rear radial tire choices

[T Cro ®]

"Listen to the true old time voices here not the newbies and they will tell you that with a good set of bias tires many many of you would never know the difference"
Well, I tried the ME-880 back when many others called it the best thing since sliced bread, and found it had all the traction of Teflon on snot. I'm not thinking of trying another bias ply.

Well you do need to be selective of which set of voices you listen too.....  In my own defense you never heard me blanket call the ME880 ever; in fact I'm the brave soul that went with the Avon Venoms when no one else here had any real experience with them. Today the Venom is now very well liked as a tire that both sticks good, wears good and handles good; yes it's a bias ply tire but then I'm bias about them...

[George R. Young]

My latest rear is a bias ply 150/80-16  Michelin Commander, coupled with a radial front tire. When I changed from the radial rear, I noticed no difference.

[T Cro ®]

My latest rear is a bias ply 150/80-16  Michelin Commander, coupled with a radial front tire. When I changed from the radial rear, I noticed no difference.

One further note to make about the use of the bias rear tire is that many of them (not all) have a B at the end of their sizing code such as 150/80-16B or 160/80-16B this B does not generally stand for bias it in fact stands for belted. These are the tires that are designed to carry heavy loads and in truth they are about as close to a radial as one can get without it saying radial. In fact it is best described as a radial without steel belting or a rayon or nylon belted radial.

[tbunder]

Many thanks T Cro.  Yes, we newbies tend to get a bit worked up don't we?  I found the 17" conversion threads which is reassuring as are the voices of reason.  I'm sure there are threads debating the merits and effects of size choice within the the freedom of 17" selections but that can wait for another day.  Today I need to bounce over to rick3foxes' "Getting ready to take the leap..." thread to see which of the local C10's he's looking at will be left.

yes, I said goodbye to my '01 this morning. It is going to a good home in Lincoln, IL however. I enjoyed talking to you guys and thank you for all the help you've given me over the last year. The C10 was a great bike, but I made a mistake when I rode my friend's C14 home from Peoria. Planning on an FJR next spring if everything works out as planned. thanks

[tbunder]

tbunder...didn't you sell your C10?  This would be only one of the things you no longer have to worry about...

not sure what you mean by this post, could you elaborate a little?

[Daytona_Mike]

Well, I tried the ME-880 back when many others called it the best thing since sliced bread, and found it had all the traction of Teflon on snot.

HAHA!  I agree with you on that one.
 Oops.. Did I say that out loud?
Sorry... I dont want to cause any trouble.

[Steve in Sunny Fla]

Naw we are now content with a 120/70-17R in the front and as for the rear there is a 160/70-17R or 170/60-17R to which the 160 might give the bike lighter turn in while the 170 is short FAT and looks sic back there while making the bike a tad more straight line stable but raises the RPM a touch. I choose the later.

   Actually it's the other way around - I've run both of them. the 160 is for a 4.50" rim, and when put on a 5" rim it's a little flatter in profile, and puts more rubber on the road. It's also taller than the 170 by .800" and it'll raise the rpms 3-4% over a stock 150. The 170 is "rounder" and turns in better. HTH, Steve

[T Cro ®]

   Actually it's the other way around - I've run both of them. the 160 is for a 4.50" rim, and when put on a 5" rim it's a little flatter in profile, and puts more rubber on the road. It's also taller than the 170 by .800" and it'll raise the rpms 3-4% over a stock 150. The 170 is "rounder" and turns in better. HTH, Steve

Thanks Steve I was not thinking how it actually fit the rim just speaking of how it should profile by the numbers; taller in the rear should have decreased front end rake and narrower should turn in easier. As for myself I'm really pleased with the 170/60-17 on my bike....

[Cybercraig]

Thanks Steve I was not thinking how it actually fit the rim just speaking of how it should profile by the numbers; taller in the rear should have decreased front end rake and narrower should turn in easier. As for myself I'm really pleased with the 170/60-17 on my bike....

+1

[Roadhound]

   Actually it's the other way around - I've run both of them. the 160 is for a 4.50" rim, and when put on a 5" rim it's a little flatter in profile, and puts more rubber on the road. It's also taller than the 170 by .800" and it'll raise the rpms 3-4% over a stock 150. The 170 is "rounder" and turns in better. HTH, Steve

My experience with the 160/70/17 is that the RPMs at any given speed will drop by a few percentage points, and I am more than pleased with the way the tire turns. I'm very hesitant to use a tire that actually lowers my rear ride height. I've already dropped my front end 15mm and really don't want to drop it any further, the taller 160/70/17 rear tire gives me the same effect without giving up cornering clearance. I like it.

[CRocker]

not sure what you mean by this post, could you elaborate a little?

Just referring to the limited tire choices available for the C10 vs all those 17" tires for either a C14 or FJR...seems like it would lift a weight off one's shoulders to have more choices than you could ever wear out...I'm thinking about a 17" rear for my C10 more now than I did a year ago...since I'm probably going to keep this one for a while...best of luck with whatever you decide to get next...

[timsatx]

Just chiming in here about the ME880. I replaced my rear ME880 with a Shinko and was happy for it. The tire sucks if you ride in the rain or cold. I now have an Azaro on the rear and am happy with it so far. The front though is still an ME880 and it too will soon go away since it is even worse than the rear for traction in wet and cold.

[croomudgeon]

To clear up some earlier questions, shortly after I purchased what were surely the last three available D205 110/80-18s on the planet, Dunlop discontinued the matching 150/80-16 rears.  They are all GONE.  The K700 is officially"still available" but I've seen curiously mixed reviews on this tire as Dunlop claims the compound is now the same as the D205.  I'd love to hear opinions on recently-purchased K700s.
 
Or hear from someone with a cache of unwanted D205 rears in the shed.
--
'86 Silverdammit, with an embarrassing 2.15" out front...

[redzgrider]

It isn't the comound that makes the 700 a bad tire, it's the tread design. That big center groove tracks every dip and indentation in the road, and just plain forget riding any road with rain grooves.