• Can't post after logging to the forum for the first time... Try Again - If you can't post in the forum, sign out of both the membership site and the forum and log in again. Make sure your COG membership is active and your browser allow cookies. If you still can't post, contact the COG IT guy at IT@Concours.org.
  • IF YOU GET 404 ERROR: This may be due to using a link in a post from prior to the web migration. Content was brought over from the old forum as is, but the links may be in error. If the link contains "cog-online.org" it is an old link and will not work.

120/60 front tire vs 120/70 stock size

Gooch

Bicycle
One of the tire reps suggested PR4's using the smaller sidewall of the 60 front and a stock sized GT rear for my C14.  I just pulled the wheel off and was surprised at the size diff comparing the old vs new tires.

I'm pulling off PR3's that are getting pretty lumpy with elevated center ridges (normally run 40-42 psi).

Has anyone used this size combo that can share what difference it made?
 
I'm curious about that as well.  Seems like dropping the front a little would give the same/similar result as raising the rear with the 55, while getting my heels a bit closer to the ground instead of away from it.

How quick would the steering be with both?  :eek: (60 front-55 rear)
 
Yesterday was the first time I pulled wheels off the C14. Always do the maintenance on all my equipment but have "farmed out" the tire work. My garage is full of tools but discovered I don't have a wheel tool.

Does anyone have a source for their favorite socket that works well for the Connie?  I mic'd 14 and 22mm insides and 26 mm outside (rear nut).  I'm surprised I don't have one in my road tool bag already....
 
Local tire store sold me these truck lugnuts for $1 ea.  Cut off round end for full engagement. Only really need one for the right side. leave the left side fork cap bolts tight, only loosen right and pull out axle.



Or..http://www.amazon.com/Titan-15622-Drive-Hex-Socket/dp/B004W82PGS

Don't usually need 14mm allen at rear.  It has never slipped on me. 
Or..http://www.homedepot.com/p/GearWrench-1-2-in-Drive-14-mm-Hex-Bit-Socket-80662/204617131?cm_mmc=Shopping%7CTHD%7CG%7C0%7CG-BASE-PLA-D25T-HandTools%7C&gclid=Cj0KEQjw6My4BRD4ssKGvYvB-YsBEiQAJYd77ZZXYcN_chybwFeVH9X_B28mBWf8KFgWfU8ct2TGaVAaAsRn8P8HAQ&gclsrc=aw.ds

Rear nut is 27mm.
http://www.harborfreight.com/12-in-drive-27mm-deep-wall-impact-socket-67790.html
 
Jerry said:
One of the tire reps suggested PR4's using the smaller sidewall of the 60 front and a stock sized GT rear for my C14.  I just pulled the wheel off and was surprised at the size diff comparing the old vs new tires.

I'm pulling off PR3's that are getting pretty lumpy with elevated center ridges (normally run 40-42 psi).

Has anyone used this size combo that can share what difference it made?

Did the rep say why he suggested the 60 series up front?  What are the benefits?  or, is that what they had in stock and wanted to sell it?

I'm thinking it will slow the steering down, harder to roll over in the turn?  I know when you put the 55 series on the rear it certainly helps the steering get quicker.

 
Someone please correct me if I'm off base, but along with a sharper profile, the 55 raises the rear, making the forks steeper, hence quicker turning.

The 60 on the front would lower it, accomplishing the same/similar result as raising the rear....steeper forks, quicker turning.

Of course, the difference is minimal, and the only way most of us can notice it at all, is because we are going from worn out tires, to brand new ones.
If we tried these different sizes back-to-back with all brand new tires, I doubt most of us would be able to feel much difference.
 
Thoughts and conversation with the rep had to do with rolling into and out of the turns being smoother, easier, or some other adjective. The smaller profile will definitely lower the front end, maybe 3/8" new tire vs new tire.

Comparing to the used tire, I guess it looked more dramatic last night.
 
I like a 190/55 rear, but a 120/60 up front?.. :-\
No way I'd run that-

Too low of a profile for this heavy of a bike...
I bet you would loose a lot of compliance; front end would feel harsher.
I already worry enough about hitting pot-holes and bending my wheels...
Don't know what that rep was smoking but I don't think there would be any performance benefit in doing this.
Only thing it would do is lower the front-end slightly.

Oh... and the gap between the front fender and tire would be nasty.  :-[
 
Jerry said:
Yesterday was the first time I pulled wheels off the C14. Always do the maintenance on all my equipment but have "farmed out" the tire work. My garage is full of tools but discovered I don't have a wheel tool.

Does anyone have a source for their favorite socket that works well for the Connie?  I mic'd 14 and 22mm insides and 26 mm outside (rear nut).  I'm surprised I don't have one in my road tool bag already....

Jerry, Try a sparkplug socket. Put it in the axle hole backwards - hex nut side in the axle and extension in where the sparkplug usually goes.

Bob Skinner
 
Sailor_chic said:
The problem I see with these motorcycle axel tools is that they all seem to have 3/8" drives. The front axel gets torqued to 97 ft lbs. My torque wrench that goes to that high setting has a 1/2 drive. Just like the Craftsman spark plug wrench can be reversed to get a 22mm tool, I use a 13/16 Craftsman socket also reversed. It has a 1/2" drive which use can use with a 1/2" extension. 

I suppose they make a 3/8 drive torque wrench that can go to 100 ft lbs? 
 
4Bikes said:
Sailor_chic said:
The problem I see with these motorcycle axel tools is that they all seem to have 3/8" drives. The front axel gets torqued to 97 ft lbs. My torque wrench that goes to that high setting has a 1/2 drive. Just like the Craftsman spark plug wrench can be reversed to get a 22mm tool, I use a 13/16 Craftsman socket also reversed. It has a 1/2" drive which use can use with a 1/2" extension. 

I suppose they make a 3/8 drive torque wrench that can go to 100 ft lbs? 


Solution, for lack of a 1/2" drive.  Many tool drawers/socket sets already have one of these. Hopefully the 3/8 extension (to reach into a backwards plug socket) won't explode on ya!  :eek:
http://www.amazon.com/Century-Drill-Tool-66508-Adapter/dp/B00BYFK1T0/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1460940855&sr=8-7&keywords=3%2F8+to+1%2F2+in+socket+adapter
 
Flat-spot said:
4Bikes said:
Sailor_chic said:
The problem I see with these motorcycle axel tools is that they all seem to have 3/8" drives. The front axel gets torqued to 97 ft lbs. My torque wrench that goes to that high setting has a 1/2 drive. Just like the Craftsman spark plug wrench can be reversed to get a 22mm tool, I use a 13/16 Craftsman socket also reversed. It has a 1/2" drive which use can use with a 1/2" extension. 

I suppose they make a 3/8 drive torque wrench that can go to 100 ft lbs? 
Solution, for lack of a 1/2" drive.  Many tool drawers/socket sets already have one of these. Hopefully the 3/8 extension (to reach into a backwards plug socket) won't explode on ya!  :eek:
http://www.amazon.com/Century-Drill-Tool-66508-Adapter/dp/B00BYFK1T0/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1460940855&sr=8-7&keywords=3%2F8+to+1%2F2+in+socket+adapter
Yes, I have one of those cheaters.  On the very first try putting the front tire back on way back when, I twisted the 3/8" extension right in the middle and it broke.  I never tried to see if Craftsman would replace it.  :rotflmao:  That was when I found the better 1/2" option with the 13/16" socket. 
 
When I was running track days on an SV 650 Suzuki I switched to the 60 profile as per the fast guys recommendation for quicker turn in. It certainly worked for the SV but I agree with Lake Traxx, probably NOT a great idea on the Concours.
 
Jerry said:
One of the tire reps suggested PR4's using the smaller sidewall of the 60 front and a stock sized GT rear for my C14.  I just pulled the wheel off and was surprised at the size diff comparing the old vs new tires.

I'm pulling off PR3's that are getting pretty lumpy with elevated center ridges (normally run 40-42 psi).

Has anyone used this size combo that can share what difference it made?

Well the 60 series has a much lower load rating (55W vs. 58W for the 70 series). This alone would keep me from considering it, the 60 series is obviously intended for middle-weights.

Dan
 
4Bikes said:
Sailor_chic said:
The problem I see with these motorcycle axel tools is that they all seem to have 3/8" drives. The front axel gets torqued to 97 ft lbs. My torque wrench that goes to that high setting has a 1/2 drive. Just like the Craftsman spark plug wrench can be reversed to get a 22mm tool, I use a 13/16 Craftsman socket also reversed. It has a 1/2" drive which use can use with a 1/2" extension. 

I suppose they make a 3/8 drive torque wrench that can go to 100 ft lbs?
You don't have to use the 3/8 drive on the motorcycle axle tool, a socket with a 1/2" drive that will fit one of the other two sizes it has that's not being used to engage the axle would also work.
 
The Pope said:
4Bikes said:
Sailor_chic said:
The problem I see with these motorcycle axel tools is that they all seem to have 3/8" drives. The front axel gets torqued to 97 ft lbs. My torque wrench that goes to that high setting has a 1/2 drive. Just like the Craftsman spark plug wrench can be reversed to get a 22mm tool, I use a 13/16 Craftsman socket also reversed. It has a 1/2" drive which use can use with a 1/2" extension. 

I suppose they make a 3/8 drive torque wrench that can go to 100 ft lbs?
You don't have to use the 3/8 drive on the motorcycle axle tool, a socket with a 1/2" drive that will fit one of the other two sizes it has that's not being used to engage the axle would also work.
Good point  :-[  I was focused on that 3/8" drive connector. 
 
I used the spark plug socket to remove and will use it to install tomorrow if my ordered tool doesn't arrive. I use the 3/8 to 1/2 converter to connect my torque wrench.  Fortunately I had a 27mm deep impact socket to torque the rear nut.

Already had possession of the 60 series tire so I had it mounted and balanced yesterday. As I was reinstalling tonight, I noticed the front axle seals had minor damage to the lips so I'll pick up replacements tomorrow before buttoning it up. 

I'll try the 60 and if it feels weird, I'll suck it up and change it. I appreciate the outpouring of help and suggestions.

Switching topics slightly, I'm closing out my day wondering if my 4 year old battery should be replaced as a preventative move. Any real world reports on how many years to expect?  My sled batteries have been lasting 5-6 years.
 
A 120 is a waste for street use. Even on track you'll still have wide strips of unsprung weight. I can't imagine how it must feel to pump such a wide skin up to 42psi like some guys do. Rock hard and cold as a clam. No grip.

110's warm up faster and reduce unsprung weight. You might even have less than the 1" chicken strips you do now after switching. You'd be surprised how heavy a tire is. Or more importantly, how much impact the added weight placed at the circumference effects directional changes, rotational, axial, etc. For fun sometime try a 130 and see how heavy that thing is. Pump it up to 42 and see how you like it. If you want to see what a stone feels like, checkout the Dunlop rear made for Harley's. It takes two hands to lift it off the ground. Then take your truck for a drive, ahem, bike for a ride.

I don't buy tires anymore but if I did, this would be the front tire I'd get for a 17 inch hoop on the street http://www.revzilla.com/product/shinko-006-podium-front-tires

Begin flame session  :)
 
douglasjre said:
Begin flame session  :)

Okay, I'll start. The 110/70ZR17 has a lower load rating (54W) than even the 120/60ZR17 (55W). These are tires for middle weights, not heavy weights. The last thing I would do is mount one of these on a C14 or FJR. These bikes are designed for a 120/70ZR17 (58W) and they handle just fine with these (as well as stop with a stronger side wall and larger contact patch).

Dan
 
Yokohama sold off the moulds and parents to the Asians. They're now called Shinko. It's a favorite amond drag racers. Ricky Gadson laid down a record breaking fastest 1/4 mile with a ZX14 and a Shinko in stock class. Ive used the Podium size 110 on Roebling road raceway as well as on the street. Its a soft compound with nonstop grip. Flawless traction dry and wet. And the 110 is very lightweight. Go to Cycle Gear and pick it up, then pick up a 120 sized Michelin. The sidewall is very flexible too. Great absorption of bumps and you can keep high pressure if you want. If its -rated dont let the 149 speed limit scare you. Your 14 tops out at 152 anyway and ive been upto 175 repeatedly with it and dragging a knee (110 Podium) on a 550lb bike. https://youtu.be/Ca7WwAnjr28

So my answer to the thread topic would be neither. 120 is too wide, too heavy.
 
At the National ally In Cortez the tire guy who sold Michelins suggested going to a smaller front tire to improve handling rather than a larger rear tire. OK I’ll let the brave ones figure this out.    ;)
 
I have to agree. We all know the 110 works a whole lot better than the 120 on the C10 :)
We also know that goldwing size tires make the bike handle like a tank. 
 
Apart from a 110 having lower load capability, it is also designed for a 3.0" wide rim. The C14 has a 3.5" rim which a 120 is designed for.
 
MikeJ said:
Apart from a 110 having lower load capability, it is also designed for a 3.0" wide rim. The C14 has a 3.5" rim which a 120 is designed for.
hehe...Now I agree with you!! The 110 belongs on the C10 then and not on a C14. I am glad to see i am firm on this. :-\
 
... no one referenced the traction control in this tire size debate. The traction control will be off a little if you change the front to back tire diameter ratio. Maybe not a big deal for TC on this bike but my other bike a 60 series front was a problem.

If your not going cross country try out a 60 ...i would not use a 110 on the connie tho.
 
500 miles after mounting the 60, I switched back to a new 70.  The 60 did make it turn in easier, but that tendency was more than I was comfortable with. If I were planning to ride solely on the curves and not loaded down with traveling gear, the 60 would likely have been fine. The size change idea originated with the the Cortez Michelin dealer, whom I also bought the tires from.

So, a new 60 to new 70 comparison ultimately occurred. I much prefer the standard size 70 in the PR4's (GT rear). Anyone need an almost new 120/60 PR4 at a discount?  I won't be using it.

Question - Removing the front tire from the bike the second time was very very difficult. I previously mounted it using shop manual specs - 96 ft lbs I believe - torqueing the axle and the pinching bolts to specs.  But it must have been too much as it was a bear pulling it apart. The axle nut threads had a small amount of grease which may have messed with the torque values.
 
Something else to consider is safety and legality.  Keep in mind that the tire size is designed around the bike to ensure the highest quality contact patch.  Changing the tire size, will alter that patch size and dynamics of the contact.  Could be bad.

Also....consider insurance.  If you get into an accident, and you don't have the proper designated tire size or rating, and the insurance company WILL look for any way possible to say that it's neglect and tell you to pound sand.  I had a 1993 MR2 that I put non "Z" rated tires on.  I spun out in the rain and munched it pretty good.  Slammed into the concrete barrier with the back end. The insurance **** investigated the accident, frame was bent, and guess who got to pay out the remaining TWO YEARS on a car that was worthless?  Yup.  I know first hand.
So be weary of safety equipment modifications.  Contact your insurance company and ask if it would void your insurance at least.
 
Great point. The fine print probably has the necessary anti-modification language for Flo, to say "no!"
 
Bergmen said:
douglasjre said:
Begin flame session  :)

Okay, I'll start. The 110/70ZR17 has a lower load rating (54W) than even the 120/60ZR17 (55W). These are tires for middle weights, not heavy weights. The last thing I would do is mount one of these on a C14 or FJR. These bikes are designed for a 120/70ZR17 (58W) and they handle just fine with these (as well as stop with a stronger side wall and larger contact patch).

Dan

I know this is an old thread but, Any arguments with the tire that was recommended other than the size. More specifically this front with a Road 5GT rear, both in stock sizing. Or the same combo but stock front and a 200 rear?
 
What did you replace them with?

As a 25 year veteran of the tire business I can assure you that a non z-rated tire would not void or make unsafe a vehicle unless it was a tire failure that was caused by speed/load.  Your car lost traction in water and the speed rating has nothing to do with traction. What you do loose is stiffness in sidewall making steering slightly less responsive and not approved for driving at maintained rates of speed 130 or 149MPH but it is perfectly fine to mount the same size tire in lower speed ratings.

https://i.postimg.cc/HkK9zrwt/yire.jpg


Ethically you should give customers written notice that they will have a slightly diminished feeling in steering and that re-adjusting may take several days. That they shouldn't drive over 130MPH because the tire cannot withstand the temperatures created by those speeds.
What is a load rating?
235/55R17 99H- The load index (99) is the tire size's assigned numerical value used to compare relative load carrying capabilities. The higher the tire's load index number, the greater its load carrying capacity.

97 = 1,609 pounds
98 = 1,653 pounds
99 = 1,709 pounds

A tire with a higher load index than that of the Original Equipment tire indicates an increase in load capacity. A tire with a load index equal to that of the Original Equipment tire indicates an equivalent load capacity. A tire with a lower load index than the Original Equipment tire indicates the tire does not equal the load capacity of the original.

Typically, the load indexes of the tires used on passenger cars and light trucks range from 70 to 110.


Calling your spin out an event caused or worsen because you put H rated tires on your car vs W or Z is total ******** and a good Atty and a tire pro could make it very clear to a jury.

Sounds like someone played a spade and you were not prepared to disqualify the investigators fraudulant statements.

Was this your insurance company or someone elses??  may I ask?




Graphicjunkie said:
Something else to consider is safety and legality.  Keep in mind that the tire size is designed around the bike to ensure the highest quality contact patch.  Changing the tire size, will alter that patch size and dynamics of the contact.  Could be bad.

Also....consider insurance.  If you get into an accident, and you don't have the proper designated tire size or rating, and the insurance company WILL look for any way possible to say that it's neglect and tell you to pound sand.  I had a 1993 MR2 that I put non "Z" rated tires on.  I spun out in the rain and munched it pretty good.  Slammed into the concrete barrier with the back end. The insurance **** investigated the accident, frame was bent, and guess who got to pay out the remaining TWO YEARS on a car that was worthless?  Yup.  I know first hand.
So be weary of safety equipment modifications.  Contact your insurance company and ask if it would void your insurance at least.
 

Attachments

  • yire.JPG
    yire.JPG
    56.4 KB · Views: 182
A 120 is a waste for street use. Even on track you'll still have wide strips of unsprung weight. I can't imagine how it must feel to pump such a wide skin up to 42psi like some guys do. Rock hard and cold as a clam. No grip.

110's warm up faster and reduce unsprung weight. You might even have less than the 1" chicken strips you do now after switching. You'd be surprised how heavy a tire is. Or more importantly, how much impact the added weight placed at the circumference effects directional changes, rotational, axial, etc. For fun sometime try a 130 and see how heavy that thing is. Pump it up to 42 and see how you like it. If you want to see what a stone feels like, checkout the Dunlop rear made for Harley's. It takes two hands to lift it off the ground. Then take your truck for a drive, ahem, bike for a ride.

I don't buy tires anymore but if I did, this would be the front tire I'd get for a 17 inch hoop on the street http://www.revzilla.com/product/shinko-006-podium-front-tires

Begin flame session :)
Hi everybody. Sorry to resurrect such an old thread. In my defense, I did contact Douglasjre by email to inquire. And he said “Why don’t you just join the forum and ask the question there? Which seemed like a lot of unnecessary to just get his more detailed take on a comment that he made years ago.
Anyway.
I’m new here and signed up to basically respond to this post about 110 series front tires.
What a novel concept. First time that I ever heard someone suggest that, and I’m curious to know more.
Since the front tires of all my bikes (120 series all) always have chicken strips using 120/70-17 tires, I am wondering if going to a 110 series might improve the profile / contact patch, while also lightening the tire. I realize that to retain same geometry, the front forks would have to be lowered to make up for the difference in circumference.
 
Last edited:
Yokohama sold off the moulds and parents to the Asians. They're now called Shinko. It's a favorite amond drag racers. Ricky Gadson laid down a record breaking fastest 1/4 mile with a ZX14 and a Shinko in stock class. Ive used the Podium size 110 on Roebling road raceway as well as on the street. Its a soft compound with nonstop grip. Flawless traction dry and wet. And the 110 is very lightweight. Go to Cycle Gear and pick it up, then pick up a 120 sized Michelin. The sidewall is very flexible too. Great absorption of bumps and you can keep high pressure if you want. If its -rated dont let the 149 speed limit scare you. Your 14 tops out at 152 anyway and ive been upto 175 repeatedly with it and dragging a knee (110 Podium) on a 550lb bike.

So my answer to the thread topic would be neither. 120 is too wide, too heavy.
So Douglasjre is vouching here for the Shinko Podium 006 front tires, in 110 series. Stated use was a 550lb bike. My bikes are all 475-520ish lbs wet. FZ1(02), ZX9R(02), RSVR(02). I believe that all have the 3.5” standard size front wheels that usually take a 120/70-17 tire. I have experimented with 120/60-17 tires in the past (far past) and it quickens the steering a bit but it was noticeably more “harsh” with the reduced sidewall height. That was 25 years ago on a Honda CBR600F2 fwiw. (Possibly no longer applicable…).
The Shinko Raven 006 tires have scarce reviews at best. Nothing really trustworthy. I have been using multiple sets of Bridgestone T31/32 rears paired with Bridgestone RS10 (120/70-17) fronts. On the FZ1, it’s got the 5.5” rear wheel, so a 180/55-17 on that. On the 9R and the RSVR, 6” rear wheels, so using the 190/55-17 on those. Always 34psi front 36 psi rear. Mostly solo sport riding. Lots and lots of knee down in corners on my typical 200 mile+ rides. Tires end up bald on the whole tire(both sizes) at about 6300-6500 miles average lifespan. I don’t really accelerate aggressively off stops, or the rears wouldn’t last that long. The reason for the RS10 front tire selection is the single compound. I have very bad luck with dual compound fronts with my riding style and use. The dual compound fronts wear the sides right off with the centers staying peaked(less worn). The contour gets very V’d and the steering characteristics get very heavy and trucklike and displeasing (extremely). I dealt with that for a long time on my previous favorite Pirelli Angel GT’s (1’s). The tires had better longevity than the Bridgestones, but the fronts would get worn off on the sides and progressively worse handling. For the record, it wasn’t until 5000+ miles that it would happen (become annoying) on the GT front tires.
I tried to get a 110 series RS10 to try on the ZX9R, but they seem to be sold out.. RS10’s are going away. I guess that the Dunlop Roadsmart 4 fronts are single compound. Hmmm. The point of the single compound is that it wea more evenly and you end up with a round front tire profile (still) at the end of your tire life, and relatively retained enjoyable steering characteristics (as such). I experienced the same front tire wear with Bridgestone T31, T32, S22 front tires. Hence the reason to try the RS10 fronts. The RS10 fronts work, but they’re no longer available after I run through my tire pile. They at least maintain their profile (and traction) to the end. The Angel GT fronts would still stick, even with the jacked up profile, but I would modify my riding approach to just aggressively throwing the bike into the corners, as a way to bypass that odd (worn) transition, and get the bike to full lean in the corner. That’s what I’d have to resort to and not particularly fun as such. But.. put a new Angel GT front on there and regardless of wear on the back.. it’s lovely and effortless and completely pleasing again! So that’s what I’d usually do. With the 120/70 RS10’s, they stay round and they just get bald to the point that they get replaced, not cause they’re aggravating, but because the rubber is gone.
Anyway… I stopped using Angel GT’s cause they got pretty expensive. Bridgestone was cheaper and with the spring and fall rebates.. they seduced me. And most of my experiences in the past with Bridgestone had been on new bike oem (cheapie) supplied tires. I didn’t realize for a long time that their oem tires are a price point tire with the same model designations as their aftermarket versions(better tires same model on sidewall!). The Bridgestone tires have been working well for me. Pretty comparable to the Angel GT1’s. Not quite the longevity with the T31/32 rears. The RS10 fronts are soft street racing compound, they probably only last 5000ish miles.

Has anyone other than Douglasjre tried this 110/70-17 front tire? I think the Raven 006 does come in that size. Many manufacturers don’t even make that size in their sport touring sizes. fwiw
 
Last edited:
I have no knowledge of the 110 or a 120/60 for a C-14. I've always had the 120/70.
I respect Doug's knowledge of tires/weight etc. and I understand his likes for cheap tires with soft compound for handling.
But, (the tire he posted) I would stay away from regardless of the tire profile. (because it has a continuous groove in the center of the tire)
http://www.revzilla.com/product/shinko-006-podium-front-tires

I've noticed that tires with the center groove follow grooves or imperfections on the road surface.
If you cross one in a turn etc you can feel it and it ain't fun. Same if you ever ride a section where the road surface was ground for recovering, the bike will wiggle and squirm as it follows the grooves.
For that reason, I always buy tires with no center groove.

Riding primarily in Texas and Arkansas, I change tires too often, (3000-5000 miles max) so I try to find tires that stick well and last a bit longer.
The next tire I plan to try is going to be the Metzler Roadtec/Interact Z8 because I like the tread pattern.
I've added one to my C-10 (in a 110) and like the way it handles. So I will see how it does on the C-14.

Has anyone else tried the Z8?

Ride safe, Ted
 
Last edited:
I have no knowledge of the 110 or a 120/60 for a C-14. I've always had the 120/70.
I respect Doug's knowledge of tires/weight etc. and I understand his likes for cheap tires with soft compound for handling.
But, (the tire he posted) I would stay away from regardless of the tire profile. (because it has a continuous groove in the center of the tire)
http://www.revzilla.com/product/shinko-006-podium-front-tires

I've noticed that tires with the center groove follow grooves or imperfections on the road surface.
If you cross one in a turn etc you can feel it and it ain't fun. Same if you ever ride a section where the road surface was ground for recovering, the bike will wiggle and squirm as it follows the grooves.
For that reason, I always buy tires with no center groove.

Riding primarily in Texas and Arkansas, I change tires too often, (3000-5000 miles max) so I try to find tires that stick well and last a bit longer.
The next tire I plan to try is going to be the Metzler Roadtec/Interact Z8 because I like the tread pattern.
I've added one to my C-10 (in a 110) and like the way it handles. So I will see how it does on the C-14.

Has anyone else tried the Z8?

Ride safe, Ted
No, but I've been thinking about trying them next. I'm waiting for you to run a set and then let me know what you think and what kind of mileage you get since my riding area is pretty much the same as yours. 😁🏍🏍
 
I've noticed that tires with the center groove follow grooves or imperfections on the road surface.
If you cross one in a turn etc you can feel it and it ain't fun. Same if you ever ride a section where the road surface was ground for recovering, the bike will wiggle and squirm as it follows the grooves.
+1 for sure!

Another scenario - open grate bridges are scary with longitudinal center grooves, in my experience.

Wayne, Carol & Blue
 
Tires are cheap. Try em all out 🤷
uh huh...I wish.
puff-pass-stoner.gif
 
I kinda think these tire threads are at cross purposes. We may need to start separate tire threads based on Touring vs Sport. Clearly those that like to trailer everywhere then shred when they get there, and those that live for the track do not look at tires and air pressure the same way as those that ride on 6000+ mile trips with 500+ mile days through all kinds of weather. I don't want to spend the downtime (or expense) at a shop getting my tires changed in the middle of an enjoyable trip, even if I found the tires to be cheap, which I don't.
 
Tires are cheap. Try em all out 🤷
I was hoping for a bit more than that in taking the time to join here and post up inquiring about this topic. You could have just said that same thing when I inquired with you directly by email, and saved me a lot of time. Everyone, not just me could benefit if you elaborated more on this. Like how does stretching out a 110 size tire that’s really designed for a 3” wheel going to work on a 3.5” wheel. It’s clearly going to have a bit less drop off at the sides vs the 120 sizing. The 120’s have unusable rubber at the edges, by nature of the fact that the bike can’t be leaned over far enough to use it. So I probably have third of an inch chicken strips on all my bikes front 120’s. The 110’s are also smaller diameter, so they could quicken the steering too, which may also be offset by the less round profile. But it might make something like a Concours actually steer better. Assuming that you didn’t offset the fork height to adjust for the height difference.
Also not mentioned is tire pressures. What are the right tire pressures for general street use? I know every manufacturer puts stickers on their bikes stating suggested pressures. I went from too far low, erring on the side of performance, for a long time. Eventually, I figured out that I could raise the pressures and still get the adhesion but not so much trade off In performance.
If you have unlimited free tires options… perhaps you could do a real time comparison on a concours between 110/70 and 120/70.
Needless to say I expected more feedback from you after getting on here and specifically asking. But… No worries. I will just try the 110/70 myself. I’m curious how it will handle, whether the chicken strips can be eliminated, as such, and the whole tire fully utilized.
 
I have no knowledge of the 110 or a 120/60 for a C-14. I've always had the 120/70.
I respect Doug's knowledge of tires/weight etc. and I understand his likes for cheap tires with soft compound for handling.
But, (the tire he posted) I would stay away from regardless of the tire profile. (because it has a continuous groove in the center of the tire)
http://www.revzilla.com/product/shinko-006-podium-front-tires

I've noticed that tires with the center groove follow grooves or imperfections on the road surface.
If you cross one in a turn etc you can feel it and it ain't fun. Same if you ever ride a section where the road surface was ground for recovering, the bike will wiggle and squirm as it follows the grooves.
For that reason, I always buy tires with no center groove.

Riding primarily in Texas and Arkansas, I change tires too often, (3000-5000 miles max) so I try to find tires that stick well and last a bit longer.
The next tire I plan to try is going to be the Metzler Roadtec/Interact Z8 because I like the tread pattern.
I've added one to my C-10 (in a 110) and like the way it handles. So I will see how it does on the C-14.

Has anyone else tried the Z8?

Ride safe, Ted
So there’s another place all members could benefit from more information. He presumably had good reasons to recommend that particular tire. You clearly have good reasons to recommend against it.
I’m trying to remember the last time I road a tire with a center groove. I’m not sure what the benefit of that center groove would be. I’m not sure why they even did that. It would seem that that’s going to reduce longevity. It would seem that you’d want to have max rubber on the road at the crown for braking traction. That’s not channeling water to the sides. Duly noted. Odd. Are you saying they track more at gentle lean? It would seem that once you lean, you'd be onto other parts of the tread. I read a lot of reviews and they are overall said to be soft compound and short life.

I’ll go with the RS10 front. It’s just a couple dollars more with discount. Those are the ones I know, so what better way to experiment with size. I can compare bike against bike.
 
I'm not saying anything that disagrees with what Doug noted.

I'm just saying that I have concerns with tires that have a center groove because the center groove follows grooves in the road surface.

It would seem that once you lean, you'd be onto other parts of the tread.
From your question; I'll guess that you're not familiar with Radial Motorcycle Tire design?
On a motorcycle radial, the tread flexes/not the side wall.
ie; The tread deforms (not the sidewall) to keep more rubber in contact with the road in a turn, so a gentle lean would do nothing to prevent he center groove from following lines in the road surface.

Ride safe, Ted

PS: Note that Doug posted the tire suggestion in 2016 (?) and there are a lot more choices now.
 
Last edited:
Lot of guys on here will help with some history about tires like how to read them. If you want to really learn something I'll talk a little bit about tires this weekend but I don't have brand loyalty. You want some really amazing tires heck I'll even give you some.
 
Out of all that written above, there is one thing I can whole heartedly agree with; those Bridgestone T32 GT are extremely difficult to dismount. Made a couple trips to menards for more and different clamps. I like the stiffness of the sidewalls because of stability and safety. They stand up better to impacts and abuse.
 
Yes its sad that the rebate isn't coming. I've seen some still available at last year's pricing, I'll try to snag a set.

I would disagree on the Angel gts. Not a good tire for hard running in the mountains, especially on a hot day. They get all squirmy. I believe the Dunlop 4 would be my second choice, but to each his own.

Full membership is only $37 and you get a lot of good information plus a discount on my windshield bracket. You need one and don't even know it.
 
Just ordered 2 sets from Rockymountain, at last year's prices, I checked 3 others and it appears both tires have gone up 15 each. Quite a few in stock, free shipping and next day delivery for me out of Kentucky.

Now the rebate will happen!
 
Everything I said was Concours related. Sorry I didn't realize that you didn't have one and didn't go back to read it all again. But yes, the Concours is heavy enough and powerful enough and handles good enough to make the Angel Gt overheat. My son loves them on his N1K. And others like them too, with no problems. I'm just heavy on the throttle. Every ride is a race, although I'm trying to slow down.
 
There's another thread on the T32 where I give my opinions on it and the roadsmart 4. I just checked the michelin price on the Road 6 and the set was $530. I've used a couple road 5s and they are soft and don't last very long. But are great in the wet. T32s are the only tires I've found to match the michelins in the wet. T32 set $365.

My son's N1k has Ivan's flash and a full Akrapovic. It is fast, but very controllable. All that nasty jerking is gone.

There's no such thing as excess power as long as you can afford the tires!

Rear brakes aren't that important to me. Although I do use it a lot. Ha! Weird thing to say. I guess what I mean is that I don't use it to stop, but I do drag it going into a corner. Mines an 08, non linked.
 
Dragging the rear brake into a corner transfers weight to the front tire and keeps it planted until you roll the throttle back on. That transition is critical, as you noted about the problem with the jerky throttle on a stock fuel injected motorcycle that has the fuel cut and typical jerkiness. The front tire will wash out if the throttle is applied too quickly either by rider error or ecu problems. I've done it twice, rider error both times.

This is the same concept as real racers on closed tracks that run their bikes at very high rpms all the time to take advantage of compression braking. Inline 4s don't make a lot of compression braking unless you're coming down from red line area. Since I don't run max rpm all the time, I supplement with rear brake.

I had a 1290GT, same as a superduke, and yes, they eat tires. The concours is just as bad. No such thing as too much power as long as you can control the throttle.

The other thread is just below this one.
 
Hmmm. Thats a lot of words you write in response to my simple statement about using the rear brake to load the front tire, Again, it's the same as using compression braking. It's also the same concept but reversed as steering out of a corner with the throttle. You can alter your line simply by using more or less throttle as it loads and unloads the front tire. I run my rebound settings almost max resistance so when I hammer the throttle, the front doesn't immediately pop up, unloading the front and skate to the opposite side of the road. Thats pretty much all I've got to say. Also, it may help to know that I use late apex cornering method, not the largest radius method. If I'm not slowing down, I'm on the gas. Terrible on tires I know.
 
Top