Quest for longer lasting tires

[yamahansolo]

While researching tires yet again I realize like a dummy it looks like those of us with the 17 inch rims maybe need to be using a 120 width tire. The xlymer shows us e and f peeps need a 4.5 h 17. I just assumed because the SF shows a 130/90 16 that I could use a 130 90 17. I looked at my Dennis Kirk catalog and it shows a 4.5 to a 4.75 is equal to a 120 not a 130... hmm this sounds like what the old guys at the bike shop were telling me. So the 130 is being squeezed to much and wearing the center faster.
I am sure the info is on the site here and I am about to research rim widths. I own an xj so if the rim is wider I guess I will just have to switch... probobly won't look as good. but I have 4 kids and can't afford to spend gobs of money on tires. Or I could find a 4.5 h17 I would think that would wear out quick too because its not as wide.... oh well I now feel dumb having owned. This bike so long and just realized it

[Rickrod3]

I'm running 130 width tires Spitfire S11 got almost 9K will be replacing them @ or before 10K.

What kind of mileage are you getting?
I was thinking of getting a set of the Batttleax ones. Slightly more money but come in 120 width.
I consider myself fairly mellow rider

HTH
Rick

[cywelchjr]

The issue will be the XJ is a 16" tire like the specials. The other issue is that tires vary from manufacturer to manufacturer. And even with a 130/90 they are still a little shorter than the OEM tire was, the 120 I'm sure would be a little shorter even yet. I'll also say I've been getting almost 10k out of my rear tire, and just about double out of the front, but I run in my case with my weight pretty close to max pressure for the tire, and be real careful about the tire you get, many are NOT rated for the load of these bikes, which will greatly reduce the life of the tire, as well as it's not fully safe .

I'm told by my tire guy that dropping as little at 2 or 3 lbs of air pressure from optimum for your bikes load can lower tire life by as much as 40%. I don't know personally if this is true, but I treat it as if it is.

[crazy steve]

While researching tires yet again I realize like a dummy it looks like those of us with the 17 inch rims maybe need to be using a 120 width tire. The xlymer shows us e and f peeps need a 4.5 h 17. I just assumed because the SF shows a 130/90 16 that I could use a 130 90 17. I looked at my Dennis Kirk catalog and it shows a 4.5 to a 4.75 is equal to a 120 not a 130... hmm this sounds like what the old guys at the bike shop were telling me. So the 130 is being squeezed to much and wearing the center faster....

When they 'converted' the old inch sizes into metric, the tire shrank and by quite a bit. I don't know just they made the 'this size is the same as this size' deal, but here's direct evidence.... http://www.xs11.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32278

A 120 will be waaay too small, and even a 130/90-17 isn't as tall as the OEM tire. As far as width, they're all about the same at 5.25" wide give or take a tiny bit.

Go with a 130/90-17.....

[yamahansolo]

I use 130/90 17s. I average 3k miles a rear. The special uses a 16 inch wheel so there will be no problem putting that on there. Also I was not referinf to tire width. I was talking about rim width the 4.5 is 4.5". For the tire the 130/90 is wider. As well as it looks like the standard 78 and 79 has a narrower bead on the rim which distorts the 120/90. Does that make sense?

[bikerphil]

The Special 16" rear rim is a little bit wider than the Standard's. I know what you are saying though, the tires wear out faster because of a narrow rim, not much you can do about it tho.

[TopCatGr58]

Hey Chris,

I understand what you're trying to say, and IF our tires were a Square profile/flat bottom like a car tire, then yes, a too narrow a rim would cause a more pronounced bowing of the "Flat" road contact area, but our tires are round, and the contact patch is controlled mostly by the bike weight and tire pressure.

You never stated what BRAND of rear tire you're running to only get 3K out of them! Also you live in the FUN MOUNTAINS of northern Ga, although that should just contribute to more even wear across the whole tire...the edges for the twisties vs just down the middle!

I know your on a budget, but spending ie. $80 for a tire for 3k is more expensive than $140 for a tire that could last 10K! Not really wanting to turn this into YET another tire thread, but you'll need to look at the compound of the tire your using...is it softer/grippier=wears out faster vs. harder=longevity and mileage.

T.C.

[WMarshy]

I use 130/90 17s. I average 3k miles a rear...

What tire are you running that gets that crappy of life? At that rate you could have tried a few by now that offers better life! I thought 7000 miles was bad. I just bought a 130/90-17 from Metzler, ME88 (~$160). Its a touring tire for heavy bikes and its the most expensive I could find that will fit the 17" rim. I figure if ya get what ya pay for then maybe if it will pay off in the long run. So far, I like it...

[yamahansolo]

Funny he me88 is what's on there now... 4000 miles. Going backwards in time. From the metzler. Conti tour 3500 miles, dunlop d404 3500 miles, d 404 2500 miles, battleaxe 3000 miles, um I forgot someof them... and when I got the bike there were spitfires on it. Don't know when the po put them on. But it road a while so I put spitfires back on. The front was amazing! I think I got about 15k out of . All in one season. The rear lasted around 7500.
These are rough estimates of course... I have documentation.... somewhere...
Thanks phil and tc!
Sometimes I have problems explaining things. I never thought about rim widthdifferences. But the old geezers at a local bike shop said they see faster wear in the center if the rim is 3 inches vs 3.5.
As I said I am thinking outloud.... tomorrow I am going to get another spitfire and see if it lasts 7000 again
Plus they are cheap. Interestingly I used much lower tire pressure inthe s11 28 to 30 or so. Because that was what was in clymer. Plus I had tubes. After one of the d404s I. Put 3 valstems in and went tubeless. All the tubes I used would leak outsome in a month or so. Once I went tubless no more leaks. But all the other tires I ran about 36 to 38 psi.
Any other thoughts? I do have the swirly wheel in the garage... I could tryit just for poops and giggles... couldn't hurt. Then I could compare wear vs my ridingstyle. I will take more pics of The me88s later. they have about the strongest sidewall strength for our bikes. I got it for 130 not installed just the Tire. I wore it most of the way around they are like super glue!

[bikerphil]

Chris, since you go thru tires so fast, might be a good idea to order them over the internet, then mount and balance them yourself. Save a lot of money that way. It's not difficult at all after the first few. JAT

[yamahansolo]

I order them from sites sometimes. Dk has the spitfires for 65.00 don't check shipping. Jake Wilson has the same for 75. 00 and only 7 bucks to ship.
After looking at the link above I wonder if a 140/90 16 would be close to the same height as the origional 4.5h tires for the 17s. I had planned on giving it a try Phil. I would just have to figure out a wat to balance it. Cycle gear will balance for free so I am told... and I can have a nice tire swing for the kids with the me 88.

[crazy steve]

The original 4.50H-17 tire for these had a diameter of about 26.5" and a total mounted width of about 5.25". I haven't been able to find either a 17" or 16" tire that exactly matches that from any of the tire makers, with the 130/90-17 coming closest at a typical diameter 25.75" and the 'correct' width. There is variation in 'like' sizes between the manufacturers, but it's rarely more than 1/4", usually less. The less expensive tire in a makers line will usually run smaller than the 'better' tire.

The 130/90-16" tires will run smaller in diameter than the 17", although some of the 140/90-16 can be as tall the 130/90-17. But here you have to watch width; these can be up to 5.6" wide, and you generally can't get anything wider than about 5.45" in there without it rubbing on the swingarm. White-letter versions in this size usually won't fit at all.

For a comparison of sizes, check the manufacturers website; most usually have size data if you look for it; here's Dunlops....http://www.dunlopmotorcycle.com/tirecatalog.asp

How/where you ride will make a difference in tire mileage too. If you ride a lot of macadam roads (AKA chip-seal, or a oil/gravel surface), these shorten tire life at least 25% IMO, particularly if you ride at all aggressively. I've personally seen rear tire mileage in the 5 to 8K range typically, riding these types of roads a lot. I got nearly 9K out of a Dunlop (on another bike), but it's compound was scary-hard and the back end would move around.

[bikerphil]

I would just have to figure out a wat to balance it.

I use two jack stands and an extra XS11 rear long motor mount bolt as an axle. I use stick on weights and/or the clip on type. It usually takes about 5 minutes or less.

[cywelchjr]

I use two jack stands and an extra XS11 rear long motor mount bolt as an axle. I use stick on weights and/or the clip on type. It usually takes about 5 minutes or less.

I know this will probably start another war, but I'm going to be putting dynabeads in next month and pulling the weights off. I've talked to enough guys who's opinion I respect who do a LOT of riding who use them that report increased tire life to determine I'm going to give them a try. I'd like to get every penny out of my tires I can.

[bikerphil]

Lol, go for it CY, I'm too cheap and old skool (stubborn) to use Dynabeads, lol. Let us know your findings.