Do you ever ride behind your bike? I love to see what it looks like with someone else on it (and I got mine back last night from the insurance agent who borrowed it for a week) and the boyfriend rode it home. ANYWAY...
does anyone else have a problem with how wimpy the back tire looks? I'd slap a 180 on there any day if I could. It just looks, so, I don't know, thin?
I know, I am insane, but it really does bother me!
the 130 rear tire is the only thing that had me seccond guessing my choice on the GS. Then I was around the bike for 0.5 seconds and I got over it real fast.
-Danimal
Not insane. It *is* a skinny tire. It looks like a midget next to my bf's FZ6 back tire, but he (usually) gets me where I need to go. :thumb:
And welcome to the nuthouse, Danimal! :P :mrgreen:
3.5 inch 130 R17 was the bomb back in the day (1989) when cutting edge sportbikes had the same.
Yeah big fat rear tires look cool and are all the rage nowadays.
But.
For the GSs weight and corner speeds a 130/70 is really all it truely needs IF good modern radial sport tires were available. And that is the problem. No one really makes one. So you have to go up to 140 and 150 tires which while looking better, really don't help much because they weigh more and the tire is distorted and doesn't handle/stick optimiumly.
I put a 140 on my bike. Those fit with no problem. I agree about the 130 being skinny... my roommate's FRONT tire is a 120... i would probably die of embarrassment if he put a 130 on his front while my rear had a 130
I've always agreed that good OEM size tires were best for handling and went to larger size tires only because 17" touring tires came in the 130/90 size and good sport touring radials of the 140/80 size fit our 3.5" rims best. Some 150/70 tires will just fit and some won't without altering the brake torque rod.
Bought my 97 new and bought the 02 slightly used and it already had a fenderectomy which I would not have done. When I replaced my AV45/46 ST radials with the OEM size AM51/52 tires this spring, that 130 /70 size rear tire really looked skinny, and even slinnier when parked in a row of large cruisers and sportbikes. :(
Just replaced the 130/70 AM52 with a 150/70 Lasertec and boy does it look better. The Lasertec has a very round profile and is a bit rounder yet on the 3.5" rim and the bike just falls into corners and grips better than the AM52 ever did.
If you run the 130/70 tire, maybe it's best to keep the long OEM rear fender to hide it. :lol: :lol:
I am quite skinny myself and never had a problem with my appearance, so... long live 130/70! :mrgreen: and till I learn how to ride properly what do I care about the looks anyway :)
I run 150/60/17 pilot powers man that tire looks great alot of tread and looks wider than stock.Now my but has the pilot power on his GSXR 1000 man thats a tire but also cost over 200 bucks.
Quote from: JamesGYeah big fat rear tires look cool and are all the rage nowadays.
So much the rage that I get sick of the look of them really fast.
The bike was designed to use a 130 rear. That's why it has such good corner flopability. The GS doesn't NEED a larger tire because it doesn't have the type of power most sportbikes do which require a larger tire to put power to the pavement.
Running a wider tire will compromise what the GS was made to run on. With a wider rear tire you will lose the flopability it had earlier because you have to run over more tire to get to the corners. Not only that but since the tire WEIGHS more, the rotational inertia is greater, thus it requires more force to move it. Sure it might LOOK better with a 150 or so, but it won't handle nearly as nice.
The 150/60/17 pilot power handles alot better than OEM it is so sticky.
Apples and oranges to compare a bigger tire in a different compound.
I do not really need a wider tire.
Even if a got rim set from a Bandit 400
I use my bike more for commuting.
Not a lot of use on the side.
Quote from: AlphaFire X5The bike was designed to use a 130 rear. That's why it has such good corner flopability. The GS doesn't NEED a larger tire because it doesn't have the type of power most sportbikes do which require a larger tire to put power to the pavement.
Running a wider tire will compromise what the GS was made to run on. With a wider rear tire you will lose the flopability it had earlier because you have to run over more tire to get to the corners. Not only that but since the tire WEIGHS more, the rotational inertia is greater, thus it requires more force to move it. Sure it might LOOK better with a 150 or so, but it won't handle nearly as nice.
sorry alpha, that is the biggest crap pot i've ever heard. that's just what everyone wants you to think. the theory of the bike being designed for 130 and it's best for the handling is all bull crap.
in fact, it's just the opposite. the first time i rode thr bike on 150 (on 4.5" wheel), i was blown away by how smoothly and effortlessly it carved the corners. it really felt like a sports bike. the improved look is just a bonus.
I dunno, man. By that logic wouldn't a 180 tire handle better than the 150?
Quote from: AlphaFire X5I dunno, man. By that logic wouldn't a 180 tire handle better than the 150?
i only went up two sizes...it's noticable upgrade but not monumental. i had a 150 and 160 side by side...160 was noticeably wider than 150. 160 didn't fit :(
Quote from: JetSwingthe first time i rode thr bike on 150 (on 4.5" wheel)
Quote from: RoadstergalApples and oranges to compare a bigger tire in a different compound.
They've got Sport Demons in 130 and 110. I get mine tomorrow. I bet those are sticky enough for near anyone on here. They've got it in 150 too. I wouldn't mind doing comparisons of the two if I had the money and time. The 150 doesn't fit on the stock rim very well at all, though.
Quote from: RoadstergalQuote from: JetSwingthe first time i rode thr bike on 150 (on 4.5" wheel)
Quote from: RoadstergalApples and oranges to compare a bigger tire in a different compound.
if everyone can agree on the fact that you can better tires in bigger size AND they favorably affect the handling of the bike, what's the argument here? whether it's the tires or wider wheels, the final outcome is bigger is better. and that is better than stock.
Quote from: JetSwingif everyone can agree on the fact that you can better tires in bigger size AND they favorably affect the handling of the bike, what's the argument here? whether it's the tires or wider wheels, the final outcome is bigger is better. and that is better than stock.
Yeah, you can get much stickier rubber on the bigger tires which will help you stick to the ground better, but I'm not sure how it would affect the flickability of the GS. That's one thing I absolutely love about the GS is how utterly throwable it is.
Quote from: JetSwinghey favorably affect the handling of the bike, what's the argument here? whether it's the tires or wider wheels, the final outcome is bigger is better. and that is better than stock.
No, I'm talking about the compound of the tire. Stickier compound in the same size is a fair comparison; stock tire in a larger size is a fair comparison. Stickier tire in a larger size - two variables. And I would say that compound matters more than size.
Quote from: AlphaFire X5Quote from: JetSwingif everyone can agree on the fact that you can better tires in bigger size AND they favorably affect the handling of the bike, what's the argument here? whether it's the tires or wider wheels, the final outcome is bigger is better. and that is better than stock.
Yeah, you can get much stickier rubber on the bigger tires which will help you stick to the ground better, but I'm not sure how it would affect the flickability of the GS. That's one thing I absolutely love about the GS is how utterly throwable it is.
well, that's what i'vew been trying to tell you. it's not just the stickiness of the tire. every aspect of handling has improved including the flickability. it rolls on alot smoother and effortlessly. when i was on stock, i felt like i had to use my weight so much more to lean. that's why i said with the 150 setup i have, it feel alot like a sports bike now.
i guess you wouldn't believe me till you experienced it yourself...
Quote from: RoadstergalAnd I would say that compound matters more than size.
And which is "better" depends entirely on what you're using it for, and what you're expecting of it.
Which reminds me...I need to get new snows for my car.
Quote from: JetSwingevery aspect of handling has improved including the flickability. it rolls on alot smoother and effortlessly.
So...this is bothering me now.
I could be being daft, but I don't understand how the width of the rear tire would alter the rate at which the bike leans against it's pivot. Perhaps the increased height of the tires raises the moment arm of the bike. If anything, I'd think "flickability" would have more to do with the
front tire than the rear...altering the trail and the turning geometry of the bike. I suppose it's also possible that tires with more mass would add some amount of gyroscopic stability to the bike (although probably by a negligible amount)...so depending on how much precession actually contributes to leaning it could help (but again: on the front tire, not the rear).
Sorry...I'm babbling again.Quote from: JetSwingwhen i was on stock, i felt like i had to use my weight so much more to lean.
Ummm...you don't use your weight to lean a motorcycle--you use your weight to alter the required lean angle. The front wheel takes care of the leaning. No? :?
Quote from: RoadstergalQuote from: JetSwinghey favorably affect the handling of the bike, what's the argument here? whether it's the tires or wider wheels, the final outcome is bigger is better. and that is better than stock.
No, I'm talking about the compound of the tire. Stickier compound in the same size is a fair comparison; stock tire in a larger size is a fair comparison. Stickier tire in a larger size - two variables. And I would say that compound matters more than size.
the only point i was trying to make was...putting a wider tire on gs does not adversely affect the handling of the bike. that's it!
Quote from: BadgerQuote from: JetSwingwhen i was on stock, i felt like i had to use my weight so much more to lean.
Ummm...you don't use your weight to lean a motorcycle--you use your weight to alter the required lean angle. The front wheel takes care of the leaning. No? :?
hahaha...you lost me there :)
I wonder if the stock tire size would be better in the rain? On that note, I prefer skinnier tires because of the rain. The 110/80 front BT45 was skittish in the rain, while the 130/70 rear was planted, but also realize that suspension had a lot to with that as well.
One thing that also complicates this is that tire comparisons are usually done from old tires to new tires - at a time when the old tire sucks so much that you don't want to ride on it anymore. And a lot of street bike tires, at that point, are worn flat in the middle, so they resist lean.
And ja, countersteering does more to initiate lean, weight does more to change lean angle.
It's not the size of the tire, it's the speed of the rotation... Or something.
Quote from: JetSwingQuote from: BadgerQuote from: JetSwingwhen i was on stock, i felt like i had to use my weight so much more to lean.
Ummm...you don't use your weight to lean a motorcycle--you use your weight to alter the required lean angle. The front wheel takes care of the leaning. No? :?
hahaha...you lost me there :)
Well, take a hypothetical situation:
Get a motorcycle up to speed, remove your hands from the handlebars, and shift your weight to one side (assume constant throttle). My understanding (not having tried this) is that the bike will continue fairly straight. Watch some video of the nutjobs standing on their tanks for an illustration of this. Then, get a motorcycle up to speed and-without shifting any weight at all (think sack of potatoes)-press on the right handlebar. The bike will lean over to the right.
Further, if you lean to the left and push on the right handlebar, the bike will lean
right. If you recall from MSF, the way they teach the swerve is to maintain your weight over the center of the bike, but press on opposite sides of the bars to rapidly lean in opposite directions. Thus, no body weight is used to affect the lean.
Motorcycles are laterallly stable at speed. This is important. You don't "balance" a motorcycle, it stays up all by itself despite your efforts. In fact, you have to work to throw a motorcycle out of balance by altering its geometry to get it to turn. This is the purpose of the rake angle of the front forks, and why countersteering works.
The purpose of dramatically shifting weight to the inside of the turn ("hanging off") has nothing to do with changing the "rate of lean", but instead allows the bike to make the same radius at the same speed with a reduced lean angle.
Does that make sense?
Quote from: scratchI wonder if the stock tire size would be better in the rain?
*slaps forehead*
I'm pretty sure that tread pattern and tire compound are the major contributors to wet-weather traction. :lol:
I forgot to answer the original question...
Quote from: Maduro MistressDo you ever ride behind your bike?
Not unless something's gone very wrong!
Quote from: RVertigoIt's not the size of the tire, it's the speed of the rotation... Or something.
Are you speaking of how the circumference of the tire reduces as you lean the bike over, thus reducing your gearing?
Quote from: BadgerQuote from: JetSwingGet a motorcycle up to speed, remove your hands from the handlebars, and shift your weight to one side (assume constant throttle). My understanding (not having tried this) is that the bike will continue fairly straight. Watch some video of the nutjobs standing on their tanks for an illustration of this.
Like riding no-hands on a bicycle and turning? Unlike riding a bicycle, a motorcycle is much heavier and the rims, while being smaller, are heavier (re: greater centrifugal force), and you have a much larger contact patch than a bicycle; all of this which makes body steering more difficult to affect the steering of the bike, can still be done.
Quote from: BadgerMotorcycles are laterallly stable at speed. This is important. You don't "balance" a motorcycle, it stays up all by itself despite your efforts. In fact, you have to work to throw a motorcycle out of balance by altering its geometry to get it to turn. This is the purpose of the rake angle of the front forks, and why countersteering works.
I think what badger needed to make a little more clear here is that, yes you CAN hang off the side of a motorcycle and turn it, its just damned hard where the proper technique is a lot easier and doesn't use your weight.
As for the bicycle-no-hands-turn analogy, when I lean over (no hands) to the right on my GS500 at 50 or so it leans to the left and we keep going straight.
Quote from: BadgerQuote from: scratchI wonder if the stock tire size would be better in the rain?
*slaps forehead*
I'm pretty sure that tread pattern and tire compound are the major contributors to wet-weather traction.
Would a wider tire be more prone to hydroplaning?
Quote from: scratch
Like riding no-hands on a bicycle and turning? Unlike riding a bicycle, a motorcycle is much heavier and the rims, while being smaller, are heavier, and you have a much larger contact patch than a bicycle; all of this which makes body steering more difficult to affect the steering of the bike, can still be done.
Right:
Quote from: Badgeris that the bike will continue fairly straight.
It's not that it has -no- effect...it just has a negligible effect at any significant velocity. Bicycles--while also stable--are less stable than motorcycles due to differences in mass. The differences between a bicycle and motorcycle (for the purposes of the physics) are mass and velocity.
'Course...I could just be full of :bs: :)
Quote from: BadgerQuote from: JetSwingQuote from: BadgerQuote from: JetSwingwhen i was on stock, i felt like i had to use my weight so much more to lean.
Ummm...you don't use your weight to lean a motorcycle--you use your weight to alter the required lean angle. The front wheel takes care of the leaning. No? :?
hahaha...you lost me there :)
Well, take a hypothetical situation:
Get a motorcycle up to speed, remove your hands from the handlebars, and shift your weight to one side (assume constant throttle). My understanding (not having tried this) is that the bike will continue fairly straight. Watch some video of the nutjobs standing on their tanks for an illustration of this. Then, get a motorcycle up to speed and-without shifting any weight at all (think sack of potatoes)-press on the right handlebar. The bike will lean over to the right.
Further, if you lean to the left and push on the right handlebar, the bike will lean right. If you recall from MSF, the way they teach the swerve is to maintain your weight over the center of the bike, but press on opposite sides of the bars to rapidly lean in opposite directions. Thus, no body weight is used to affect the lean.
Motorcycles are laterallly stable at speed. This is important. You don't "balance" a motorcycle, it stays up all by itself despite your efforts. In fact, you have to work to throw a motorcycle out of balance by altering its geometry to get it to turn. This is the purpose of the rake angle of the front forks, and why countersteering works.
The purpose of dramatically shifting weight to the inside of the turn ("hanging off") has nothing to do with changing the "rate of lean", but instead allows the bike to make the same radius at the same speed with a reduced lean angle.
Does that make sense?
badger, i'm really sorry i asked. i think your could have wrote a book there... :P
the purpose of "hanging off" is to make the same radius at faster speed. i think that makes more sense.
all this is going way off topic but i'll say when you are carving corners, you have to shift your body position. with that, you weight gets shifted to the laning side. your weight does play a roll in leaning.
i don't know...i think you might have taken my statement ("i felt like i had to use my weight so much more to lean") too seriously.
no! i do not just throw my body around in order lean.
:mrgreen:
Quote from: scratchQuote from: BadgerQuote from: scratchI wonder if the stock tire size would be better in the rain?
*slaps forehead*
I'm pretty sure that tread pattern and tire compound are the major contributors to wet-weather traction.
Would a wider tire be more prone to hydroplaning?
Would a wider tire be more prone to getting roadkills?
Quote from: JetSwingbadger, i'm really sorry i asked. i think your could have wrote a book there... :P
I'm not known for my short-windedness. :roll:
Quote from: JetSwingall this is going way off topic
Since when does anything ever stay on topic? At least no one brought up lesbians... :mrgreen:
Quote from: JetSwingi don't know...i think you might have taken my statement ("i felt like i had to use my weight so much more to lean") too seriously.
We were supposed to laugh it off? :)
Quote from: BadgerQuote from: JetSwingbadger, i'm really sorry i asked. i think your could have wrote a book there... :P
I'm not known for my short-windedness. :roll:
Quote from: JetSwingall this is going way off topic
Since when does anything ever stay on topic? At least no one brought up lesbians... :mrgreen:
hmm...how can someone possibly tie lesbian to this topic :roll:
Quote from: RoadstergalQuote from: JetSwingi don't know...i think you might have taken my statement ("i felt like i had to use my weight so much more to lean") too seriously.
We were supposed to laugh it off? :)
absolutely yes :lol:
Quote from: JetSwingQuote from: BadgerAt least no one brought up lesbians... :mrgreen:
hmm...how can someone possibly tie lesbian to this topic :roll:
By virtue of it being completely off topic, of course! :lol:
Is there relavance between comparing how the tire molds to the surface of the road and lesbianism?
Quote from: scratchIs there relavance between comparing how the tire molds to the surface of the road and lesbianism?
hell yeah! lasbianism effects everything!
So the tire molds to the road like how two lesbians mold to each other, right?
Quote from: scratchSo the tire molds to the road like how two lesbians mold to each other, right?
that's a very keen observation...
man i was getting really into the topic then the topic of lesbians had to come up...
i'll probably be in the market for some new tires soon so yeah, keep arguing!
Quote from: JetSwingQuote from: scratchSo the tire molds to the road like how two lesbians mold to each other, right?
that's a very keen observation...
But, how does it relate to skinny tires (see thread title)?
I'm tired of this thread. And all of the inflated arguments therein.
You'd best tread lightly with this one....
Quote from: scratchQuote from: JetSwingQuote from: scratchSo the tire molds to the road like how two lesbians mold to each other, right?
that's a very keen observation...
But, how does it relate to skinny tires (see thread title)?
what do you feel like when you're riding a bike with 130 rear tire? inadequate, whimpy, girly and feminine.
so you see skinny tires have direct correlation with lesbianism. it's all about finesse and sensuality. a directly oppsite of manliness and testosterone.
Hmm. I'll take your words into consideration, JetSwing. This is actually an interesting topic for me. There are just SO many factors we have to account for, and it's difficult for some of us (being poor college students for example) to do tire comparisons with the exception of the Search function. I think one of the main factors that you enjoy your tire so much is that, despite being a larger diameter, the compound is considerably better than that of a typical tire normally fitted to the GS. While the wide diameter might decrease handling, the compound is sticky enough to more than make up for the loss.
Also, since the GS is outfitted with bias-ply tires stock and you switched to a radial, that may be another contributing factor to it's smooth tracking between side to side transitions, as the radials are rounded all the way across.
I'll be mounting my radial 130/17 and 110/17 Sport Demons on Saturday, followed by a quick scrub in, then a 220+ mile ride on Sunday. I'll tell y'all what I think of my skinny tires then! :)
Technically yes, all other factors held constant...
but the minute difference in the amount of tire incontact with the ground/water on a large tire vs a skinny tire makes it a negligible difference as far as minimum-speeds-to-hyrdoplane are concerned.
Hi, I don't know anything. I am just a noob :P
However, when I tried to get a wider rear tire when I replaced it this season, I was told by a couple of the tech's at the dealership that a wide rear tire is mostly for looks and it is more difficult to turn the bike around corners. They told me that it was not a good idea, and would even be "unsafe" for my bike and I.
They could have sold me a wider - and more expensive - tire, but they chose not to. One of the tech's even felt pretty strongly about it. :dunno:
Quote from: PhaedrusHi, I don't know anything. I am just a noob :P
However, when I tried to get a wider rear tire when I replaced it this season, I was told by a couple of the tech's at the dealership that a wide rear tire is mostly for looks and it is more difficult to turn the bike around corners. They told me that it was not a good idea, and would even be "unsafe" for my bike and I.
They could have sold me a wider - and more expensive - tire, but they chose not to. One of the tech's even felt pretty strongly about it. :dunno:
noob, that's true. if you want a wider tire, you should get a wider wheel too