The first rear tire I bought after the 021 Crapstone was a PR2 50 series profile which was a great improvement, but still needed a little handle bar imput (correction) in fast sweepers. After reading in the forum about the 55 series, I next bought a PR2 55 and voila, the bike handled like on rails, and what I was expecting and hoping for all along with this bike. Also, the speedo is more accurate when checked with my GPS. I think a 55 rear tire profile is what is best for this bike, but Kawasaki was probably scared about the additional 3/8" seat height which requires a 32" or longer inseam. I now have a PR3 55 series and lovin' it too.
And I did say "reading low", what I meant there is just what you said, your speed is lower than indicated. So I guess the speedo actually reads high. For some reason every motorcycle I've ever owned does this. If you check it with a GPS, which is extremely accurate, you're always going slower than indicated. Is this a way of fudging the top speed or something?
I couldn't tell the difference..
Yup, it's like a jack-up kit for the back of the bike, which changes the rake of the forks. This makes the turning a little more aggressive.
I could, but not in a positive way. I tried the 55 series rear tires, twice, and didn't like them. I just found it made the bike feel like it had a bigger tire on the back...lol. On a good note, the 55 series tires do have a higher load rating and do last a little longer, at least in my experience.
Rem
connie,
Did you put a 190 or a 180 on the rear? I've heard a lot more positives elsewhere on 180 vs. 190 than 55 vs. 50. Michelin does make a PR2 in 180/55.
Just curious. Thanks.
I've always used the 190- 50/55. Didn't think about the 180 until you mentioned it, but maybe next time.
Here's another tidbit:
The stock rear 021 Crapstone went 5,500 sufferable miles before I dumpsterized it.
The Michelin PR2 190/50 went 12,300 miles before it's demise.
The Michelin PR2 190/55 went 16,700 miles before it was done- a real winner in my book!
There you go, to me there's no downside.. only a small initial cost increase over the 50 series Michelins.
Wonder why KHI went with the 50 vs the 55 series, as OEM? Was it the slight weight savings that Brian mentioned? possibly to slow down initial turn in, that some with 55's state ? Or possibly to the to place a WIDE profile tire, as throughout the last decade, FAT tires were the Thing to have? Or just maybe, Bridgestone has a b*tt load of 50 series they wanted to dump on the market, and KHI took advantage of great pricing? Could be something else entirely, but we will probably never know. . .
FWIW, how many remember the cool little Bridgestone bikes of the late 60's, early 70's? Great scoots, and innovative, too. Why can't they do the same for their tires?
[/quoteWonder why KHI went with the 50 vs the 55 series, as OEM? Was it the slight weight savings that Brian mentioned? possibly to slow down initial turn in, that some with 55's state ? Or possibly to the to place a WIDE profile tire, as throughout the last decade, FAT tires were the Thing to have? Or just maybe, Bridgestone has a b*tt load of 50 series they wanted to dump on the market, and KHI took advantage of great pricing? Could be something else entirely, but we will probably never know. . .
FWIW, how many remember the cool little Bridgestone bikes of the late 60's, early 70's? Great scoots, and innovative, too. Why can't they do the same for their tires?
I can only relate the bad Bridgestone experience to their crappy 021's- and mostly it's the front 021 that is the worst- I think it's made of compressed cardboard/animal byproducts and glue. That being said, I understand that there are other Bridgestone bike tires that are decent- but I am more than thrilled with my PR's and am stickin' with 'em.
Everybody has mentioned the handling pros and cons. How about the benefit of the 55 correcting the slow speedo. This alone I feel is worth going bigger.
Remember guys... Size does matter
your speed is lower than indicated. So I guess the speedo actually reads high. For some reason every motorcycle I've ever owned does this.
I thought it was not the size of the ship but the motion of the ocean...Is that a nautical quote? I'm sure sailor_chic knows about what she is saying. It just leaves me out of the game, that's all.
Actually, you will probably find that *EVERY* vehicle will be this way, stock.... regardless of vehicle type, model year, or brand. Why? Because it is my understanding that manufacturers are required to be no more than X% reading high, but can't be at ALL low.... so they have to err on the high side to be safe.
Update: Of course, I posted this and THEN saw Tomp's posting above, saying nearly the same thing. Oh well, great minds think alike
Both my 2011 Nissan Titan and 2013 Ford Escape the speedo is right on the money. Matches a gps exactly.
Are those general profiles or when mounted to the same width wheel?
Dunno, I didn't make it. Just passing on "information" of unknown-to-me origin and accuracy, which is what I thought the internet is all about Well, that, and porn.Honest answer. Ride what makes you happy, 50/55/60, whatever. I still have over half the tread left on my 50, so I guess I will worry about this after a few thousand miles of happy riding... tp
I've seen it quite a few times on various forums (the graphic, that is), usually related to (supposedly) making a bike turn better. It seems logical to me, I think, and many online dudes seem to like them ... but I do wonder why all manufacturers then don't just put a 55 on at the factory. Some do, most don't. Maybe that's the next small incremental improvement step in motorcycle evolution, and manufacturers don't wanna blow their wad. Then again, maybe a 50 profile is a better compromise between comfort / cruising and sports riding.