Tire Question

[gorski]

Hey All,

 

My eyes are bleeding from reading posts trying to figure out replacement tires for my 07 RSV. I have narrowed it down to Dunlap E3's or the Michelin Commander II. As I search for pricing I am seeing BIAS ply and or RADIAL?? Please forgive the stupidity, but isn't it a radial world???

 

Also thinking of going with a 130 up front, is the 130 size 130/19/16?

 

Thanks for all thoughts on tire choice and size

 

Gorski

[utadventure]

I went with the E3's on the '99 and they've been wonderful. Still running the stock size on the front so, I'm no help there.

[gorski]

Thanks utaventure.... Are you running radial or bias ply e3's

[H2O]

I'm going through the same threads right now too. I bought my '06 RSV last June with right at 10K miles on it. The PO just installed a Shinko 230 on the rear.....150 90 15............Now the original Bridgestone on the front has seen it's better days now that I have about 13K miles on the bike. It's actually just starting to show early dry rot. Guess I shoulda changed it before that ride to Maggie Valley last week lol, but the thing still has plenty of tread!

 

I too have the same question about bias vs radials and mixing them between front and rear...

 

I'm going to install a Dunlop E3 130 90 16 up front in a few weeks. I guess I'll stay with the bias style??

 

I'll keep my eye on this thread. Let me know how it works out for ya!

[Great White]

Bias ply is still around.

 

You have to look very carefully at the tire size to see if the "R" is in the numbers and if your bike has the proper width for radials.

 

Typically, narrower rims are for bias ply tires.

 

Radials start at 3.50 inch rim widths up front and generally anything over 4.00/4.50 are radial rears.

 

last time I checked on the commander II's, almost all of them were bias ply with only 1 or 2 radial sizes available.

 

Most manufactures seem to lean towards bias ply for big heavy touring bikes because radials generally have short sidewalls and generally lower load capacity (due to the nature of their construction). Bias ply has more support in the sidewalls (again, due to they way they are constructed) so can hold more weight load over a taller sidewall. The taller sidewall helps to absorb road imperfections when you hit them and smooth the ride out, which is what most cruiser/touring riders are looking for. Weight capacity and smooth ride.

 

As to what your bike takes, I can't say. I don't have a 2nd gen.

 

Best to look up what your bike calls for in the manuals and go from there.

 

Good luck with your hunt, reading up on tires can be information overload sometimes.

 

Edited October 26, 2015 by Great White

[H2O]

Bias ply is still around.

 

You have to look very carefully at the tire size to see if the "R" is in the numbers and if your bike has the proper width for radials.

 

Typically, narrower rims are for bias ply tires.

 

Radials start at 3.50 inch rim widths up front and generally anything over 4.00/4.50 are radial rears.

 

last time I checked on the commander II's, almost all of them were bias ply with only 1 or 2 radial sizes available.

 

Most manufactures seem to lean towards bias ply for big heavy touring bikes because radials generally have short sidewalls and generally lower load capacity(due to the way they are constructed). Bias ply has more support in the sidewalls (again, due to they way they are constructed) so can hold more weight load over a taller sidewall. The taller sidewall helps to absorb road imperfections when you hit them and smooth the ride out, which is what most cruiser/touring riders are looking for. Weight capacity and smooth ride.

 

As to what your bike takes, I can't say. I don't have a 2nd gen.

 

Best to look up what your bike calls for in the manuals and go from there.

 

Good luck with your hunt, reading up on tires can be information overload sometimes.

 

 

Thanks for that info. It pretty much answers my concern about the radial option. I'll stay with the bias.

[meach]

It seems most folks have a favorite brand of tire, I've used several brands over the years, currently on the RSV I changed from the stock 150/80/16 to the 130/90/16. I had put a Com. II on the rear a few months earlier and back in spring looked at the Com. II for the front which doesn't come in the stock size but does come in the 130, other reason for 130 front was for handling. I had read others who went with the 130 so I went ahead and I'm glad I did. For me its much better handling at parking lot speeds, seems much more nimble and I can balance bike much better. Couldn't tell any diff. at road speed. I believe both front and rear are bias. (fyi I got Front Commander II 130/90HB-16 Blackwall Tire from Denniskirk for $110 including shipping)

[djh3]

I like the ride of the 130/90 It just seemed to corner better or something. Cant put my finger on it for sure now. I had the MC 2 on there for over 17k and could have got a few K more out of them but had a trip planned. I went to Shinko last change due to economic budget at time. Not a bad tire for the money. The rear went like 6600, not bad for like $80 in my book. Now have a Shinko 777 on rear as they now make that in a "reinforced" tire for more load. When I did go to the Shinkos I als went back to OEM size tire up front. OH my, had to relearn how to ride this thing.

[Great White]

Any tire with a "B" in it's sizing is a bias ply. For example: 130/90HB-16. H is the speed rating, B is for Bias. The numbers we already know.

 

For you guys experiencing "nimbler" handling with the 130 vice the 160, that's fairly normal. the narrower tire usually has a "steeper" profile which makes starting it over into a lean easier.

 

Many sportbike guys find this out going the other way. They often want wider and fatter tires because it "looks" more "aggressive". Often going up to a 120 front from a 110 or a 130 from a 120. What they usually find out is the wider tire has a rounder profile and it slows the transition from straight up to leaned over and even slower is quick left right maneuvers. Guys who actually ride their sportbikes bikes usually go back to stock sizes and those that like to pose on them stay "fat" or even go "fatter".

 

There's a fine balance between not enough, just enough or too much tire.....

[Canadian Gunner]

I will be changing both front and rear tires in the sping. So far I think I'm going with the stock sizes, and I'll use a combo of the Dunlop E3 on the front and the Commander II on the back. Anyone have thoughts o this combination// Good points or bad are welcome.

[BlueSky]

Any tire with a "B" in it's sizing is a bias ply. For example: 130/90HB-16. H is the speed rating, B is for Bias. The numbers we already know.

 

The B means it is a bias belted tire.

[Great White]

The B means it is a bias belted tire.

 

Sure, if you want to pick the fly-poo out of the pepper.

 

For the intents of this discussion bias is good enough. A belted tire is still going to be a type of bias tire. It's describing the construction type. If you ever see a "D", it's diagonal, but it's still a "bias" tire.

 

Here's a quote from another site:

 

Bias Tires

 

The bias tire is the predecessor of the bias-belted tire. Bias tires have a tire bead (the area that holds the tire against the rim when it's inflated), a sidewall, and tread just like any other tire you've seen. The difference in bias tires is what is found beneath the tread-the inner workings of the tire. In order to support the vehicle and maintain form when filled with air, bias tires have a series of tire plies under the tread. A ply is a layer of material, such as nylon or steel, that offers internal support when mixed into the layer of rubber underneath the tread. "Bias" means that these plies are layered diagonally.

 

Bias tires were developed in order to offer a smooth and resilient ride on rough surfaces, but they also possessed immediate drawbacks, most notably a high rolling resistance. Rolling resistance is the amount of tire resistance that your vehicle has to overcome in order to roll forward. When your vehicle has to put up with more rolling resistance from your tires, it has to use more gas. In an effort to address the drawbacks of bias tires, bias-belted tires were developed and incorporated into many vehicle designs. Still with us?

Bias-Belted Tires

 

Bias-belted tires are still on the market today. Bias-belted tires are manufactured similarly to the original bias tire. The difference comes after the bias plies have been layered. Above the top layer of tire ply, stabilizer belts, generally made of steel or other corded material, are applied at different angles to the plies, offering additional support and a stiffer inner material to bond with the tread. Bias-belted tires provide a smoother ride and lower rolling resistance than bias tires do. Bias-belted tires are popular with people who drive classic cars and who prefer to keep the equipment as close to original as possible. Bias-belted tires are also manufactured for some light trucks such as pickup trucks and SUVs.

 

While they still serve some purposes, when talking tires for the average modern vehicle, bias-belted tire can't compare to the performance capability and efficiency of radial tires. Radial tires give vehicles lower rolling resistance, higher mileage, and a more comfortable ride. RightTurn.com recommends using tires that meet the original equipment specifications of your vehicle. You can find this information in your vehicle owner's manual.

 

 

Anything without an R isn't a radial and that's really what's germane to what tire fits what rim here.

 

Edited October 26, 2015 by Great White
spelling and grammar

[MikeWa]

A 2007 Royal Stare Venture was designed for Bias Ply tires. Since it's your bike use what you will. Some people use car tires. I prefer to stay within design limits.

 

Mike

[BlueSky]

Sure, if you want to pick the fly-poo out of the pepper.

 

For the intents of this discussion bias is good enough. A belted tire is still going to be a type of bias tire. It's describing the construction type. If you ever see a "D", it's diagonal, but it's still a "bias" tire.

 

Here's a quote from another site:

 

 

 

 

Anything without an R isn't a radial and that's really what's germane to what tire fits what rim here.

 

 

The B is only used for Bias/Belted tires. Bias ply tires don't have a letter designation. You were being misleading.

[Great White]

The B is only used for Bias/Belted tires. Bias ply tires don't have a letter designation. You were being misleading.

 

I'm done talking about the subject.

 

We're just going to keep circling around the same tree over and over and I have no interest in that.

 

Cheers

 

Edited October 26, 2015 by Great White

[djh3]

Part of the reason I went with the Michelin was tread design. The dunlap to me does not have "cross over" grooves and I had a few issues with the rear in the wet. So currently this is what I have on the front, and this is the rear tire

[gorski]

Thanks for all the replys, leaning towards MC II with 130 in the front, just need to see how much the dealer is gonna need to do the install. Looks like Jake Wilson is the best deal for both so far

[Rmar]

I have the mcll front and rear love the way they handle. They ride smooth on grooved pavement no tracking. Very smooth in the curves. Very easy side to side transitions. I have 130 up front. Another VR member rode my bike and has switched to these because of the easy handling.

 

Ricky

[gorski]

Thanks Ricky, going to have them installed on Saturday and planning a day ride Sunday, will update

[Du-Rron]

My tires are round... kinda

[gorski]

Well had the dealer install done on the tires this morning. 130/90-16 up front. WOW!!! felt like a totally different bike. Very nimble very responsive and the Michelin Commander II's are a very nice riding and handling tire. Very happy with the switch and would highly recommend going to the 130 up front . Only 50 miles on them so far, will add a couple hundred more tomorrow

[videoarizona]

Robert,

I'm curious how your high speed stability is with the narrower tire. When you get a few more miles on the tires, do let us know.

david

[gorski]

was able to get out the next day and did about 200 miles, stability was fine, still couldn't believe the difference in how it handled. It felt very light and responsive. No real highway riding but cruised a bit at 60 mph and felt very stable, no wobble at all. Hope to try it two up this coming weekend and will update further

[H2O]

Just replaced the original Bridgestone up front on my RSV. Dropped down to a 130/90/16 bias Dunlop E3. As soon as I turned the handle bars it felt like there was less resistance and as soon as I started moving I noticed a difference, of course, any time I've replaced old tires on whatever the vehicle I notice a "difference", but the best way I can describe it is like I shed 20 pounds off the front of the RSV.

 

Turning at a crawl was definitely improved. If I could tell any difference at highway speed it would be in favor of the original 150, but I really couldn't be positively sure about that.

The new tire will get better I'm sure, but one thing is certain, the front end control is more responsive now in my opinion.

It feels more like my '88 VR at slow speeds, which is what I was hoping for.

[gorski]

I agree H2O you said it better than I did, was really surprised at how light the front end felt