bigern2300
.060 Over
The Darkside has even taken over Bigern! After i got a staple in my Metz, i went down to the car tire dealer looking for the Cooper Zeon 2xs. I looked it over for a while, then spotted a Cooper Zeon ZPT and decided i liked it's tread pattern much more. It is a lower speed rating (H), but i think it will withstand normal duty. Price...$106.00. Got it all mounted up and will try out this weekend after i finish my engine valve adjustments. bigern
HeR3tic
Living Legend
I'm GUESSing that because the 92H rating is good for nearly 1400# and you should burn 130+ with no issues 
That tread wear 380 rating should get you at least 30k provided you keep below 130 most of the time. Plus with that M+S rating you'll be mud bogging with the best of 'em. Great choice.
Good looking pattern, and as our friend Flipper has said, "a good US company".
That tread wear 380 rating should get you at least 30k provided you keep below 130 most of the time. Plus with that M+S rating you'll be mud bogging with the best of 'em. Great choice.Good looking pattern, and as our friend Flipper has said, "a good US company".
Last edited:
REGULATOR
Turbocharged
Or do what I did and cut the bottom half of the plate holder off... the bottom of my plate is now bolted where the "top" of the plate would go if it was stock....
that and I made 2 small brackets allowing me to move my blinkers up and in
that and I made 2 small brackets allowing me to move my blinkers up and in
john.pilot@hotmail.com
.020 Over
Zeon Size
Heretic has gone 225, goodfellow has gone 205, thats the width in millimetres so a 225 to a 205 is 3/4 of an inch smaller in width. As the Metz is over AUD$400 here, on current exchange US$376, I am keen to investigate this option when I need to change the rear, my R3 has only 1950Km on it total at the mo, but I don't see the rear Metz being a long life item.
Question is, which size is correct for the R3
Heretic has gone 225, goodfellow has gone 205, thats the width in millimetres so a 225 to a 205 is 3/4 of an inch smaller in width. As the Metz is over AUD$400 here, on current exchange US$376, I am keen to investigate this option when I need to change the rear, my R3 has only 1950Km on it total at the mo, but I don't see the rear Metz being a long life item.
Question is, which size is correct for the R3
HeR3tic
Living Legend
Good question there Pilot. I suspect your crew chief kicks the tires before you light the fires?? The stock tire is a 240 Metler Marathon 880/50VR16.
This calculator will give you a bit of insight in the differences. http://www.dakota-truck.net/tirecalc/tirecalc.html
From this calculator you'll see 1.38" narrower section width difference between stock and a 205. With the 225 this difference is 0.49"
With the 205 there is over 4" less circumference. This makes for more spedo error, above that already borne into a stock RIII. With the 225 I have a spedo error of about 3 mph at 130. But at that speed I'm not worried much with it. That would be near 12 kph error for your 205, if you go there.
The rear wheel width of the RIII, I believe, is 7.5" onto which the stock 240 is mounted. That is approximately 1" bulge (each side) with the 9.45" section width of the stock tire. Downsizing to the 205, which is 1.38" narrower in the section width will force the sidewalls of the 205 wider than a naturally aspirated mount of the same tire on a proper rim width. That's a smidgen over 1/4" bulge with the 8.07" section width of the 205, on the 7.5" RIII wheel. Not that the 225 isn't affected in the same manner, but to a degree less.
By abnormally changing the dynamics for which the tire was constructed you're adding more issues onto an already questionable practice; to say nothing of the dynamics of the bike's own suspension. IF, a 235/50-16 were available I probably would have gone there. A 245/50-16, by all accounts rubs a bit on the drive shaft; which may serve as a low tire pressure indicator
There are 235/55-16s available but you've got to consider the increased circumference (0.36" increase of sidewall height) which may rub you the wrong way in a different fashion. The tire height increase could take out your under the mud guard wiring. The aggressive tread patterns of the darksiders will put a woopin on it. This may be particularly important with two up riding or when jumping it over curbs.
On the sunny side: A narrower section width performs better at the mud boggin events. The narrower tire digs down through the muck to hit the hard pan quicker
This calculator will give you a bit of insight in the differences. http://www.dakota-truck.net/tirecalc/tirecalc.html
From this calculator you'll see 1.38" narrower section width difference between stock and a 205. With the 225 this difference is 0.49"
With the 205 there is over 4" less circumference. This makes for more spedo error, above that already borne into a stock RIII. With the 225 I have a spedo error of about 3 mph at 130. But at that speed I'm not worried much with it. That would be near 12 kph error for your 205, if you go there.
The rear wheel width of the RIII, I believe, is 7.5" onto which the stock 240 is mounted. That is approximately 1" bulge (each side) with the 9.45" section width of the stock tire. Downsizing to the 205, which is 1.38" narrower in the section width will force the sidewalls of the 205 wider than a naturally aspirated
mount of the same tire on a proper rim width. That's a smidgen over 1/4" bulge with the 8.07" section width of the 205, on the 7.5" RIII wheel. Not that the 225 isn't affected in the same manner, but to a degree less.By abnormally changing the dynamics for which the tire was constructed you're adding more issues onto an already questionable practice; to say nothing of the dynamics of the bike's own suspension. IF, a 235/50-16 were available I probably would have gone there. A 245/50-16, by all accounts rubs a bit on the drive shaft; which may serve as a low tire pressure indicator
There are 235/55-16s available but you've got to consider the increased circumference (0.36" increase of sidewall height) which may rub you the wrong way in a different fashion. The tire height increase could take out your under the mud guard wiring. The aggressive tread patterns of the darksiders will put a woopin on it. This may be particularly important with two up riding or when jumping it over curbs.
On the sunny side: A narrower section width performs better at the mud boggin events. The narrower tire digs down through the muck to hit the hard pan quicker
Last edited:
Gunshots
Nitrous
I measured the circumference of my nearly worn out Metz at 81" and the circumference of the Eagle F! (225/50/R16) at 80". That 1" is a pretty insignifiant change to a mostly worthless speedo anyway. Goodyear rate the Eagle at 7.45" wide (OK for mudboggin) My darkside rubber has over 8000 miles on it and I cannot see or measure any tread wear. I love the smoothness and wear I getting out of the eagle. If I could get 11k or 12k out of a metz I would go to it in a heartbeat. There are tradeoffs going dark but the advantages greatly outweigh them. My metz had 3600 miles on it when I cut it off. and I ride 12k-15k per year and we have a shorter riding season in Michigan. I am not changing tires every 4 weeks. Its not a money thing it's all about downtime.
Its not a money thing it's all about downtime.
HeR3tic
Living Legend
Agreed: It's not the money, entirely. It's the frequency of changing to another Metzler. It's the sweat from the concern for a safe tire every five months. It's the hassles of the downtime. I depend on riding my Rocket everyday. $240 + the local cost of mounting @ $70-80. I expect 30k miles with the Cooper, mol. Over that mileage I can realize $1200 saving and climbing rapidly, which means a new pair of shoes for momma.
BTW, by any metric conversion calculator a 225mm converts to 8.85" A 240=9.44 and a 205=8.07"
Additionally, the 240 is recommended for a 7.5" rim width. Which I believe is the actual width on the Rocket rear rim. A 200 (not exactly a 205) is recommended (per the calculator I used) fit on a 5.5" rim width. I run a set of 205s on a caged Chrysler with 5.5" rim width.
BTW, by any metric conversion calculator a 225mm converts to 8.85" A 240=9.44 and a 205=8.07"
Additionally, the 240 is recommended for a 7.5" rim width. Which I believe is the actual width on the Rocket rear rim. A 200 (not exactly a 205) is recommended (per the calculator I used) fit on a 5.5" rim width. I run a set of 205s on a caged Chrysler with 5.5" rim width.
Last edited:
Gunshots
Nitrous
the only issues I have seen is at low speed (parking lot crawl) on uneven surfaces. I does take some time to convince yourself that you are not rolled up on a corner of the tire. I find you just have to forget that there is even a different tire back there. I truley think it all a mind issue. Cut er loose and hang it out, these tires will perform
Similar threads
