i own a seca 650 '82

in the manual it says 120 90 18

has any one tried bigger?

like 130 90 18 for te rear.

would it fit and what would be the difference?

also has any one tried the bridgestone spitfires?

next week i wanna buy new rubbers and would like your opinions! <_<

My 81 Maxim 650 has a 130-90-16. I guess the seca had a larger rear rim?

Anyhow - the smaller tire in general will turn in quicker. The larger the tire (with the right profile!) will have a bigger contact patch - meaning more traction. You need that for high horsepower applications - and for racing.

The 120 is therefore probably good for you. I don't find my handling to be too slow with the 130 I run ( GT501 130-90-16 on the rear, and the 110?-90-19 on the front) and have great all weather traction.

Cheers,
woot.

hmm ok yes the seca has 19

i will let you now how it goes!

btw any one tried 130 on a seca? :blink:

19 on the front - or 19 on the rear? The Maxim has a 19 on the front, and a 16 on the rear.

18 reae

19 front

120 90 18 as in manual

anybody tried 130 90 18?

What do you hope to gain is always my question. It will give a larger contact patch. Do you find you need a larger contact patch?

If it is because you want better performance then also consider you have more rotating mass, more unsprung weight, slower turn ins and it probably costs more.

That being said - I'm sure it would fit ( look at your swingarm and see - there should be enough room... especially as it isn't a chain drive so you don't have to worry about the axle placement. )

fwiw, woot.

( this isn't meant to offend - I'm just curious )

no offense mat!

i just like the 130's better in design kenda's

the ones i found in 120 are slicker bridgestone spitfire's

i still have a couple of places to look!

so i'll let u know!

the thing is they dont have the kendas in 120

nor the spi'ts in 130!

i'll try the dealership tommoros see what they got! :ph43r:

Was that the Kenda Sport Challenger? I ran that after my rear BT45. It was a decent tire, lasted relatively well. I did find it was a bit greasy in the rain. After that tire I switched to the GT501 - a far superior tire. I got over 10,000 miles on it with some pretty sporty riding finally killing it. Great wet weather traction and a profile that matched the bike very well. ( Noting that I have a 16" rear tire and can't comment on the profile of the 19" rear tire)

After the Bt45 ( a good tire), the Kenda (an almost as good as the BT45 tire) I think I've made my final tire change to Dunlop GT501 ( a great tire )... I did have an older spitfire on the front and switched that for a ?kenda? then to a GT501. Again the front GT501 has been very good - although I'd like a flatter profile tire on the front and tuck the front under it a bit more... but that would be considerable work...

Anyhow - consider the GT501 or the Bt45 if you want to sport/tour. The GT will be up to some pretty sporty riding and last quite well - especially if you wear the whole tire evenly =D

As for other tires I can't really comment - they've all been the sport bike tires that won't fit our bikes ( I ran some 010 or 020 ? tires for awhile on my 600 - and had pilots in the end... an entirely different tire ball game!!! )

Cheers,
woot.

Have a look at the tread pattern - make sure it will throw the water off and don't be too tempted by a cheap tire... sometimes it saves money running a slightly more expensive tire. Also - look at the profile of the tire. If it is too angular it will make the contact patch more narrow and leave a large band of unusable rubber on either side. This I found was a bit of the case with the kenda, and to a lesser extent with the BT45 - going with a flatter tire like the GT made the patch wider and made the bike feel alot more planted. It is hard to tell conclusively until the tire is mounted sadly...

yea i dint even mention the cheaper ones

which cost like a third of the nice ones!

thx for your input! ;)