• 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.

Why 55?

nando

nando

Crotch Rocket
What is the deal with a 55 rear....does anyone had the exact measure on how much higher do they make the rear end?

Would they be more comfy than the 50?

and do they come in PR3 Michellin?

thank you for your knowledge on this
 
Nando, from what I've read, the 50 wil fit, but it also decreases the heighth of the sidewall, therefore potentially making the ride a tad rougher. 
 
190/50 are the stock size aren't they?

I am asking bout the 55s...I hear of people using them quite often, but I wonder why...

last longer? less filling? more comfy? better grip?
 
Oh sorry...misread it.  The 55 is taller, putting a bit more cush between you and the road.  Should give a bit softer ride...don't know if it would change the handling much, if at all.
 
A 55 tire is slightly taller than a 50 tire raising the seat height about 6mm.  The main reason to use a 55 tire is faster turn in due to a more rounded profile.  I would think that would slightly shorten tire life because the center would wear faster but I haven't seen any hard data to support that assumption.
 
So far, I have a wear patterns on the front tire on the left side if sitting on the bike.  Dealer told me it is normal if I ride in the same spot on the road.  While I understand his point, this is just on the front.  I would be happy with even wear on the center.  I ride most of the time straight up and would at least expect that.

I have read all the threads about tires.  One comment I saw that concerns me, wobble at over100 miles per hour on PR3's.  Truth?

I was so appreciative to see why 55.  Now I know.

Thanks
 
jimwms1 said:
So far, I have a wear patterns on the front tire on the left side if sitting on the bike.  Dealer told me it is normal if I ride in the same spot on the road.  While I understand his point, this is just on the front.  I would be happy with even wear on the center.  I ride most of the time straight up and would at least expect that.

I have read all the threads about tires.  One comment I saw that concerns me, wobble at over100 miles per hour on PR3's.  Truth?

I was so appreciative to see why 55.  Now I know.

Thanks
Click to expand...

I had a rear PR3 wear really badly on the left side. First tire in my life I've ever had it happen to. I believe it was a characteristic of the tire, as I've heard others complain of this same thing with the PR3. I've worn out hundreds of rear motorcycle tires, and mine all normally wear very evenly on both sides.
 
Fred
I am anxiously waiting for your report on the Metz touring tire you are testing...thanks for your efforts on that
(you are my hero)...
 
My previous tire was a PR2 55 and it wore at 4500 miles and now am at 1600 with my PR3 50. I feel it is wearing about the same as all my other tires but feel that the 50 gives you a more uniform feel in the twisties. People have been raving about how the bike falls into the turn better with the 55 but I feel the 50 needed less attention on my part therefore better.
 
I am still not sure on 55's.  I have noticed that when I am in the mountains on twisters, it feels like I  have to use some muscle to make the turns.  Been that way since I bought it.    55 may help...I am not a hard rider.  I have been told that a new tire set will help a lot.

I am interested in the new Metz tires.  Had 888's on an old bike and they wore really well so have a liken for Metz.  I was told the Metz tire were built for the BMW 1600 which is a heavier bike.

Thanks for the info.

 
The 55 profile (versus the OEM 50) changes the geometry of the bike ever so slightly, and some can feel the change.

Will it make you a better rider, or faster rider, or safer rider, or cooler ride, on public roads and highways? Nope.

I subscribe to the saying, modified, "If it ain't broke, or missing, don't fix it"

The handling of the stock C14 is not broken, it is about as good as  it can get for a piggy bike. K put a million dollars into designing it, and I guess, just guessing mind you, they thought about, and tested, the best geometry for sport touring the bike.

But if thee likes 55 profile, get thee to Murph etc. and buy thyself one.  :great:
 
This is a quote taken from Motorcycle.com when they did a shootout between the 2013 C14, FJR13 and Honda ST13

“Part of the blame for the C-14’s clumsy handling can be pinned on its 190/50-17 rear tire,” Duke says. “I once rode two C-14s back to back, with one fitted with a 190/55 tire. Its taller profile dramatically improved its cornering responses, being easier to turn at low speeds and more linear when bent into a corner. If you own a Connie, you definitely should buy 55-series meat when it’s time for a replacement.”

Here is the link to the shootout and if you click on the link, there is a Dennis Kirk ad that plays  :mad: that you can't stop, or I couldn't

http://www.motorcycle.com/shoot-outs/2013-sporttouring-shootout-10-video-91504.html
 
I know, off topic but: Nice review. My feelings were pretty much the same with the old FJR.(minus fly by wire, TT and factory CC) But having a new review on the newer bike doesn't hurt. Once again all great bikes.
 
I have a 55 on my bike and I like it.

My experience with 55 vs 50 comes from my other bike which I have been through a lot of tires with. The 55 leans in a little easier and holds a line with a neutral kind of feel. I am currently on my second set with the Connie, so not a lot to compare with.

FWIW, I don't worry too much about wear unless the tire wears unevenly prematurely. I have a set of the PR3's with about 6K miles on them and they look to have another 1-2K left in them. This is way more than I thought I would get. I don't run super aggressive, but at times I do get after it a little, even 2-up. These tires have been rock solid all the over to rubbing pegs. Already have another set waiting to go on when these are done. 
 
COGnosticat0r said:
This is a quote taken from Motorcycle.com when they did a shootout between the 2013 C14, FJR13 and Honda ST13

“Part of the blame for the C-14’s clumsy handling can be pinned on its 190/50-17 rear tire,” Duke says. “I once rode two C-14s back to back, with one fitted with a 190/55 tire. Its taller profile dramatically improved its cornering responses, being easier to turn at low speeds and more linear when bent into a corner. If you own a Connie, you definitely should buy 55-series meat when it’s time for a replacement.”

Here is the link to the shootout and if you click on the link, there is a Dennis Kirk ad that plays  :mad: that you can't stop, or I couldn't

http://www.motorcycle.com/shoot-outs/2013-sporttouring-shootout-10-video-91504.html
Click to expand...


PROBABLY: the reason why the C14 seems to handle quicker on transitions with a 55 is because you raise the rear (if stock height) thus shortening the rake. This makes for a quicker radius turn but it also degrades the sitting straight at fast speeds. The variables are rake length for high speed stability vs shorter rake for maneuverability. Somewhere in between lays the compromise that results in the design of each bike--depending on the manufacturer's marketing goals

REGARDS TO THE CLUMSY C14: The C14 definitely has a heavy front end. I am guessing due to the 4 banger in line. I have ridden other sportstouring bikes with more nimble transitions....which tis the reason why I, to this day, never understood two things: Why do people buy these touring bikes if what they want to do is race around twisties. Certainly, they are not as effective at this endeavor as a full fledge crouch-rocket. Secondly, why embed 'sports' riding traits into a touring bike. The whole concept seems incongrous: race/tour. The worse of these traits is the typical race-sitting position on these sport-touring bikes.

At any rate, the Connie is the best bike I ever owned. but like many of us, I spend bucko dollars trying to make the damn thing comfortable for riding it like a transport, not a racer.
 
Nando...spot on.  I love this bike but I would like them to add a cruise, less lean on the handle bars and a decent seat (oh my aching buns)  I plan to go with PR3's .  Likely with 50's. Not saying I disagree with all the comments about the 55. I am a tour rider and like riding two up.
 
nando said:
PROBABLY: the reason why the C14 seems to handle quicker on transitions with a 55 is because you raise the rear (if stock height) thus shortening the rake. This makes for a quicker radius turn but it also degrades the sitting straight at fast speeds. The variables are rake length for high speed stability vs shorter rake for maneuverability. Somewhere in between lays the compromise that results in the design of each bike--depending on the manufacturer's marketing goals

REGARDS TO THE CLUMSY C14: The C14 definitely has a heavy front end. I am guessing due to the 4 banger in line. I have ridden other sportstouring bikes with more nimble transitions....which tis the reason why I, to this day, never understood two things: Why do people buy these touring bikes if what they want to do is race around twisties. Certainly, they are not as effective at this endeavor as a full fledge crouch-rocket. Secondly, why embed 'sports' riding traits into a touring bike. The whole concept seems incongrous: race/tour. The worse of these traits is the typical race-sitting position on these sport-touring bikes.

At any rate, the Connie is the best bike I ever owned. but like many of us, I spend bucko dollars trying to make the damn thing comfortable for riding it like a transport, not a racer.
Click to expand...

I quoted you the raise in the rear.  Based on math it should be 3/8".  Is it a raise, yes.  Enough to make night and day of turn in, I doubt it.

The quicker turn in comes more from the peakier profile of the 55 vs the 50.
http://www.sportrider.com/tech/tires/146_0302_rear_motorcycle_tire/viewall.html
146-0302-tire5-01-zoom.jpg


As for buying a Connie over a full on crotch rocket, I don't have funds or garage space for that many bikes.  The Connie is a GREAT all around bike.  I can commute on it and have storage space.  I can carve a few corners and have fun.  And I can RIDE it ANYWHERE in the US to do that without having to trailer it or worry about what I can't pack into a backpack!!!
 
Raising the rear 3/8" effectively makes the rake about
3 degrees steeper. This results in dramatically quicker
turn in. It also reduces trail, further reducing turn in effort.

While this combines to ease turn in and side to side
transitions it also reduces straight line stability.
Most bikes can benefit from the changes.

Rear tire profile has little to do with turn in.
You wouldn't feel much difference IF diameters stayed
the same.
Notice how the lines in the graphic come together
toward the edge of the tread as the bike leans over.
 
on that note, even me old Goldwing gained a little stability on the high speed slab when I raised the front end...lost a little on the turning radius....me Connie is sitting on the freeway more solidly wit a Precision Engineer lowering link...and it has become more tough to manage in turns....its the price of a cruiser/touring mentality.
 
You will never know until you try a 55. Another change will be the PR3 55's profile. This tire is more pointed. That along with all the other tinny changes that this 55 will bring to the table is pretty impressive. They don't last forever. So you can make an edgamacated call on which is best for your likings for the next one...
 
mcrider007 said:
nando said:
what brands are available on the 190/55?
Click to expand...

Quite a few....you should look it up instead of asking someone else to do your research.
Click to expand...

but dude, I am not asking you to do research for me, I am just asking you if you know...if you don't know, you are wasting your time posting that I should look it up instead of asking if someone knows...or implying that if someone does know, and would like to post the info, that they should refrain because according to your mental structures I should find out for myself.

...as a matter of fact, and just to make you feel better, I looked and the only ones I could find where the Michellin PR types which everyone complains about low durability.

But do forgive me, I am a very old person and I don't know how to use the computer, nor do I write or read very well...you see, I am on the stupid side of your mental structures. I hire college students to post and read forum emails for me...so be kind to an elderly as your good deed for the day boyscout...and try not to whine when you see posts you don't like...its bad for your health.
 
nando said:
But do forgive me, I am a very old person and I don't know how to use the computer, nor do I write or read very well...you see, I am on the stupid side of your mental structures. I hire college students to post and read forum emails for me...so be kind to an elderly as your good deed for the day boyscout...and try not to whine when you see posts you don't like...its bad for your health.
Click to expand...

:rotflmao:
 
- couple of things : do the people who keep talking about this bike and how this and that does or may do this or that : do they actually ride the bike ?

- meaning : do you guys who talk alot ride alot too ?

- or is the amount of talking inversely proportionate to the amount of riding done ?

- when you ask whether a 50 or a 55 tyre works better , do you actually ride the thing enough for this to matter ?

- or its just talking ?

.
 
dog said:
- couple of things : do the people who keep talking about this bike and how this and that does or may do this or that : do they actually ride the bike ?

- meaning : do you guys who talk alot ride alot too ?

- or is the amount of talking inversely proportionate to the amount of riding done ?

- when you ask whether a 50 or a 55 tyre works better , do you actually ride the thing enough for this to matter ?

- or its just talking ?

.
Click to expand...


I agree, we should all just stop talking (posting)... That would make for a very exciting forum.  ::)
sleep1.gif
 
Last year I rode three rears to the cords.
I just took delivery of three sets of tires
hoping they'll get me through this year.
Trying a couple of new combos looking for that
elusive good handling / long lasting Nirvana.
 
1




...as a matter of fact, and just to make you feel better, I looked and the only ones I could find where the Michellin PR types which everyone complains about low durability.

But do forgive me, I am a very old person and I don't know how to use the computer, nor do I write or read very well...you see, I am on the stupid side of your mental structures. I hire college students to post and read forum emails for me...so be kind to an elderly as your good deed for the day boyscout...and try not to whine when you see posts you don't like...its bad for your health.
[/quote]

Hello..?  everyone is complaining about durability of Michelin Pilot Roads?  Did I miss something?  Not me, they are great tires in 50 or 55 aspect ratios. I am on my 6th rear. I ran 2 PR2s, the rest PR3s. None of them last forever on these big bikes. Try them all? Go with what works for your riding.....
 
On the internet I found these tires in the 190 55 17 size

Bridgestone S20  and BT016 and BT023 - BT021N
Metzler Z8 Sportec M5
Pirelli Angel ST - Diablo Rosso II
Conti Road Attack 2
Michelin PR2 - PR3 - Pilot Power 2CT
Dunlop Sportmax Q2

I am sure there are more out there, I got tired of looking  ;D
 
nando said:
But do forgive me, I am a very old person and I don't know how to use the computer, nor do I write or read very well...you see, I am on the stupid side of your mental structures. I hire college students to post and read forum emails for me...so be kind to an elderly as your good deed for the day boyscout...and try not to whine when you see posts you don't like...its bad for your health.
Click to expand...

You must have a lot of money to hire college students to post and read forum emails for you because someone used your name to write over 2,000 posts at GL1800Riders.com and most of the 160 threads you started were questions about...........different tires, tire sizes, and how to lower suspension.......and that is only one forum for one bike that you have have owned.  I doubt there is that much difference in our ages since I am in my 6th decade of riding but I'm sure there is a big difference in the amount of time we split between riding and wasting other riders' time by making up endless questions.
 
mcrider007 said:
nando said:
But do forgive me, I am a very old person and I don't know how to use the computer, nor do I write or read very well...you see, I am on the stupid side of your mental structures. I hire college students to post and read forum emails for me...so be kind to an elderly as your good deed for the day boyscout...and try not to whine when you see posts you don't like...its bad for your health.
Click to expand...

You must have a lot of money to hire college students to post and read forum emails for you because someone used your name to write over 2,000 posts at GL1800Riders.com and most of the 160 threads you started were questions about...........different tires, tire sizes, and how to lower suspension.......and that is only one forum for one bike that you have have owned.  I doubt there is that much difference in our ages since I am in my 6th decade of riding but I'm sure there is a big difference in the amount of time we split between riding and wasting other riders' time by making up endless questions.
Click to expand...

My, my! You have it in for me don't you, Mac Secret Agent! I will let you spank me for the wasted time I may have caused you...

Besides, don't you feel more grandeur in your ego by constantly reading my stupid questions?...think of it in a positive way, the more questions I ask, the smarter you seem. Take advantage of these momentous opportunities to enhance your self-esteem.

COGnosticator:
Thanks for the info.



 
The bike is set up and suggested to be fitted with 50 on the rear and my last set (PR3's) lasted 15,000 miles. I've since gone to a 55 and niticed considerable characteristic differences between the two sizes. For starters, the bike *feels* about 100lbs lighter since the turn-in is so much easier. 
I'm not sure how long this set will last but that's to be seen.
 
The crazy thing about the 55 Michelins, the 55 has 3/32 (2mm) less tread depth than their 50 has. What the....?  I love the PR3 55 on my bike, but think I will try a PR3 in a 50 this time around to see if it lasts longer than a 55 for me...
 
When I 1St got my C14 I heard great stories about the PR3s. This thread definitely has me steering away from them.
 
I am going to order  the 55 tomorrow. I could not find tread depth info for the 50 and 55. I wonder where you found that information?
 
Sorry for the long-ish post but I am so impressed with the 55' PR3  :)

I recently put a set of PR3's (190/55 rear) on my C-14 and, as expected, the bike has transformed into its full potential. But then again, it came with the crappy-est tires I can ever imagine putting on such a bike. The PR3 is my first sport-touring tire in the 190/55 range that I've used but I am not unfamiliar with what happens when you raise the tire-profile on such a bike. 

I have a liter bike, also with a six inch rim that came shod with a 190/50 and I have used Dunlops Qs and Q2s as well as BStones BT016 and BT016 Pros - all in 190/55. The latter are basically aimed at aggressive street/track riding while the PR3 is meant to go on bikes like the C14 - all weather and high performance. In both cases, raising the profile to a 55 has had immeadiate and incredible results in terms of handling and performance. The down side to the SportBike tires is that they wear fast and have a short heat-cycle life. Ride them hard - three, four or five times - I mean hard - and they are toast. Treat em nice and you might get a few thousand miles out of them.

I watched a riding buddy, also with a C14, put 12,000 miles on a set of PR3s (190/50 at the time) and I could not believe the way in which those tires lasted and performed - and he is not a Sunday driver so to speak. So when it came time to put tires on my bike (C14) the choice was simple; PR3’s because they last and a 55 series rear tire because that is what should be on a six inch rim IF you want maximum turn-in performance.

I want the best tire and performance I can get, not because I need it all the time, but because I don't want to need it and not have it. If these PR3s (190/55 rear) last just 4,000 miles before I sense they are toast - well that was worth it for me.

If on the other hand you like a milder ride, put the 50 series on and don’t think twice, you will get great mileage and good handling.



 
I understand running a 55 rear will make the speedo spot-on dead balls accurate, even tho I cannot attest to this myself.
 
  The Michilin 200/55R17 is V rated, that is 149MPH.  Don't know too many 149MPH Harleys, but they do use the size on a couple of bikes. The only reason for considering it is I have never gotten around replacing tires in 6,000 miles, especially since I spend most of the time on the highway. I too am interested in the Metzler.
 
I have been a naysayer about 55s but next pair of PR3 tires will have a 190/55 in what, Z rating? I guess........

I want to give it a try, who knows, like Mikey, I may like it!  :motonoises:
 
JR said:
I have been a naysayer about 55s but next pair of PR3 tires will have a 190/55 in what, Z rating? I guess........

I want to give it a try, who knows, like Mikey, I may like it!  :motonoises:
Click to expand...

PR3's are Z rated
 
That is the fun part of it all, if you put any miles on your bike you can try both and see what you like.  I went from a PR2 190/50 to a PR3 190/55 when it wore out.  I really like the feel of the 55 in the corners but it does feel a bit wander-y in the straight line, not over the top but noticeable.  The PR3 is wearing faster so the next one will be a PR2 190/55 and I'll see from there.
 
I have been reading this thread with great interest. After my stock tires wore out  (7000 Plus Kms) I installed a set of PR3. I could believe the difference in handling (what were the folk a Kawasaki thinking when the put the Bridgestone on the C14). The only problem I am having is the the rear tire on the PR3 is scuffing badly,and I and going to replace the rear at 6500 Kms  (4500 miles). So I am going to try a pair of PR2 and see if they scuff like the PR3.
 
Kman said:
Will a 55 fit with a rear tire hugger installed?
Click to expand...

It will most likely fit. I had a Powerbronze carbon fiber hugger on my ZX14, and it had an adjustment which let you set how close to the tire it was. I had mine just far enough out that a stone in the tire wouldn't rip the hugger up.
 
JerBear said:
That is the fun part of it all, if you put any miles on your bike you can try both and see what you like.  I went from a PR2 190/50 to a PR3 190/55 when it wore out.  I really like the feel of the 55 in the corners but it does feel a bit wander-y in the straight line, not over the top but noticeable.  The PR3 is wearing faster so the next one will be a PR2 190/55 and I'll see from there.
Click to expand...

Jerbear, Michelin shows the PR2 190/55 also having a thinner tread depth, 6/32 vs 9/32 for the 50,  just like the PR3. Makes me wonder if it will last any longer. BTW does the 55 soften the ride any. I find the C14 to ride a bit firm for me. Maybe I need to weigh it down with more farkles!

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