US. Some wear out tires more than others (if you ever make it to Arkansas you will understand )

I also enjoy everyone's input, especially on things I am not knowledgeable about.

[Dragunslayer]

So just for giggles I happened to have the original Dunlop in the basement as well as my first PR4 GT. Both of them in the 180/55 variety and decided that I would take a non scientific measurement of the tread width.

Needless to say the Michelin is at least 3/8 to 1/2'" narrower than the stock Dunlop. Visually the Dunlop appears to be anywhere from 1/4" to a half in taller than the the Michelin.