Tire Height

[gwnas1]

Does anyone recall a chart with all the various makes and models of tires with the description of how high it would raise the bike? Depending on the make and model it would raise or lower the bike etc.. I purchased the Dunlop E3s coming from Metzelers a couple of years ago and it turned out to be a bad choice because it raised the bike too high for my short legs.

[redjay]

Maybe some boots with thicker soles ?

[Peg]

It's not clear which bike you have, but it's generally accepted for most Vulcans that a 180/65-16 is the preferred replacement for the rear, and a MT90 (aka 130/90-16) is the best size for the front.

Last time I had to put an emergency tire on the rear of my Voyager (picked up a nail in the middle of a south island tour year before last), there was no 180/65 available anywhere near where I was stranded. Closest I could find was a 180/60, being held for a customer with a Gold Wing... I grabbed it.

It was a little lower profile than the 180/65, but perfectly usable... I eventually got tired of dragging the floorboards so often, and replaced it - but if your focus is more on being closer to the ground than riding aggressively, a 180/60 is worth considering.

My 2c.

[The Black Knight]

[andyvh1959]

To consider the actual ride height of any brand tire, it's a combination of the tire width, tire diameter and sidewall height (as a ratio of the tire width). Such as: Tire width, 180 mm (180 divided by 25.4 = 7.09"), Tire diameter, 16"
Sidewall height, RATIO number times twice the width in inches, .65 x 14.18" = 9.21", add it up; 16" + 9.21" = 25.21"

Changing to a 60 RATIO tire, .60 x 14.18" + 16" = 24.58", the tire is .63" smaller dia.

If you use a 170/55-16 tire, the result is 23.36" , so the tire is 1.85" smaller diameter.

Keep in mind though, the difference in the loaded tire radius is HALF the diameter difference. So a tire 1.85" smaller diameter drops the rear of the bike .93", and it causes the speedometer to show higher speed than the real speed. So a tire change has less height effect than first perceived. To get a full effect, both the rear and front tire sizes should be considered, which also does not alter the fork angle.

[gwnas1]

Thanks to you all, that helps alot.

[gwnas1]

I have a 07 Nomad 1600.

[TacomaJD]

I've always ran 170/70 rear an recently swapped to MT90 front on my Nomad 1600, Avon cobras.

I will never run a 180 rear because I change tires myself and I recently changed tires for a buddy of mine with a Nomad 1600....and it had a 180 rear and he replaced with another 180 rear. Dear lord that was such a pain in the ass to get the rear wheel/tire off the bike and then the new one back on. Tire is so wide that you have to force it to go between the drive hub and the right side of swingarm. I said a lot of curse words during that process. Lol

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[mick56]

Originally Posted by TacomaJD

I've always ran 170/70 rear an recently swapped to MT90 front on my Nomad 1600, Avon cobras.

I will never run a 180 rear because I change tires myself and I recently changed tires for a buddy of mine with a Nomad 1600....and it had a 180 rear and he replaced with another 180 rear. Dear lord that was such a pain in the ass to get the rear wheel/tire off the bike and then the new one back on. Tire is so wide that you have to force it to go between the drive hub and the right side of swingarm. I said a lot of curse words during that process. Lol

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

That must wallow about on white lines ect. I put 130's on both ends, and it was a big improvement over the 150's i had before. I certainly wouldn't want a 180.

[andyvh1959]

A wider rear tire, especially if not inflated properly, requires more control input at the handlebar to maintain tracking, especially in curves.

[TacomaJD]

Originally Posted by andyvh1959

A wider rear tire, especially if not inflated properly, requires more control input at the handlebar to maintain tracking, especially in curves.

It is my opinion that this statement requires more context. Maybe a wider tire than what is specified for the particular rim width, but not wide tires in general on correct rim widths. Most Ducati superbikes come with 200/60 rear tires. I feel like the Nomad 1600 handles well in the curves with both combos I've ran (170/70 rear and 150/80 front; and 170/70 rear and mt90 front). Different tires have different profiles, even if they are the same size. Avon Cobras have a round, sportier profile and handle well....until you wear a big flat spot in them after several thousand miles Lol.

Here's a pic of my Nomad's front tire getting tacky after a spirited pass through Deal's Gap. Was running 170/70 rear and 150/80 front Avon Cobras when this pic was taken.



Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[mick56]

Whilst i understand, that road race bikes have wide tyres, so they must be right. I once followed a bloke on a Harley, with a huge back tyre. Every undulation, and slight groove in the tarmac, had him being thrown all over the road. It was so bad, that i wondered how he stayed on it. The Nomads came with 150's at both ends. And my bike did the same, to a lesser extent. Riding the white line, at about 30mph in traffic, had the the bike being pulled from side to side by the raised markings. Sometimes by about 18in. After fitting 130's, there was a huge improvement. Tyre pressures were as recommended, in both cases.

[TacomaJD]

Originally Posted by mick56

Whilst i understand, that road race bikes have wide tyres, so they must be right. I once followed a bloke on a Harley, with a huge back tyre. Every undulation, and slight groove in the tarmac, had him being thrown all over the road. It was so bad, that i wondered how he stayed on it. The Nomads came with 150's at both ends. And my bike did the same, to a lesser extent. Riding the white line, at about 30mph in traffic, had the the bike being pulled from side to side by the raised markings. Sometimes by about 18in. After fitting 130's, there was a huge improvement. Tyre pressures were as recommended, in both cases.

Not sure about other year Nomads, as I have not researched them, but 05-08 Nomad 1600 bikes in the U.S. came with 170/70/16 rear and 150/80/16 front. There's only like 4 or 5 tires made in a 170/70/16 rear and that size would have probably disappeared all together if it weren't oem sizing for the Nomads. Not sure if that size came on any other bikes. I have owned 2 Nomad 1600s, both came with 170/70 rears.



And I've ridden on 200mm, 190mm, 180mm, 170mm, 160mm, and 150mm width rear tires....all on rims that are the appropriate width for said sizes, on all types of bikes. THAT is what makes the difference. If you try throwing on a wide tire like a 190-200 on a wheel that is an inch or two narrower than what is supposed to fit those sizes, it distorts the shape of the tire, which makes it dip into turns more quickly, because it makes the tire taller and increases the slope in profile.

Generally speaking, tread groove design is mostly what determines if tires follow lines on the road and whatnot, not tire width on an appropriate rim. Maybe the guy on the Harley was drunk? Harleys suck...I had one so I can talk trash about them haha.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[TacomaJD]

I also ride track and it is common for guys to run 190 width rear tires on their 600's that is supposed to only run 180 width tires. They do this for the reason I stated above. It increases tire height and the slope of the profile so that it quickens up the turn-in and allows for a larger contact patch at full lean. I know that doesn't apply to Nomads, just a piece of info I thought I'd share.



Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[mick56]

https://www.ultimatespecs.com/motorc...500-nomad-1999
And they wallow around on these, like a pissed up 3 legged camel. Fuck knows what they must be like with a 180 on the arse end.