Bridgestone Exedra Max Radial

[Oldschool]

I wonder if there is a comparison photo that shows the profile difference between the bridgestone and the avon rear tire. Looking at the photo above it seems as though the bridgy has a much flatter profile than the cobra. That could explain why it gets better miles before replacement.

On a side note I could see there being problems running a taller rear tire and a 130 front tire. The actual wheel speed in the rear will be lower than stock at say 60mph, and the front would be higer than stock at 60. I wonder if a stock height rear with a 130 up front would trip the ABS. The difference between a 240/50/16 and a 130 up front would be the same as a 240/55/16 rear and a 140 up front. I wouldn't want the loss of ground clearance the 130 has anyway, but its just a thought.

 

[TriumPhil]

Believe me, there is no clearance issue on pre-Roadster models with the 130/240 combo. Mind you, Ive always run with Rivco floorboards, so I can't speak to the clearance with OEM Triumph setups.

Scott I thought that the Commander II 140 was every bit as good a tire as the Exedra Max. It is a Z rated radial with Aramid belts and mine wore very evenly for nearly 9,000 miles.

The smaller front tire dramitically improves turn-in and tracking, while the overall feel of a 200 pound lightening of the bike makes handling overall much better as it requires alighter rider input - actually making the R3 quite flickable for a big girl.

 

[1olbull]

I wonder if there is a comparison photo that shows the profile difference between the bridgestone and the avon rear tire. Looking at the photo above it seems as though the bridgy has a much flatter profile than the cobra. That could explain why it gets better miles before replacement.

On a side note I could see there being problems running a taller rear tire and a 130 front tire. The actual wheel speed in the rear will be lower than stock at say 60mph, and the front would be higer than stock at 60. I wonder if a stock height rear with a 130 up front would trip the ABS. The difference between a 240/50/16 and a 130 up front would be the same as a 240/55/16 rear and a 140 up front. I wouldn't want the loss of ground clearance the 130 has anyway, but its just a thought.

The full story . . .
The OEM rear with a OEM front results in a circumference ratio difference of +3.9%
The Max rear with a OEM front is +.2%
The Max rear with a 140 front is -4.3%
The Max rear with a 130 front is -4.6%
Your idea of the OEM rear with a 130 front is -1%

As you can see here the axles are in a reverse, or uphill, angle when stock.
It reduces with the Max rear, but axles are still in a reverse angle.
My opinion is that this reverse angle is adverse to good handling.
I have found the Max rear with a 140 front to be the best. It changes the ratio 8.2% and places the front axle about ½ inch lower than the rear.
I have also found the Max with a 130 increases that change to 8½% which disables the ABS.
Therefor; the ECU circumference ratio limit must be pretty close to 8%.
Your suggestion of the OEM rear with a 130 front will certainly not disable the ABS and likely improve handling; BUT, I would be concerned about ground clearance if you are riding a Roadster!

 

[warp9.9]

Believe me, there is no clearance issue on pre-Roadster models with the 130/240 combo. Mind you, Ive always run with Rivco floorboards, so I can't speak to the clearance with OEM Triumph setups.

Scott I thought that the Commander II 140 was every bit as good a tire as the Exedra Max. It is a Z rated radial with Aramid belts and mine wore very evenly for nearly 9,000 miles.

The smaller front tire dramitically improves turn-in and tracking, while the overall feel of a 200 pound lightening of the bike makes handling overall much better as it requires alighter rider input - actually making the R3 quite flickable for a big girl.

According to Michelin the 140/75/17 is a 67V rated now the rear 240/40/18 is a 79V rated tire. I am not sure where you got your information at but here is a link to the Michelin site
http://motorcycle.michelinman.com/tires/michelin-commander-ii#dim

As for how it acts in a turn since it drops the front axle .59" and with my adjustable fork height being .5" inches lower already I feel the benefits of a quicker turn anyway (except the part from the 140 being 10 mm narrower). I will probably still order a full set but wish they made a Z rated for the front and rear other then the 120 front they do.
Of course if I do try them I suspect I will be adjusting my front fork length some due to the 240/40/18 being .830" diameter shorter then the 240/55/16.

There might be more to it like @1olbull is referring to the axle height being lower while mine is not just the fork length is lower.

 

[TriumPhil]

That's the one... I was quoting the info from memory and since I haven't used the tire in nearly 3 years, well... you know how the memory goes with age and time.

 

[Oldschool]

Looking at a comparison it looks like a 130/70/r17 is 2 inches overall shorter than the stock front tire. Which would translate into 1 inch drop in the front. I could find taller profile 130 wide but they all seem to be bias ply. I wonder if that tire size and keeping the stock rear size tire would work without tripping the abs system. I read that a 240/55 rear with a 130 was a definate no go, but the difference in wheel speed between a 130 front with a 240/50 rear I would think might work.

240/50/r16 metz (OD) 25.91
240/55/R16 Bridgy (OD) 26.58
240/50/r16 avon (OD) 25.50

150/80/r17 metz (OD) 25.86
130/70/r17 bridgy (OD) 24.2
140/75/r17 avon (OD) 25.2


Running a stock rear size tire with 130/70/r17 front would give a difference of 6.5% loss in front tire diameter. Running a 240/55 rear and a 140/75 would give a 2.6% lower difference up front and a 2.5 % higher out back for a net difference of 5.1%. Running a avon cobra rear with a bridgy front would give a 5.1% difference overall, the same as the bridgy avon setup that is known to work. Obviously the tire diameters might be off of what the specs are which could easily lead to a problem. I personally don't believe in mixing and matching tires (different brands/types/etc) which makes it hard to find what I wanted. If avon made a 130 front that wasn't bias I would have tried it to see what happened. Instead I ordered a 140/75 and a 240/50 avon which I know would work. I wouldn't have minded the 240/55 bridgy but I want to see what the avons do compared to stock. I hope I get a little bit better "flickability" than stock. I got 10K out of the stock tires, they wore out more at the mid lean angle then in the middle or edges (likely due to underinflation). Considering how agressive I am sometimes I wonder how someone could wear out the stock metz rear in under 6 or 7K miles unless they wear the middle out from never leaning over.

 

[TriumPhil]

Please keep us updated on your results, Oldschool!

 

[FR56]

Very informative thread that gives me solace. I've had certain reservations in putting a deposit on a R3 Roadster after finding out the prices of the other applicable tire brands along with their likely 'softer' compounds used.

I've been the very happy rider of a K1200R BMW for the last 59000 miles and know all to well the brief service life of "sport" compound tires. Especially when ridden in proper "sporting" fashion.

 

[TriumPhil]

If proper tire maintenance/expense for the R3 are'mt to your likeing, then it might be best to look at other bikes, but, IMHO, that would be a big mistake!

 

[1olbull]

Looking at a comparison it looks like a 130/70/r17 is 2 inches overall shorter than the stock front tire. Which would translate into 1 inch drop in the front. I could find taller profile 130 wide but they all seem to be bias ply. I wonder if that tire size and keeping the stock rear size tire would work without tripping the abs system. I read that a 240/55 rear with a 130 was a definate no go, but the difference in wheel speed between a 130 front with a 240/50 rear I would think might work.

240/50/r16 metz (OD) 25.91
240/55/R16 Bridgy (OD) 26.58
240/50/r16 avon (OD) 25.50

150/80/r17 metz (OD) 25.86
130/70/r17 bridgy (OD) 24.2
140/75/r17 avon (OD) 25.2


Running a stock rear size tire with 130/70/r17 front would give a difference of 6.5% loss in front tire diameter. Running a 240/55 rear and a 140/75 would give a 2.6% lower difference up front and a 2.5 % higher out back for a net difference of 5.1%. Running a avon cobra rear with a bridgy front would give a 5.1% difference overall, the same as the bridgy avon setup that is known to work. Obviously the tire diameters might be off of what the specs are which could easily lead to a problem. I personally don't believe in mixing and matching tires (different brands/types/etc) which makes it hard to find what I wanted. If avon made a 130 front that wasn't bias I would have tried it to see what happened. Instead I ordered a 140/75 and a 240/50 avon which I know would work. I wouldn't have minded the 240/55 bridgy but I want to see what the avons do compared to stock. I hope I get a little bit better "flickability" than stock. I got 10K out of the stock tires, they wore out more at the mid lean angle then in the middle or edges (likely due to underinflation). Considering how agressive I am sometimes I wonder how someone could wear out the stock metz rear in under 6 or 7K miles unless they wear the middle out from never leaning over.

WHAT 130/70R17 front tire???