• 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.

Rear tire sizing

R

Road Rider

Training Wheels
I'm about to buy a new set of tires for my 2011 C-14. There was some discussion about the merits of putting on a 190/55/17 on the rear; as opposed to the standard 190/50/17. There was alot of positive feed back on the 190/55's... Has anyone had experience riding on the 55's? I think I'm going to go with the PR2 or the PR3's...
 
Looking at the Michlin chart it says tread depth 6/32 for the 55
and 9/32 for the 50 I thought it was the other way around?
I'm still still thinking about the 200/55  Commander 2's they are 9/32.
 
Turn-in is easier and transitions take less effort. I've heard but not experienced the 55 making it easier to get it up on the rear stand. The PR3 is solid in turns and confidence inspiring. Reading the way the rear is wearing I'm level on the throttle or accelerating through the turn more now. The sides will wear faster than the center for me. The stock tire slipped under acceleration quite a bit, the PR3 is much more resistant to it. They also brake well. I've always run 55's on sportbikes, the C14 really isn't much different for me.
 
I've been riding sportbikes since there were sportbikes, and have never liked the 55 profile rear tire because what you think is easier-turn in is actually quicker rear tire fall in and those aren't the same things.

I like the feel of OEM dimension tires, specifically Pilot Road series Michelins, and think most tire sizes on sportbikes as delivered were arrived at after long drawn out engineering and testing at the track. If they though 55s would produce a better handling bike, they'd put them on, since to KHI the cost difference between a 50 and a 55 is trivial as well as negotiated with, currently Bridgestone and Metzler.
 
I will personally stay with Stock,  that's what our rims were designed for and that's what I will use....  But that's just ME :)
 
Besides quicker turn in and "fall in", the 190/55 provides more stability while leaned over in a corner.  I have noticed alot less counter steering to stay on line compared to when I have run 190/50's. 

I have run 190/55 in the Angels, PR2 and PR3 and like them all.  The PR2 is my favorite due to providing higher mileage and very similar performance to the other two tires.

The tread depth is exactly the same between the PR2 190/50 and 190/55, both were right at 5.9 mm according to my tread depth gauge. 
 
While I'm not old enough to have been riding sportbikes since there were sportbikes, I find the 55 simply performs better for me. It's a good thing everyone doesn't believe that if it could be any better, it would have come that way. I wouldn't have that spiffy touring windshield or those risers for longer trips.
 
Check the mfr spec for 55 and 50 profile tires you're interested in.  I remember one Pirelli tire I looked at had pretty much the same ride height for 190/50, 195/55, and 200/50.  The numbers are rough.

I also do not subscribe to the generalization about 55 profiles having better turn-in and such.  Other aspects of the individual tire models affect handling characteristics as much as - and probably more than - the profile number.

I believe too many riders compare their freshly mounted new 55 profile tire against the previously worn-out & out-of-shape old 50 tire.
 
i have used both 50 and 55 -- 4 sets of 55 and have a 50 on right now ,, here is what i think , the 55 is better if you want to say ride it like sport bike , now im using the 50 because im just commuting ,
 
Sgt Mac said:
Turn-in is easier and transitions take less effort. I've heard but not experienced the 55 making it easier to get it up on the rear stand. The PR3 is solid in turns and confidence inspiring. Reading the way the rear is wearing I'm level on the throttle or accelerating through the turn more now. The sides will wear faster than the center for me. The stock tire slipped under acceleration quite a bit, the PR3 is much more resistant to it. They also brake well. I've always run 55's on sportbikes, the C14 really isn't much different for me.
Click to expand...

That's because you haul butt Sgt..
 
ddtmoto said:
Sgt Mac said:
Turn-in is easier and transitions take less effort. I've heard but not experienced the 55 making it easier to get it up on the rear stand. The PR3 is solid in turns and confidence inspiring. Reading the way the rear is wearing I'm level on the throttle or accelerating through the turn more now. The sides will wear faster than the center for me. The stock tire slipped under acceleration quite a bit, the PR3 is much more resistant to it. They also brake well. I've always run 55's on sportbikes, the C14 really isn't much different for me.
Click to expand...

That's because you haul butt Sgt..
Click to expand...

I seem to remember your leathers showed signs of a knee drag or two.
 
  How bout' a 200 on the rear??? :motonoises:  ;D                       

                                                                                              :103:

                              NOW U'RE COOKING  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Jeremy said:
The tread depth is exactly the same between the PR2 190/50 and 190/55, both were right at 5.9 mm according to my tread depth gauge.
Click to expand...

But note that according to the Michelin website a 50 PR3 has 7mm depth and the 55 has only 5mm.  Might mean a lot more miles per tire using the 50 series.
 
just kruse'n said:
Jeremy said:
The tread depth is exactly the same between the PR2 190/50 and 190/55, both were right at 5.9 mm according to my tread depth gauge.
Click to expand...

But note that according to the Michelin website a 50 PR3 has 7mm depth and the 55 has only 5mm.  Might mean a lot more miles per tire using the 50 series.
Click to expand...

Nope, I get just as much mileage out of a PR2 190/55 as I do a PR2 190/50.
 
As with anything automotive, there is no free lunch. You gain some, you lose some. In this case, more contact patch at lean angles equals less contact patch at close to up-right.  As much as I hate to admit it, I don't carve many canyons these days.  Instead, it's mostly regular street riding with the bike up-right 95% of the time. 190/50 is better suited for that. I'd rather have more contact patch for the type of riding I actually do with the bike, than what I fancy myself doing.

If my track bunny has 6" rims, or if I live in canyon country, then I'd definitely go with 190/55.
 

Attachments

  • 190-55-17 tire.jpg
    190-55-17 tire.jpg
    83.5 KB · Views: 95
Unless I missed something, the 55 has a higher weight rating than the 50 so for those who ride with a pillion and top box loaded should have a safer load condition.  At least with the Bridgestone GT  it is that way.

Sonny
 
That's true for PR3 as well.  73W vs. 75W.  That's 805 lbs vs. 853 lbs.  Might be a problem if you are loading that rear tire close to 800 lbs.  Something to think about before you pull a wheelie on the 700 lbs C14 with a 225 lbs rider on board.  :-\
 
for me, all 55 now, never going back. im a twistie guy and it feels much better for the life of the tire. Its a few miles to get to the fun roads here, so i would ware the middle down. the 50 felt like it had a flat spot, that made it turn in clunkier for me as the tire wore down. the 55 is much rounder for the life of the tire. hope that makes sense

Joel
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top