16" front tire to diff size??

[Skelton Hogs]

Ahoy mates. I have 16" tires front and rear on stock wheels. Any experience with with changing the size from 150-80/16 to 140-85/16? I am having challenges turning the bike at lower speeds and understand that a thinner tire helps make that easier.

 

[1olbull]

Ahoy mates. I have 16" tires front and rear on stock wheels. Any experience with with changing the size from 150-80/16 to 140-85/16? I am having challenges turning the bike at lower speeds and understand that a thinner tire helps make that easier.

Your 150/80R16 has a 12.75" radius & 79.95" circumference. A 140/85R16 has a 12.69" radius & 79.70" circumference.
Therefor, the latter will lower your front end just .06" and is .4" narrower. IMO this will likely produce little noticeable handling difference.
I would consider a lower aspect ratio.

 

[1olbull]

Mitchelin Commander II makes a 130/90R16 front that would lower your front .14".
Might give that a try . .

 

[Fingers]

As 1olbull says the 130-90-16 Commander ll is what I use makes the bike feel 200 lbs. lighter

 

[scot in exile]

The tyre size might help a wee wee wee bit but what you really need to do is practise practise practise and counterweight you will get it.

 

[1olbull]

The tyre size might help a wee wee wee bit but what you really need to do is practise practise practise and counterweight you will get it.

I agree with goat lover!
I reckon these large motors are set up for stability expecting limited experience riders. Lots of trail.
If one cannot ride it properly in stock fashion, I'd say leave it alone and start practicing slow speed maneuvers.
Altering tire sizes that affect rake & trail is for those already competent and looking for sharper handling.
Just sayin' . . .

 

[Skelton Hogs]

Isn't that strange that this is the only radial avail in this size? I think the commander doesn't offer a reinforced model in this size and only rated to 670 lbs when I need 710. At any rate it's going to be much smaller, so I was thinking to match overall diameter rear with 180-65-16
Wouldn't that be the best instead of leaving the rear a few percentiles higher?
Thank you very very much

Mitchelin Commander II makes a 130/90R16 front that would lower your front .14".
Might give that a try . .

 

[1olbull]

Isn't that strange that this is the only radial avail in this size? I think the commander doesn't offer a reinforced model in this size and only rated to 670 lbs when I need 710. At any rate it's going to be much smaller, so I was thinking to match overall diameter rear with 180-65-16
Wouldn't that be the best instead of leaving the rear a few percentiles higher?
Thank you very very much

Not necessarily. I have no seat time with the R3T, but raising the reasr & lowering the front will reduce trail and sharpen your slow & twistie handling.
I will look up the OEM tires and compare to these you are considering and get back to ya.


Edit:
Unlike the Roadster, your R3T OEM tires/axle setup is not a reverse daygo.
Your rear axle is .24" higher than the front.
Your proposed tire sizes will lower the rear to be equal with the front - not an improvement!
I propose you stay with the OEM rear size, which will result in the rear axle .35" higher and noticably improve handling over OEM.
NOTE:
I would not think ground clearance impaired as your front axle will lower just .11". This
is not much, but if you have freeway pegs, you should likely raise them a quarter inch.
PERSPECTIVE:
This is not a serious change for you. The R3R front axle lowers -.59" and the rear raises +.48" for an overall change of -1.07".
Your R3T overall change from OEM would be just -.35".

Hope this makes senc? If you wish I can send you some comparison tables.

 

[Skelton Hogs]

Not necessarily. I have no seat time with the R3T, but raising the reasr & lowering the front will reduce trail and sharpen your slow & twistie handling.
I will look up the OEM tires and compare to these you are considering and get back to ya.


Edit:
Unlike the Roadster, your R3T OEM tires/axle setup is not a reverse daygo.
Your rear axle is .24" higher than the front.
Your proposed tire sizes will lower the rear to be equal with the front - not an improvement!
I propose you stay with the OEM rear size, which will result in the rear axle .35" higher and noticably improve handling over OEM.
NOTE:
I would not think ground clearance impaired as your front axle will lower just .11". This
is not much, but if you have freeway pegs, you should likely raise them a quarter inch.
PERSPECTIVE:
This is not a serious change for you. The R3R front axle lowers -.59" and the rear raises +.48" for an overall change of -1.07".
Your R3T overall change from OEM would be just -.35".

Hope this makes senc? If you wish I can send you some comparison tables.

Hey Olbull is that really your bike in the pic? It's got 4 ports!
So went with 170-70-16 resr and oem front 150-80-16. I have been doing slow figure 8 riding daily in parking lots and boy am I getting better at balancing and turning the beast.. it's like anything right, you get used to it... Wow what New tires feel like.. now I just need to wear them in for the next 100

 

[1olbull]

Hey Olbull is that really your bike in the pic? It's got 4 ports!
So went with 170-70-16 resr and oem front 150-80-16. I have been doing slow figure 8 riding daily in parking lots and boy am I getting better at balancing and turning the beast.. it's like anything right, you get used to it... Wow what New tires feel like.. now I just need to wear them in for the next 100

I hope you made a typo with that 170/70R16 because it lowers the rear axle over a quarter inch from the OEM 180/70R16.
This would increase trail and be counter-productive to improving your handling, especially at slow speeds.