BT020 Rear

I will be needing a new rear tyre soon, I presently have a BT020 150/70-ZR17
but on the bridgestone website it says I can fit either a 150/70-ZR17 or a
160/60-ZR17.

Well, I fancy fitting the wider tyre purely for the looks but are there any
disadvantages or advantages in doing so, also the second tyre is a 60 and
not a 70 is this because it is a percentage of the width.

Any thoughts from those with greater knowledge.... errr that's all of yer.

Ta, David

Oh Bandit 600 Naked 96 (in pink)

 

Seems ok, but then I am a newbie.

Arhh now thats got me coz I'm thinking that the height would be almost the
same if the 70 and the 60 were percentages of the tyre width and not
millimeter measurements.

D

 

Yeah good point,

Doh! back wheel looks so skinny compared with other bikes.

D

 

Yeh but it is a naked (pink) 600, not a sports bike, so you can't really
expect to have a wide back tyre.

<fx: waggles 180 section tyre before leaving>

 

Right. I know this one ... the width/height figure is the aspect
ratio. The sidewall height is given as the percentage of the width,
as you state, which yields a different curvature to the tread and a
different appearance to the tyre (on the same wheel). Yer 150/70
above - the sidewall is 70% of 150mm in height, for example.

People do fit wider tyres for looks - and wide rubber does look nice,
I'll agree. However - I tried this. I fitted a Bandit 1200 rear
wheel and tyre (BT020)to my RF. The Bandit tyre was a 180/55, the
standard RF fitment is a 170/60. Fitting the Bandit tyre changed the
handling.

Just as theory suggests, a wider rear tyre (unless the bike is
designed for it) slows the handling. The RF became more difficult to
turn in and wanted to run even wider than it already did on the exit
of bends, as power was applied. It was a relief and a big bonus for
the handling to go back to the narrower standard width tyre.

I've spoken to people who have fitted 190 section rear tyres to Bandit
12s, on the basis that it will look nicer - and it does, but the
handling is made much slower. Not only that, but that extra 5mm
either side will not ever touch the tarmac, because it can't - bits of
bike touch down first. This means that your chicken strips expand by
5mm either side, which is not a Good Thing.

In short - don't. It may look nicer, but it will screw the handling.

 

[snip]

Width envy eh? It's a terrible thing

 

Doesnotcompute says...

I know this is on a smaller scale, but I went up from a 100/90 rear tyre
on the Honda, to a 110/90. I haven't noticed any difference. Years ago I
ran my GSX750EFE on a 140 section rear as opposed to the 130[1] it came
with from factory. All I did was choose a profile one step down from
what it had before. So instead of a 130/80 for instance, I went to a
140/70. I didn't notice any dramatic adverse change in handling then
either. I've done the same with 250/350LCs and Powervalves, VF400,
VF750F and a number of other bikes and had the same result.

[1] It might even have been a 120 as standard and a 130 replacement, too
long ago to remember exact details. Either way they were puny tyres
sizes. The front was originally a 100 section, but I fitted the same as
the Aussie spec bikes had, a 120. That did change things for the better.

 

Ah now that's what I want to hear! LOJ

D

 

Yeah I know, is there a support group?

D

 

<snip other examples>

I've fitted "wrong" tyres to bikes on numerous occasions, and never
noticed the difference. I think it's another of those things - like
tweaking suspension settings - that loads of people talk about, but
hardly any are really good/sensitive enough to notice.

 

I put a 190 on mine and didn't notice the difference. It was still a
barge. Maybe it'd be noticeable on a 10R, or something, but wibble.

 

Ben Blaney says...

I usually notice things like mismatched tyres and changes in suspension
settings, probably because I'm lighter and these things show up more.
The point I was trying to make was, if you are going up a size in
section then come down a size in profile to try and keep the rolling
diameter of the wheel as close to what it was before.

One thing I did notice on reading back, was that the OP states
Bridgestone recommend a 160/60 as opposed to the standard 150/70 rear.
That kind of bears my theory out in a way. If Bridgestone say it's OK,
then I'd say go with it.

For the record, the standard rear tyre size for a ZZR1100C is 170/60,
but I'm buggered if I can think of anyone who doesn't run a 180/55.
Later ZZR1100D models have the same steering geometry and wheel sizes,
but run a 180/55 as standard. Even the bike makers change tyre sizes.

 

To be pedantic, I'd rather say that it may change the steering, rather
than the handling. But maybe that's just me.

 

Ahh, that may have been misleading, they actually recommend either.

http://www.bridgestone-eu.com/tyres...ND=Suzuki&sMODEL=GSF600+Bandit+(GN77B)+(>'99)

D

 

Yeah, the 190 was the first or second rear I had. Because 180 was out
of stock.

I had a 60 on it at one point. I just buy whatever the tyre place has
in stock and the bloke says is okay.

I'm sure it'll be a combination I had on it. The problem with the
handling of that bike was mainly the rock hard suspension. But even
if that was sorted, there's nothing going to improve the fact that
it's as heavy as it is, with the steering angle that it has, and the
everything else. It's never going to handle like a sports bike.

 

David Thomas says...

I actually meant to say that, I just worded my post badly.

 

Yes. The handling is a combination of many factors, of which steering
is one. So we're both right.

 

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Ben Blaney
<> typed

(Of the DnC/Ex-Blaney Bindit)

<nods wisely>