Usage-specific tire recommendation please...

[julianop]

Thanks T-Cro. That'll be the Storm 2 Ultra, then.

Can you mix bias and radial?

How about mixing Wing and stock sizes?

I'm nearly done with these dumb-@$$ questions, guys, honest ;-)

but I got a lot of learnin' to do in a short while, and with my commute, my mileage and typical weather conditions I really have to make the best possible choices...

[gpzrocker]

Muddy the water for ya: My storm ultra/Azaro ST was fantastic tires, but I only got 5-7K out of them. Of course my roads and riding habits are hard on tires: my high mileage car tires wear out really quick too.

I never got in on the conversation because of this reason: I live in the mountians of NC and rarely hit long freeway rides. I do now have the Shinko Journey radial on back, with the Shinko 011 radial on front and find them to handle predictably peg to peg, much like the Avons. Wet riding is also same/same. Mileage is still to be determined.

Just food for thought. If your roads are easy on tires then you will get better mileage. If it was me, and I was worried about high quality, high mileage, I would look at Avons bias tires, or the Michellin front radial/rear bias setup.

On that note, it is thought that front tire to be stickier than the rear, with the thought that you would like for your rear to break free before your front. Normally accepted is the radial front/ bias rear. Again, something that I would worry about, not as much a feeway rider.

[Roadhound]

What about an Azaro ST (rear)/Storm Ultra (front) combo ? They're both Avons, both high mileage, both sport tourers, both claimed to be good all-weather.

Unless someone wants to chip in on the 110/90-18 vs 110/80-18 question? The slight increase in diameter might not be a problem, and the guy I spoke to at Revzilla seemed to be strongly in favor of a matched set. He also strongly agreed with Two Skies' comment about increased gyroscopic stability, so I also have a slight preference for a Venom/Venom combo if there are Wing sizes for both in that series.

I just noticed that Avon actually suggest the Azaro ST 150/80ZR16(rear)/Storm Ultra 120/70ZR18(front) combo. Any objections/warnings ?

The Azaro rear is a very good tire, I ran them for years, I now run the Storm Ultra front and rear after installing a 17" rear wheel. The Azaro will not give you the kind of mileage you seem to be looking for. The Storm Ultra is a dual compound tire and gives considerably better mileage.

Don't listen to that guy at Revzilla that 110/90/18 is not a good fit for the Concours. The 110/80/18 tire is the perfect fit for the Concours wheel, the 120/70/18 tire is actually too wide to fit properly. You can run the Wing size Venom front, if you can deal with the heavy, slow. steering and lack of feel from the front

[Two Skies]

According to this calculator, the 120/70r18 is actually narrower than the 130/70r18,  and 120/70r18 58w is the size listed in the manual.  The Avon Storm II Ultra comes in this size.

http://www.tacomaworld.com/forum/tirecalc.php?tires=130-70r18-120-70r18

One vendor that stocks the Avon Ultra Storm II Ultra, in 120/70zr18 59w
http://www.rockymountainatvmc.com/p/49/-/181/750/-/28368/Avon-Storm-2-Ultra-Front-Motorcycle-Tire/AVON+STORM

As for the heavier steering comments, I found that I actually preferred the heavy steering feeling of the Pilot GTs, and it wasn't that big of a deal once you got used to it.  To me, the bike felt more planted/stable.  But then, I'm a touring guy that slabs A LOT, not a sport guy.  I haven't tried the Venom front yet, so I can't comment on how it feels.

I know the Venom rear was slightly lighter (in pounds/ounces) than the GT rear, but since I can't find the weight specs for the GTs anymore, I can't compare the Venom Front versus the GT front.  The weight plays into the gyroscopic effect, and the Venom rear is much easier to throw over than the GT rear was (not as heavy on the steering).  Perhaps TCro can comment on this.

[Roadhound]

According to this calculator, the 120/70r18 is actually narrower than the 130/70r18,  and 120/70r18 58w is the size listed in the manual.  The Avon Storm II Ultra comes in this size.

As for the heavier steering comments, I found that I actually preferred the heavy steering feeling of the Pilot GTs, and it wasn't that big of a deal once you got used to it.  To me, the bike felt more planted/stable.  But then, I'm a touring guy that slabs A LOT, not a sport guy.  I haven't tried the Venom front yet, so I can't comment on how it feels.

You do know that the wang size front in a radial is too wide for your front rim. The 130/70/18 in a Bias ply is OK on a 3 inch wide rim but the 130/70/18 Radial is for a wider front rim. The120/70/18 Radial is made to work on a 3.5 inch minimum rim width. The OEM 120 radial was an undersized tire measuring 111mm wide for fitment to a 3 in wide rim. I've run lots of them the 110/80/18 Radial is great on the front.

[Daytona_Mike]

The size in the manual is actually wrong. There have been cases of other manufacturers doing this for appearance purposes.
 110/80/18 Radial is the correct size for the stock front rim.     Roadhound  is correct. 

[julianop]

The size in the manual is actually wrong.
 110/80/18 Radial is the correct size for the stock front rim.

Thanks for that, Mike. I was literally typing a "no-fair" comment on that very subject when your post came in: my manual says 120/70-18 while the service manual says 110/80-18.

My rim width is very clearly 3 1/2 inches. Is that standard?

I am also detecting that as the aspect ratio increases the nominal required rim size goes down. I assume this is because of the curvature of the tire cross section, right? On a low profile tire the rim width would be closer to the section width, while for a higher profile tire the rim width would be smaller, because the tire bead would be further in from the overall diameter.

Thanks, everybody, for offering input on this issue, by the way. I hope there is collective benefit from all this...

[julianop]

OK, maybe not so clearly...

Per the accompanying picture...
Adding the extra 3/16" or so to bring the end of the tape to the dead center of the wheel, and compensating for parallax error, the outside of the rim measures at about 1 13/16.
1 13/16 * 2 = 2 13/8, or 3 5/8".  For it to be a true 3" rim, the rim walls would have to be 5/16 thick....

If that's what you call a 3" rim, that's fine, I don't care; I just thought I'd better check...

The back is equally misleading: sure looks as much like 4" as it does 3 1/3".

Of course, I've been telling my wife 5" is 6" for twenty years, so don't trust me to measure stuff

[Two Skies]

Just checked Avon's site.  They recommend 3.5" rims for the Storm II Ultra in 120/70-18.  And checking other Avon and Dunlop tires, your statement about Bias 3", Radial 3.5" seems to track.  In other news, it looks like Michelin is going away from 16" tires altogether, apparently, at least for our bikes.

The newer Connies usually have 3.00 inch rims, the older Connies have narrower rims.  I'd imagine that's an inside measurement, cue the experts!

Also, I noticed your Sportmax (Roadsmart?) only comes in 120/70ZR18, the RoadsmartII also comes in 110/80ZR18.  Dunlop recommends 3.5" rims for the 120/70.  How does the current front handle for you?

[julianop]

Just checked Avon's site.  They recommend 3.5" rims for the Storm II Ultra in 120/70-18...

Yes exactly! It was seeing that spec which triggered me to go measure my rims, hence my previous post.

The newer Connies usually have 3.00 inch rims, the older Connies have narrower rims.  I'd imagine that's an inside measurement, cue the experts!

Well mine seem like 3 1/4 front and 3 3/4 rear to me - definitely bigger than 3 and 3 1/2 (again, assuming the rim walls are less than 1/4 thick), though not quite 3 1/2 and 4: per my measurements the walls could only be 1/8" thick.

Also, I noticed your Sportmax (Roadsmart?) only comes in 120/70ZR18, the RoadsmartII also comes in 110/80ZR18.  Dunlop recommends 3.5" rims for the 120/70.  How does the current front handle for you?

Yes, it's the Roadsmart, not the 'II. It seems fine to me, but it's all I've ever known, so I have nothing to compare it to. On the good side, I can flip a counter-steer into a late, steep turn at a left turn like a wild thing (showing off to oncoming cars!), and I can dance out some crazy harmonic slaloms below 35 (can't do it above 40) if I get bored driving around town, so I wouldn't say the front was heavy at all, but the Connie itself definitely ain't no lightweight. I'm actually very confident with that front tire. I'm a strong front-wheel braker too, relying on the back only when I have no engine braking, and it has never let me down. It slipped slightly once when I had to stand on it when braking for a couple of deer in the road one night, but recovery was as easy as letting off the brake and re-applying, and I didn't pump any adrenalin at all.

On the bad side, there is a little instability, as I've mentioned before, when passing big rigs on the slab when it's windy...

No, I definitely have no need to make the front any lighter - in fact I was seriously considering going to a wing-size bias for some extra stability on the slab.

Finally, the mileage has been great: I'm at 16,000 on it now, and still have plenty of tread left on the front. The hard center is definitely standing proud over the softer sides, but there is no dropping behavior on turns. I've been running standard pressure (36), by the way - I didn't know any different till recently.

Actually, I'm not sure any I'm even considering changing the front tire model away from the Dunlop anyway - I'm not disappointed with it in any way. I guess I just wanted to try something else to broaden my experience.

Hope that answers your question :-)

[Roadhound]

Yes exactly! It was seeing that spec which triggered me to go measure my rims, hence my previous post.

Well mine seem like 3 1/4 front and 3 3/4 rear to me - definitely bigger than 3 and 3 1/2 (again, assuming the rim walls are less than 1/4 thick), though not quite 3 1/2 and 4: per my measurements the walls could only be 1/8" thick.

Rim width is measured from inside wall to inside wall, you can not measure rim width from the outside. If you have stock Concours wheels you rim widths are 3.0"front and 3.5" rear. If you have doubts, pull your tires and measure your rims,

[julianop]

Rim width is measured from inside wall to inside wall, you can not measure rim width from the outside....

Yeah I know that really, but with a bit of basic arithmetic and some experience of casting it isn't hard to get a fair idea, just for a cross-check. The numbers are going to be nominal anyway.

Based on comments I decided in the end to go with the 150/80-16 Azaro this time around, and will put a 110/80-18 Storm 2 Ultra on the front next month. I figured a run with a full radial set, while it won't give me the best mileage, will give me great ride experience, and the number of full slab-ride commutes I get for the remainder of the year versus shorter fun rides will probably have the Azaro lasting well into next season and not squaring off too much, which will be enough for me. I'll run a set of Wing-size Venoms to experience a heavier, mixed ply set next time around. Maybe I'll even upgrade to a 17" rear, we'll see.

Thanks a huge bunch to you and everybody else for holding my hand through this, it's been a great learning experience and I appreciate all the comments, suggestions, knowledge and experience.

Now to go RTFM on lubing splines...

Hey, datsaxman, what was that you wuz sayin' about oil? 

[Roadhound]

Keep in mind that Storm Ultra front will easily last the mileage of 2 rear Azaros. It's the first front tire I've ever run that I have been comfortable running the front for the mileage of 2 rears.

[julianop]

Keep in mind that Storm Ultra front will easily last the mileage of 2 rear Azaros. It's the first front tire I've ever run that I have been comfortable running the front for the mileage of 2 rears.

Good point. The Storm 2 Ultra is a dual compound, but the Azaro isnt', right? That's fine: you yourself advocated the Storm 2 Ultra matched up with a Venom rear, so that would work with my plan to check out a bias rear later on.