As you all know, I ride a 1997 VFR and after doing a lot of research I have decided to go with the Dunlop Roadsmarts as my next set of tires on my bike. Money is tight right now and there was a good sale going on for the Roadsmarts so I picked up a rear 180/55 and decided to hold off on the front because my qualifier fronts still have another 1500-2000 left in em with no cupping as of now. My question is, I just realized the "stock" wheel on my 4th gen is only 5 in as opposed to the 5.5 on the 3rd, 5th and 6th gens. Did I make a bad choice in buying the 180 tire? I assumed since all other gens had the 180 come stock, that mine did as well but it turns out it only is a 170. I haven't put the tire on yet, so the choice of exchanging it for the 170 is there and I know they have them in stock. Any comments, experience and suggestions are always greatly appreciated from yall, thanks again.
IMO, you are wasting your money if you go with a 180 on your 4th gen's 5" wide wheel.
The sidewalls will be pinched in anyway, taking away the usefulness of the outer edges of your tread footprint. Plus it can make your rear end handle weird at extreme lean angles because you are distorting the profile of the tire to become too steep at the edges because of the pinching effect. I know, cause I had a Dunflop 207 rear tire which was built too wide and was actually a 180 if it's measured. My bike felt really weird and I could not trust the rear to hold it's line consistently in deep turns.
Tire oversizing = bad idea!
Ok so looks like my concerns were confirmed, at least I will be able to return the 180 and pick up the 170 when I go back up to get the tire mounted. But Beck, I read that all Dunlops run larger than they claim so if I were to go with the 170/60 roadsmart wouldnt it essentially be a 180 tire with just a larger radius, 60? The qualifiers that are on my bike now is a 170 but after I have put well over 5000 miles on them, I dont feel that the tire ever got squirrely in the deep turns as you've claimed. Am i missing something here? Should I chunk the dunlop idea all together and go with something like a PR 2CT or Metz Z6? What are you running on your 4th gen? See as I do about 80% city/freeway and 20% twisties i need a tire that will last and not run down a flat spot as quick as these soft qualifiers. Any suggestions? Preciate it
I think the "overwidth" problem was more extreme with the 207 series tires where it was definitely a 180 section. I suspect their other later tire models might run a little wide but not to the same extreme as the 207s did.
Dunlop actually came up with a corrective tire a season after the first 207s were issued. It had a subletter or number designation that helped 5" rim owners likw us locate it as a better fit to our bikes.
You might be able to see how much the over-wide 207 was pinched on my bike in this pic:
[image: Posted Image] 2 6 05 pics 006.jpg
Notice the steep sidewall effect that it caused at about the last inch and a half of tread where I could not get to use as evidence of the wide unscuffed strip. I could not lean the bike on to this steep angled strip, try as I might....or dare.
You can even see a definte demarcation line where tire contact seems to end. I remember that there was a lot of tire "blueing" just past this line, so it was almost acting like a corner on the tire where there was a lot of heat and deformation happening......not good!
Why does the manual for my 1990, with the 5.5 inch wheels, call for a 170 tire? Can I go to a 180 without any detrimental effects? I don't feel the need to, but I'm curious.
[image: View Post]huskysooner, on Jun 6 2009, 07:55 AM, said:
Not to completely threadjack, but....
Why does the manual for my 1990, with the 5.5 inch wheels, call for a 170 tire? Can I go to a 180 without any detrimental effects? I don't feel the need to, but I'm curious.
Yes, the 180 is ideal on a 5.5" wheel, not sure why Honda slapped a 170 on it to start with. I would try a 180 next time and see you like the feel of the bike better or if you've always been happy with the 170, why change. :cool:
Vince, I would definatly trade for the 170 especially if it won't cost you any money. The 170 is designed for the 5" rear wheel and works best that way. If you want to run a 180, just pick up a 90-93 8 spoke or any VFR800 rear wheel and your good to go! :fing02:
[image: View Post]huskysooner, on Jun 6 2009, 05:55 AM, said:
Not to completely threadjack, but....
Why does the manual for my 1990, with the 5.5 inch wheels, call for a 170 tire? Can I go to a 180 without any detrimental effects? I don't feel the need to, but I'm curious.
180 will fit fine. I use the Pilot Powers off my track GSX-R for the 92 VFR. Same size front but a 180 rear. No issues.
I run the Dunlop Roadsmarts, replacing the Mez Z6. Haven't after about 8K miles noticed much if any difference between the two tires in touring and commuting mode....perhaps in a more sporting sitch there may be a difference but I like the DONELOPS. Seems to me that this line of 'lops run a bit narrower than the Metzeler of the same size that it replaced... Go figure. Also they seem to square off a bit more pronouncedly than my Z6 rear did (as mileage increases).
8k miles Dark Knight? I like the sound of that, even if i can get 6-8k out of these I will be happy. I called the store and they will exchange me the 170 fir 180 and give me an 8 dollar refund! Time to buy a six pack for tonight as I will be bleeding my clutch and taking the rear wheel off to go get the new meat mounted tomorrow. I have a score to settle with Blood Mountain next week so I will make sure I break these in correctly. A few more questions though, I understand that the gens prior and after mine use the 5.5 in 180/55 combo, but I was wondering what the weight difference was between the 4th gen wheel and the other gens. I thought I heard that the 4th gen has the lightest wheel tire setup and I was wondering if that stems from the dif wheel/tire sizes.
Another questions, I will be taking my bike up to TWO with my dad on his buddies 1200 GS bwm for fathers day coming up and I was wondering what the proper "break in" would be for these tires...I have heard too many horror stories of people pushing it on their new tires. I have heard that 250-500 miles of easy riding should come first and I have also heard about scrubbing tires in. If anyone could clarify how to safely break these puppies in that would be really helpful.
Regarding the 170 tire on the third gen, wouldnt the rider expect a more 'nimble' ride with the 170 as opposed to the 180 or is the difference minimal?
Thanks! As usual everyone is very helpful and insightful
Vince
End of thread · 12 posts recoveredWayback Machine snapshot 9 Sep 2010