Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'aspect'.
Found 4 results
-
Hey guys . time has come for me to purchase a rear tire. I found the brand that i would like to try, my question is about reading tire sizes. I would liek to fit a taller tire to try and get more clearance on my 96. Leveling links wont work for my year RS. Manual says 150-90/15 as the size for the rear Is there any size that would be a taller tire. Also IS it possible to run a 140/90-15 . This would give better turnout but will it be safe on the rim and since the second number is an aspect ration of the first will a 140-90/15 be a shorter tire. I wish i could stand 4 tires up to each other to see the difference. has anyone tried a size other than whats listed by the manufacturer. As far as measuring aspect ratio 150x.9= 135 mm high which converted to inches is roughly 5.31" so thats 20 inch wheel 140x.9= 126 mm 4.96" so thats 20 inch wheel give or take 1/2 an inch
-
What is the difference between the Dunlop Elite 3 front tires listed below. Since they are different prices and weights (by $16.00) there must be some significant difference. The only thing I see different is the Aspect Ratio. Which one is best for the RSV? Dennis Kirk lists both tires for RSV fitment. What I really want to know is which of these two tires do I want and why one over the other? Would I notice an Aspect ratio difference from 80 to 90? On Dennis Kirk site more people reviews the 90 Aspect Ratio tire. Is that because it is $16 cheaper or a better ride and life? One other detail, I am considering the Dunlop E3 because I can not get the Michelin Commander which I already have on the rear. Michelin has no idea when the 150/80 16 may be available. My Dunlop 404 front will need changing before to very long so I thought the E3's would be a good alternative choice. But which one??? What do you think???? $107.99 * Dunlop Front Elite 3 150/80H-16 Blackwall Tire (1 Review) weight 17.70 pounds Dennis Kirk Part #: 543447 Manufacturer Part #: 407989 Aspect Ratio: 80 Construction: Bias Position: Front Rim Size: 16 Sidewall: Blackwall Speed Rating: H Tire Classification: Touring Tube Type: Tube or Tubeless Units: Each Width: 150 Compared to: Dunlop Front Elite 3 MT90HB-16 Blackwall Tire $91.99 per tire (14 Reviews) weight 16.06 pounds Dennis Kirk Part #: 542887 Manufacturer Part #: 407990 Rim Size: 16 Width: MT Aspect Ratio: 90 Construction: Bias Position: Front Sidewall: Blackwall Speed Rating: H Tire Classification: Touring Tube Type: Tube or Tubeless Units: Each -
I've seen several discussions of wider vs narrower tires on this forum. But I don't recall any discussion of changing the aspect ratio of the tires. tire width x aspect ratio = height of the tire. The stock rear tire on the 2nd gens is: 150/90-15 where 90 is the aspect ratio that determines how high the tire sits, and hence its circumference. Its also part of the overall gear ratio of the machine. ie: a taller tire is going to require fewer rpm's of the engine than a shorter tire (using the same transmission gear). This implies that a well worn tire will be 'geared' lower than a new tire... How about that? Lower aspect tires have less side wall flex than higher aspect tires, so may be considered stiffer. That might mean better in the twisties? A thought occired to me that one way to achieve a lower gear ratio, much as one does by using a Vmax rear end, could be achieved by using a slightly smaller aspect rear tire? Has anyone tried this? or even thought about it? This is also a possible alternative to installing lowering links.
-
Hey all, I am considering going to a CT on my 2000 Royal Star Venture. I have been monitoring this forum for a while now, and I'm pretty convinced I want to take the plunge. Two quick questions for the guru's out there. First, if I've done my homework correctly, the aspect ratio for the 165/80R15 (Federal, Khumo, etc.), when converted yields a sidewall height of 132 MM. The 155/80R15 (BFGoodrich) converts to 124 MM. The stock size MT of 150/90R15 converts to 135. Obviously, the 165 tires are closer to stock, but is that necessarily better. I think, as others have suggested, it might have less of an effect on the number of tire rotations (speedometer) than the smaller 155 tire. But, is that necessarily better. What I am wondering about is flex in the sidewall. Won't the taller sidewall of the 165 have more flex in hard turns than the 155? If it does, is that better or worse? While I'm not thrilled about the idea of alterations to the speedometer, to me, that is secondary to handling performance, especially when leaning in the turns. My second question is about the sidewalls themselves. Some of the CT's are single ply, and some are two-ply. Is either one better than the other? Any and all input would be greatly appreciated. Don from Harrisburg, Pa
