Bridgestone Exedra Max Radial

Oldschool said:

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.

Click to expand...

TriumPhil said:

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.

Click to expand...

Oldschool said:

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.

Click to expand...