On a different forum we're having a discussion about tires. Not the typical I ride on this one and like it, or I didn't like that one... this one is a little bit different.
One of our racer people has experimented with a few tires and he brought to the table that not all tires are created equal. A tire stamped 130-90-16 (our rear tires) created by manufacture X will be a different size than a simular tire made by a different manufacture.
One of the key differences is the sized rim the tire was intended on being mounted on. Some tires claim to fit rims from 2.5" to 3.5" inches. Others are for 2.5 inch only.
Mounting a tire on a rim size it was designed for means you get the tire profile that the manufacture meant it to have -- ie what they consider optimal. Even between 130-90-16 tires that fit our maxim/secas the rim size they were intended for will vary - some will aim for 2.75 so it works with ok with both, some will aim for 3 because then it might fit a larger rim as well as a smaller rim.
The negative situation is that changing the profile of the tire changes its performance specs. Pinching the tire makes the profile much steaper. I used a kenda K-657. It fit the maxim and I was relatively happy about it. However, it was either designed for a wider rim or was a very sharp profile near the edges... no matter what you did to the bike there was no way you could use the last 3/4 of an inch of rubber.
Now you may think that I'm a squid to worry about the left over rubber on the edge of a tire. You may think I'm talking about 'chicken strips'. Yes I am talking about that area of the tire - however - I'm not suggesting it as a measure of the riders intestinal fortitude, but as a measure of how well the tire fits the bike.
When you're leaned over would you prefer a large contact patch or a small contact patch. The more angular the profile of the tire the smaller the contact patch has to be. Big "chicken strips" suggest that you have all kinds of rubber you could be using, but the profile of the tire means it isn't usable... the profile is too steep and therefore is wasting rubber that could have been used as part of the contact patch had the tire had less of a sharp profile.
So - in my mind the kenda tire was a good cheap tire. However, it didn't afford the best contact patch available and therefore was lacking on the traction side of things. Whether you think I'm a squid or not - every rider should want the best traction available as this might be the bit of traction that saved your hide.
On the other hand - some tires seem to fit the maxim very well. In my experience this means that the profile of the tire is not too steep to be unusable (and thereby make the leaning contact patch smaller than nessisary), nor too shallow a profile as to be too flat...
I've mentioned my choice before but here I don't want to say which tire is the best tire - I just wanted to start the ball rolling on an empty slate asking the question - does my tire fit properly? Does it do what I want it to do (be a wet tire, be a distance tire, etc)
Now on the front end of the bike we have the same problem - however - I have yet to find a tire to fit the front properly. All front tires I have found are very angular... I've had good luck with what I run but certainly don't have the same confidence in the front tire that I've had with bikes with better sized rims. It seems that when you build a 19" rim that by default you must have a very sharp profiled tire. I wonder if this is something that just is, or if I haven't found the right front tire yet. I tend to beleive it is just one of the evils of a large front rim, and that the manufacture of my rear tire also makes as good as they come front tire.
Who knows?
Cheers,
woot.
It's been some time since I posted this - and I getting curious - what tires do you run? How do you feel about their performance? Do you like these tires better than the previous tires? Do you consider the tires on the bike to be the only tires you will buy from now on?
I'd put a poll together, but I'm not sure what tires people will be running... I would guess mostly from this subset... didn't include avons as I'm not as familiar with them.
Metzler 33 Laser
Metzler 880 Cruise/Tour
Bridgestone BT45
Dunlop K591
Dunlop GT501
Kenda 657 Sport Challenger
Kenda 671 Cruiser
Metzler 550 (rear),
Maxxis Classic M6011
Pirelli Sport Demon
Pirelli MT66
I run a IRC DUROTOUR RS-310R 120/90-18 on the rear of my 750 seca. I think the fatter tire looks better than the original one. I can't tell any differance, I'm not an eXtreme rider.
I used to race a seca 550 at Willow Springs. I used a 100-80/18 on the front, yep I had to get a different rim for it. On the rear I used a 120 80/18. Dunlop k591's never failed to keep the shiny side up. On the street I am using the GT501 100 90-19 on my stock seca 550, still have to get the racebike back running for street duty :D
HTH
Sean
I think (could be wrong here) that the 591 was phased out ~2000/2002... the GT501 could be it's replacement - but in North America the smaller sizes haven't been brought through the testing process... I think you can get a 120 rear in the Europe/Asia/Oceania which could be an option for racers. Depends of course on what the race rules state - if it is DOT then the 120 wouldn't work.
Some of the racers in California were running front's backwards on the rear --- those were 120's I believe in the 250 production class.
Cheers,
woot.