Kawasaki Concours Forum
The C10, aka Kawasaki Concours - The Original => The Bike - C10 => Topic started by: tbunder on September 13, 2011, 02:14:29 AM
-
so if I did my research thoroughly, I find that only dunlop and avon make rear oem sized radial tires for the C10. is this correct? the sport radial oem dunlop; and the avon azaro. just trying to minimize choices for when I pull the trigger. seems all the rest are bias ply. correct me if I am wrong.
and if possible, would someone be willing to post some detailed pictures of a '94- C10 with the 110/80-18 front tire? I'd really like to see how it contrasts to the rear sidewall vs. the 120/70. thx
-
While I don't have pictures to show you what you would like to see; I'll try to paint you a verbal yet slightly exaggerated picture. The K-Series 120/70-18 when mounted on the 3.0" rim tends to take on a rounded yet triangular shape with only a narrow rolling strip of rubber in contact with the ground. While this will give the bike a faster sport-bike like turn in as when you lean the bike over it rolls over that edge and the weight falls over. This will give you fast turn in but a heavier return as you have to muscle the bike back up and over that ledge. When you install a 120/70 from other manf on the 3.0" rim it will be even further pinched as the 120/70 is best suited when installed on a 3.5" or 3.75" rim and while this works OK at best the tire is not giving you the profile it was designed to give. On the other hand when a 110/80 is installed on the 3.0" wide rim it will take on a very natural broad/wide and rounded profile much akin to a riding a softball as compared to riding a hardball; this is because the 110/80 was made to fit on a narrower rim. But keep in mind that 3.0" is listed as an acceptable rim width whereas the 3.0" rim is not listed as an acceptable width for the 120/70 at all. These differences are really very easy to see when you look at bikes with "properly" fitted rims and tires such as the ZRX/ZZR etc with a 120/70 mounted on a 3.5" rim. This is why many skilled riders will swear by the 110/80 in place of the 120/70 as they have found that the bike will roll freely from one side of the tire to the other without that abrupt transition in the middle or falling sensation.
-
Great information T Cro, but it has nothing to do with the question. I'm running a bias ply Pirelli Rte 66 on the rear of my '01 and it works beautifully with the stock front tire. I have over 3K on it, mostly highway and mountain roads and it shows minimal wear right now. Mike in too hot TX
-
Great information T Cro, but it has nothing to do with the question. I'm running a bias ply Pirelli Rte 66 on the rear of my '01 and it works beautifully with the stock front tire. I have over 3K on it, mostly highway and mountain roads and it shows minimal wear right now. Mike in too hot TX
Considering that I've seen that the OP wants to stick with Radial tires front/rear and is having significant issues with making up his mind on which tires to purchase I'm trying within my ability to point out that the 110/80 fits the 3.0" rim very well and will even improve the handling of the Concours thus I believe that my information is very valid.
-
so if I did my research thoroughly, I find that only dunlop and avon make rear oem sized radial tires for the C10. is this correct? the sport radial oem dunlop; and the avon azaro....
That is correct; they are the ONLY manf that I know of that currently produce a 150/80-16R for the rear of the bike.
-
Considering that I've seen that the OP wants to stick with Radial tires front/rear and is having significant issues with making up his mind on which tires to purchase I'm trying within my ability to point out that the 110/80 fits the 3.0" rim very well and will even improve the handling of the Concours thus I believe that my information is very valid.
+1 ;)
Now my opinion of the Route 66 - my 06 came with a brand new one fitted on the rear. Having always had many Azaros on the rear of my previous A5, I road the 06 home from the dealers, a total of 60 miles in the rain and on twisties and promptly threw the Rte 66 in the trash :o. To me it was like riding on a rim with no tire fitted.
3k on it so far - you'll probably get another 50k out of it and it'll still look the same.
It was the only rear tire I reckon that I could have gone 10 times round the world and still not shown any signs of wear - are they made of concrete? ::)
-
I don't know, I found the ME-880 to be just as good as you describe the Route 66.
-
I currently have a 110/80zr Michelin PR3 on the front of my '99, with my last Pilot GT in the rear. I really like the way it handles, stability, wear(guessing 12-14000 miles), price($125 from Dennis Kirk) and ride comfort. Some folks have been running the Avon Venom in the back with a radial in front, and reporting good results. I swore off Avons a few decades ago, I'm thinkin' I may have to un-swear them. I' will be using the PR3 up front until they quit making them.
YMMV.
-
While I don't have pictures to show you what you would like to see; I'll try to paint you a verbal yet slightly exaggerated picture. The K-Series 120/70-18 when mounted on the 3.0" rim tends to take on a rounded yet triangular shape with only a narrow rolling strip of rubber in contact with the ground. While this will give the bike a faster sport-bike like turn in as when you lean the bike over it rolls over that edge and the weight falls over. This will give you fast turn in but a heavier return as you have to muscle the bike back up and over that ledge. When you install a 120/70 from other manf on the 3.0" rim it will be even further pinched as the 120/70 is best suited when installed on a 3.5" or 3.75" rim and while this works OK at best the tire is not giving you the profile it was designed to give. On the other hand when a 110/80 is installed on the 3.0" wide rim it will take on a very natural broad/wide and rounded profile much akin to a riding a softball as compared to riding a hardball; this is because the 110/80 was made to fit on a narrower rim. But keep in mind that 3.0" is listed as an acceptable rim width whereas the 3.0" rim is not listed as an acceptable width for the 120/70 at all. These differences are really very easy to see when you look at bikes with "properly" fitted rims and tires such as the ZRX/ZZR etc with a 120/70 mounted on a 3.5" rim. This is why many skilled riders will swear by the 110/80 in place of the 120/70 as they have found that the bike will roll freely from one side of the tire to the other without that abrupt transition in the middle or falling sensation.
awesome reply, lots of valuable info. there. I have noticed my "triangle" tire and the center of the tire which sticks out since it's an oem dunlop replacement. If I do indeed end up keeping my '01, I will probably go with the 110 for the reasons you mention, but also because I think the sidewall will be taller which will make it look more in tune with the rear tire's taller sidewall.
I once had a 1990 ZX-6- the first year for it. Anyways, it came with a 120/60 up front and a 160/60 in the rear. the front tire had nearly no sidewall while the rear was a lot taller. I replaced the oem front with a 120/70 and it made the bike look better simply because of the sidewalls being closer in size. it's dumb I know, but it makes a difference aesthetically. and like you mention, it will make the bike easier to navigate thru slower turns.
-
That is correct; they are the ONLY manf that I know of that currently produce a 150/80-16R for the rear of the bike.
thanks. ;)
-
awesome reply, lots of valuable info. there.
Great; glad you found some value in tires 101....
-
Looking for a new rear tire, have enjoyed the D205 in the past, but now find that it isn't available anywhere anymore, and is no longer listed on the Dunlop fitment guide. Dunlop still lists the K700, but that's bordering on ME-880 bad.
Looks like the Avon is the only radial in stock size now.
-
tbunder...didn't you sell your C10? This would be only one of the things you no longer have to worry about...
-
tbunder I hope you don't mind me dropping in.
I'm seriously considering a C10 but also seriously spooked by rear tire choices going away and no matched sets. So if Avon is the only radial rear what do you match it with up front? Are you at all concerned about the 16's going away?
I'm running a pair of PR2's on a ZRX1100 that I love. Great grip and at 5K miles only about half gone but I don't know if they'd be as good if not matched.
Thanks much
-
tbunder I hope you don't mind me dropping in.
I'm seriously considering a C10 but also seriously spooked by rear tire choices going away and no matched sets. So if Avon is the only radial rear what do you match it with up front? Are you at all concerned about the 16's going away?
Bunder sold his C10 and has not returned since the 19th .
I've just checked the Dunlop website and still see both the K700 and D205 Radial listed in the 150/80-16R sizing so I've no clue as to why they have become so hard to find; and while it means nothing Dunlop says that they are committed to these OEM sizings. For many so long as there is the AVON Radial Storm to be had for the rear they will look no further and I don't see AVON dropping that tire either. Even if the 150/80-16 radial tire were to go away there will always be large selection of this size in Bias ply as will there be in the next up sizing the 160/80 as these tire sizes are much too popular to abandon.
As to not finding matched sets it really matter very little as long as the types of tires complement each other you will be fine; my only comment is to never mount a touring or cold compound in the front with a sport compound in the rear.
Also expand your search to include the 110/80-18 (a better fit in my opinion than the stock 120/70) for the front as well as the 130/80-18 bias and again you will never lack for selections.
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; and the same can be said for the mixing of radial front and bias rear it works too dam good to dismiss.
OR you switch out your rims for 17" front and rear and never will you lack for a selection of tires.
-
Bunder sold his C10 and has not returned since the 19th .
I've just checked the Dunlop website and still see both the K700 and D205 Radial listed in the 150/80-16R sizing so I've no clue as to why they have become so hard to find; and while it means nothing Dunlop says that they are committed to these OEM sizings. For many so long as there is the AVON Radial Storm to be had for the rear they will look no further and I don't see AVON dropping that tire either. Even if the 150/80-16 radial tire were to go away there will always be large selection of this size in Bias ply as will there be in the next up sizing the 160/80 as these tire sizes are much too popular to abandon.
As to not finding matched sets it really matter very little as long as the types of tires complement each other you will be fine; my only comment is to never mount a touring or cold compound in the front with a sport compound in the rear.
Also expand your search to include the 110/80-18 (a better fit in my opinion than the stock 120/70) for the front as well as the 130/80-18 bias and again you will never lack for selections.
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; and the same can be said for the mixing of radial front and bias rear it works too dam good to dismiss.
OR you switch out your rims for 17" front and rear and never will you lack for a selection of tires.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
Didn't know the D205 was still being made for the rear in the 16" size. I've used a few sets of those and liked them, but I do most of my riding on straight roads here in Nebraska.
Don't the manufacturers have to supply parts (maybe tires are different) for at least 10 years once production is stopped? If the last year of the C10 is 2006, then 2017 is when I'd start worrying about tires. ?
-
Didn't know the D205 was still being made for the rear in the 16" size.
I saw it still listed on their website so I'm assuming that they are still making the bugger.
http://www.dunlopmotorcycle.com/tirecatalog_category.asp?id=7 (http://www.dunlopmotorcycle.com/tirecatalog_category.asp?id=7)
-
"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.
Interesting that Dunlop shows the D-205 on their OEM listing, but doesn't show it for the Concours in their fitment guide.
-
"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..... :o 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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...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?
-
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. (http://scosoft.com/h/f/2a7b3875.gif)
Oops.. Did I say that out loud?
Sorry... I dont want to cause any trouble.(http://scosoft.com/h/f/50c5b7a7.gif)
-
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
-
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....
-
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
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.