Tire dimensions to get a more horisontal look of the bike

marp68

XS650 Addict
Messages
490
Reaction score
10
Points
16
Location
Sweden
I'm going to buy new tires.

Since the front is 19" and the rear is 18", I want to even out a little bit the height difference by choosing a higher rear tire and a lower front tire.

Have anyone experimented with this? Any reflections from anyone?

I'm thinking about buying Avon AM26 Roadrider (looks nice):

Rear 120/90 (or would even 120/100 be okej?)
Front 100/90

Cheers

------------------------------------
XS650 -75
 
Last edited:
The original tires from long ago were 100% profile, meaning that the tire height above the rim is the same as the width.

With a stock 3.50-19 on front, the tire diameter would be 3.5" + 3.5" + 19" = 26".
With a stock rear tire of 4.00-18, the tire diameter would be 4.0" + 4.0" + 18" = 26".

So, the long-ago tires were equal (supposedly) in height.

Running modern lower-profile tires takes a little more math.

Your front 100/90-19 works out to 3.54" (90% of 100mm) + 3.54" (90% of 100mm) + 19" = 26.1"
The rear 120/90-18 would work out to 4.25" (90% of 120mm) + 4.25" (90% of 120mm) + 18" = 26.5"

Well, that's how it's supposed to be calculated. Unfortunately, modern tires don't always work out like that. It's like buying shoes. For the same size, some just seem smaller than others.
 
Thanks for the maths. Good to know.

Then a 120/100 would result in a slightly higher tire and the rear would be raised a bit in comparison to the front. Any problems with that regarding space or handling?

Any tip about a similar tire with the dimension 100/80 (70) for the front tire and 120/110 for the rear? To raise the rear more in comparison to the front? And is it enough height space for the rear tire and would there be a problem regarding handling and steering?

I'm aiming for a more horisontal look. Am also thinking about getting a few cm longer rear shocks.
 
Why use width dimension to calculate height? Because tire manufacturers specify height in terms of percentage of width.

So, you want to drop the nose and raise the rear for "The Look?" Good practice if you know what you're doing, but a bad reason for doing it. Getting the nose down a little (12 mm. works for me) by raising the forks in the clamps and using taller shocks (I recommend 340 mm. for Standard models with 18" rear) will make steering faster and more linear--with proper tires!

If you use weird tire sizes, however, the result will not be good. First off using a 100/70/19 in front (assuming anyone makes that size; I've never seen it) with a 120/100/18 in back would not result in a small change. You'd run out of tread in front in a hurry, and the fat rear would slow your handling.

With shock height of 340 mm. and the clamps dropped on the tubes (experiment carefully with this, making changes in small increments) you'll get good results with 100/90/19 or 100/80/19 front and 110/90/18 rear. If you're going to go to that trouble, don't mess with low performance tires like the Roadrider. The Pirelli Sport Demon and Bridgestone BT45 are both made in sizes you can use; I like the Pirellis because they're lighter and do just as well in the corners. Guys like to argue the point, but it's bad practice to mix-and-match front and rear tires. If you stick to the same maker and model front and rear you'll know that the tires will work together, and that you won't have a difference in carcass flex that can put you on your head.

If you raise the rear and drop the nose, be aware that you'll need to address other things as well; better fork springs, tapered steering head bearings, and bronze swing arm bushings at the very least. Also be aware that any problem in the rest of the suspension (wheel out of true, sloppy wheel bearing, etc.) will become more acute.

Pay attention to what TwoMany wrote re. manufacturers' height and width specs--they're nominal, and the only spec you can fully trust is the wheel diameter.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the input. That's exactly what I meant, that to much difference effect handling, stearing, etc. So it's good to know the limits.

I've already lower the front forks approx 1-1,5 cm. And I'm about to buy cheaply a pair of second hand taller rear shocks (35 cm). If it turns out well, I intend to buy a new pair. I've also already changed some of the other stuff you mentioned.

However, what about the argument that it could be okej with a slightly wider tire (120/90) than originally (4.00, 100 % profile), since the width is less than the height, which would make it easy enough to lean on the side? There was a discussion about this in another thread.
 
A 110 is "slightly" wider that a 4.00. A 120 is a whole lot wider, and pushes the limits of what can be safely used on a 2.15 rim.
 
Tire Technical Information
Tire Widths*
Goodyear / Dunlop Eagle DTII
S.S.A.E. British Front
27.0 X 7.0 X 19 Rear
27.5 X 7.5 X 19
1.85" WM 2 4-13/16" -----
2.15" WM 3 4-7/8" 5-5/16"
2.50" WM 4 5-1/32" 5-13/32"
2.75 WM 4.5 5-1/8" 5-1/2"
3.00" WM 5 ----- 5-5/8"
3.50" WM 6 ----- 5-3/4"

Maxxis DTR-1
S.A.E. British Front
27.0 X 7.0 X 19 Rear
27.5 X 7.5 X 19
1.85" WM 2 4-11/16" -----
2.15" WM 3 5-1/16" 5-9/16"
2.50" WM 4 5-3/16" 5-11/16"
2.75" WM 4.5 5-9/32" 5-3/4"
3.00" WM 5 ----- 5-13/16"
S.A. E. British Front
110/80-19 Rear
120/90-18
1.85" WM 2 4-3/32" 4-13/16"
2.15" WM 3
S.A.E.
Compounds
British Rear
140/80-19
1.85" WM 2 5-3/8"
2.15" WM 3 5-9/16"
2.50" WM 4 5-11/16"
2.75" WM 4.5 5-3./4"
3.00" WM 5 5-13/16"
3.50" WM 6 5-15/16"
4-1/4" 4-1516"
2.50" WM 4 4-5/16" 5-1/32"
2.75" WM 4.5 ----- 5-1/16"
3.00" WM 5 ----- 5-3/32"
3.50" WM 6 ----- 5-3/8"
3.50" WM 6 ----- 5-15/16"
Continental Milestone
Dunlop K180
Tire Soft Medium Hard Hardest
Goodyear / Dunlop DTII CD 2 CD 5 CD 8
Maxxos DTR-1 CD 3 CD 5 CD 10
Dunlop K180 **
Continental Milestone CM 5
* To Determine These Tire Widths, A & A Has Mounted Each Of The Tires On The Various Rim Widths, Inflated The Tire
To 20 psi And Taken A Measurement Across.

** Dunlop K 180 Tires Are Not Compounded By Dunlop. They Are However Closest To A Medium Compound.
many thanks to aaracing.com/
 
I found a WM4 2.50" 40 hole rim attached to a Sprrtster hub and a WM3 2.15 19" 36 hole rim from some dirt bike for the front . Both rims are vintage Akront .The angle of the spoke holes is well within limits for adaptation to the Yamaha and Kawasaki hubs .

Sry the bike is in storage for a bit and I don't have the tires I want on it anyway .
I was hoping to get a Dunlop K-180 for the rear but try finding one in North America .

~kop
 
Marp68, note that the metric equivalent to the OE front tire would be 90/90/19, which is better suited to the 1.85/19 stock rim, would not be as tall as a 100/90/19, and would steer quicker. Be careful of kop; he'll make you think, and that can be dangerous.

If price is a consideration in your choice of the Roadrider tire, consider Shinko 712's, but don't buy them online. While tread design and compound are excellent (bought from Yokohama when they got out of the bike tire business), a defective 712 occasionally gets through with a bead that refuses to seat evenly on the rim. If that defect is present, you don't want to go through the trouble of proving it to an online vendor. If you buy from a local shop, they'll have credibility and leverage with the distributor, and the return won't be questioned.
 
Last edited:
Okej, so that would make a difference of 12 mm.
The price where I would buy the tires doesn't differ that much between the Avon AM26 and the Bridgestone BT45. The BT45 looks a little more "classic" but still modern though, so I'll probably go with them. The only problem is that they didn't have the many 90/90 19". Only for the AM26. Is that an uncommon size? What is common to use on the XS? Would 90/90 19" look very small?

Btw, why do you think AM26 is not that good? Some here seem to use them.

And I will go for the 110/90 18" for the rear.

Thanks for your good information.
 
Didn't tell anything about the old tires. I have owned the bike for 4 years and it was probably the former owner who changed tires. They are a Conti Blitz 3.25 19" and Michelin M48E 120/90 18". So, already a slightly lower front and a slightly higher rear. I must say the bike feels easy enough to stear. It's the front that needs to be changed, but since I want the same tire model and the rear feels a bit dry, I thought it best to change booth. But if I change to 110/90 rear and 100/90 front, it will be a lower rear and higher front in comparison to now.
 
Right, the 100 width is most commonly available; it's been a long time since I've bought 19" tires, as I mounted an 18" rim in front years ago; you might consider that.

Re. the Roadrider: Front tires and rear tires are subjected to very different loads, and therefor should be constructed differently. The "universal" construction of the Roadrider amounts to compromise in carcass design. Note that "some here" also build hardtail bobbers and choppers so they can look like bad boys and ride like--no, I won't say it, it would be an insult to grandmas everywhere.

The BT45, on the other hand, is a no-compromise performance tire. I've gone through several sets of them. The Pirelli is also a fine tire, I've gone through several of those too. I'm presently using the Shinko 712. I mounted a pair on a bike that I'd refurbished for sale, and was impressed enough by the performance to put them on my own machine when the Pirellis wore out.
 
Last edited:
Considering handling effects, I decided to go for the BT45, 110/90 rear and 3.25 front.

Btw, I also think the BT45 makes a good mix between classic and modern look.

Thanks for all feedback

Happy Christmas
 
Back
Top