Rear Tire...60 vs 70 Aspect Ratio

[Alberta Patriot]

Just wondering if anyone has used 180/60-16 instead of 180/70-16. There is about a 5/8" drop in ride height with the 60 aspect. With a 31" inseam that would be better for me.

[Jess Tolbirt]

rpm's will go up

[Chrisj CMA]

A friend of mine had to get that size after a flat tire event...No problems running it so far, I know he doesnt really like it, but thats probably because he didnt need or want it.  Like Jess said it will affect your RPM's a bit but besides that should be fine

[MarkT]

60 is the OEM profile on the 1800 GW. Or was, not sure on the latest. It provided the usual speedo error of 5mph at 70. (Speedo feeds from the tranny on the wing).  I went to the 70 series and fixed the speedo error. Also the 70 provides a bit more cornering clearance on the GW which is more abundant than on the Valk already.  Didn't notice any handling difference, just changes to the rpms.  I wouldn't go to the 60 on the Valk but don't have your height issue.  If anything, I go the other way with the Austone.  BTW I also have a 31 inseam.  Also, your bike will stand up straighter on the sidestand.  I added my Bigfoot sidestand mod with the Austone.

[Alberta Patriot]

60 is the OEM profile on the 1800 GW. Or was, not sure on the latest. It provided the usual speedo error of 5mph at 70. (Speedo feeds from the tranny on the wing).  I went to the 70 series and fixed the speedo error. Also the 70 provides a bit more cornering clearance on the GW which is more abundant than on the Valk already.  Didn't notice any handling difference, just changes to the rpms.  I wouldn't go to the 60 on the Valk but don't have your height issue.  If anything, I go the other way with the Austone.  BTW I also have a 31 inseam.  Also, your bike will stand up straighter on the sidestand.  I added my Bigfoot sidestand mod with the Austone.

Did the C/T on my Stratoliner and will not spin that roulette wheel again...but I understand why others go that direction. I have about 24 thousand Kms on my current Shinko Journeys (about 5K of rubber left @ the rear tire, about 10K front?) and liked the handling a lot...no issues with those tires, and noticed it came in the 60 series ratio as well. With that kind of tire mileage I see no need to revisit the C/T. I don't mind the higher RPM which comes with higher torque to the ground with that "60" tire giving the bike a slightly lower gear ratio...And Anyway...my aggressive metal dragging days are over. The side stand is something to consider though.

[f6john]

Way, way back I tried the Avon 200-60 on the back. I bought it for the looks at the time and figured it would be ok as others had done it before me. It was great for around town but I didn't like the added rpms at cruise speeds. I only got about 5000 miles out of that tire and I went back to a 70 series tire.

[Farside]

A friend of mine had to get that size after a flat tire event...No problems running it so far, I know he doesnt really like it, but thats probably because he didnt need or want it.  Like Jess said it will affect your RPM's a bit but besides that should be fine

No I did need it and didn't have a choice because they didn't have the corrent size in stock.  
I've noticed the slight RPM increase which I do not like  the bike seat height even if its such a small difference not crazy about either  but really that's about it.  

[Jess from VA]

Just wondering if anyone has used 180/60-16 instead of 180/70-16. There is about a 5/8" drop in ride height with the 60 aspect. With a 31" inseam that would be better for me.

I used a not correct Michelin Commander II 140 on the front.  It is really a great handling and sticking tire in all weather (as good as anything I've ever used), but it only lasted about 6500 miles.

The Commander II does not come in the right Valk rear size either, but it does come in a 180 65 16 (closer to 180/70 than a 180/60) obviously, and the ride height loss (and rpm increase) should be closer to OE 70 than a 60.

I can thoroughly recommend the tire quality, just not the longevity (but I think because it still has a 180 carcass, instead of the smaller than OE front 140 carcass, it might not wear out as quick) (just a guess).

It is a Bias ply H-rated (130mph) tire and I see no problem there.  42 max psi, load capacity 1019 lbs.  It has gotten rave reviews since it came out.

https://www.denniskirk.com/michelin/commander-ii-tires.pfp544126.prdf

From the link, says:  Rear tires are designed for dramatically extended mileage and feature Aramid tread plies to resist centrifugal growth, reduce weight and provide excellent stability

This shows the measurement comparison between the 70 and 65 (both 180s). It estimates a .7" loss of ride height.  Say, half that at the pegs (third inch?).  And less than 3% more revolutions per mile.
https://www.tacomaworld.com/tirecalc?tires=180-70r16-180-65r16



I mentioned this some time ago but can't remember anyone getting one and reporting back on it.