I was wondering if anyone tried to put a higher size rear tire on a 620cc monster ? Would there be clearance from the rear fender? What size would fit other than the 160.
I believe the stock size is
Front Tire (Full Spec) 120/60 ZR17
Rear Tire (Full Spec) 160/60 ZR17
if i knew, id help ya. I do know is that your probably gonna get a bunch of remarks about why? why? why? personally, im thinking of doing the same. ihave been considering 190 rear on my m1100 for months now.
You will also need a wider wheel on that 620. Handling will not be improved. put the money elsewhere, like suspension.
Quote from: howie on September 27, 2011, 10:02:28 PM
Handling will not be improved. put the money elsewhere, like suspension.
+1 Brazilian
Ran a 170 (Got a good deal on a tire good tire) on the stock rim for about 3K miles (Nail), was not a huge difference but turning and leaning were different, good or bad , not really just different. I am currently back on a 160.
A wider rim, and alot wider tire is something I have not tried but I would give it a shot. Gonna be heavier so may not be a good idea. Already the 620 monster is not very powerful so adding weight is detrimental.
Handling will probably be affected but it could probably be worked out by raising/lowering the front or rear, as well as a good suspension setup.
What I've always heard is that throwing a wider rear tire on the 620 conveys no functional benefits and makes handling slower. Having not owned a 620 I can't speak from experience, but that's the party line.
Thanks for your input everyone. Just curious about the 170 tire on her. Was curious if the 170 benefit on the twisty rides or not. Was not sure if the rear-fender clearance?
Zarn02 - was clearance an issue on the rear-fender ?
Quote from: howie on September 27, 2011, 10:02:28 PM
You will also need a wider wheel on that 620. Handling will not be improved. put the money elsewhere, like suspension.
I have adjustable Penske Suspension on her. (Honestly, I wish I put that money on my S3)
Quote from: ab on September 28, 2011, 03:26:03 PM
Zarn02 - was clearance an issue on the rear-fender ?
I don't really remember if there were clearance issues with a 170. I
think you ran into issues trying to go to a 180, but I don't remember well enough to swear to anything.
Quote from: ab on September 28, 2011, 03:26:03 PMWas curious if the 170 benefit on the twisty rides or not.
Not. A fatter rear tyre will just make turn-in a little slower.
All you'll get with the 170 is a heavier bike and one thats harder to turn. Larger tires are only installed to two reasons
1) To provide a large contact patch when a bike has loads of power to offer. (620 doesnt qualify for that one)
2) To look cool when posing.
Quote from: EEL on September 29, 2011, 06:35:44 AM
All you'll get with the 170 is a heavier bike and one thats harder to turn. Larger tires are only installed to two reasons
1) To provide a large contact patch when a bike has loads of power to offer. (620 doesnt qualify for that one)
2) To look cool when posing.
and...
3) To accommodate aftermarket wheels that are usually only available in 5.5" width (or more).
A heavy 160 tire can be comparable in weight to some wider 170/180 tires, so tire selection is a big part of the weight equation. And the tire weight is where it matters most...unsprung/rotating/outer perimeter.
But I agree that 160 is usually the best choice for the little monsters with 4.5" rims.
BK
Somewhat apples-and-oranges - but on one of my current Guzzis and on our current Harley we took the rear tires (granted they are bia-ply's in both cases) DOWN 10mm in width to improve handling.
The Jackal to a 130 from a 140
The Harley to a 140 from a 150
3) To accommodate aftermarket wheels that are usually only available in 5.5" width (or more).
A heavy 160 tire can be comparable in weight to some wider 170/180 tires, so tire selection is a big part of the weight equation. And the tire weight is where it matters most...unsprung/rotating/outer perimeter.
But I agree that 160 is usually the best choice for the little monsters with 4.5" rims.
BK
[/quote]
^
Yes
The 170 I ran was actually a bit lighter than the 160 I have now. A lighter than stock wheel in a 5.5 and a good tire will not be much if at all heavier than what you have now. I do not have a rear mudguard so don't know about clearances.
i have a 620 i run a 170 and im almost certain u could squeeze in a 180 but in my opinion the 170 feels fine and almost rides better than the 160 i started with. the tire seems slightly flatter in the center so on groovy pavement it dosnt throw you- my opinion
I had a over sized rear before on a GPZ 600cc and it was bad on turns , really luged it carving turns ... im only running the OEM size ... IT WAS SO BAD IT PULLED YOU DOWN WHEN ON CORNERS
Going oversize can be bad safety wise if you go too far, but one step up should be ok. If you tried a Pilot Pure you would have a light tyre, but its a light construction which means getting advice on tyre pressures. You dont want too much "flexion" on the more extreme angle of the side wall on an oversize tyre.
The other thing to consider is a more triangulated profile on a 170 so it has the width but a quick steering profile. Ask your tyre guy about this, (mind you he may say to run stock sizes as an indemnity issue).
Get advice about the best tyre that will stand up to running ovrrsize and have a profile that promotes quicker steering, or mitigates slower steering. Another thing is that the narrow rim sometimes pulls in the sides of the wider tyre and changes it's profile in a good or bad way. I have seen 190/50/17 tyres on a 5.5 inch rim that grew out to 55/60/65 profile. Some huggers barely cleared the tyre, some huggers wouldn't fit and strange handling sometimes ensued. Sometimes it worked well. By working well I mean the rider felt the security of a bigger contact patch but the increased profile maintained agility. By strange handling I mean unpredictable turn in, heavy response to steering inputs and dangerous tyre wear. It depends. Get specific advice from the tyre guy regarding pressures and application.
Its a little complex what has to be considered, but its tyres we are talking about and you are considering going outside the oem size.
Another thing to consider, tyres from different manufacturers but with the same sizing say 180/55/17 for example will have different profiles and widths.
I ran a Dunlop Q2 which barely cleared the chain and looked like a 190, while the Pirelli Diablo Rosso Corsa rear I'm now running looks like a 170. Both have 180/55/17 on the side.
So why don't you try a 160 Dunlop Q2? Then you will have the correct tyre that is more the look you want. Be careful, it's only a 4.5" rim not a 5". Don't think about a 180.
The 5.5" rim on the 900 Monster usually specifies a 170.
This begs the question, how many 900 owners run a 180?
i run a 900 ss rear wheel on my monster. 5.5in with a 180 road pilot 2 tyre. this is from a 4.5 in wheel and 160 road pilot 2 tyre i had originally. disregarding the bearing and innertube changes it fits fine. the chain has eaten a little of the extreme edge off the tyre but its nothing, many modified bikes do that. i havent put the rear hugger back on since.
as for handling, i havent been on a track but spirited street/forrest riding i cant put any blame to the rear tyre. i am still playing with ride heights and geomety, the issue im chasing is the front end feeling unstable in mid corner bumps. i did change both wheels to five spokes and rear to 5.5in, sbk forks (sprung and valved previous owner a bit too heavy for me), rear shock (re sprung to me) and triples at the one time.