Front Tire Change Time

[1olbull]

Approaching 5k miles and time for tires (again!). I am wondering about going with a Bridgestone Battlecruise H50 on the front. The question was asked by @Gregger about this tire some while ago. No response, so I'm hoping to resurrect the thread.

I've been running the Dunlop American Elite 140/75R-17, but since Bridgestone is giving rebates I thought I might give their H50 a go, along with the usual Exedra Max on the rear.

Also, knowing how we all like to go off in tangents.... I'd like to know how some of you gents get 10k + miles to a tire, especially if your geography requires you actually to lean the bike over (twisties). It's a mystery to me.

Tis a V rated 140/75R17, which is good.
Bridgestone Battlecruise H50 - Tire Review

 

[Journeyman]

Tis a V rated 140/75R17, which is good.
Bridgestone Battlecruise H50 - Tire Review

Thank you @1olbull. I was about to start a new thread to get back to the question of the H50. Maybe no one else on the forum has sampled one (?), so I'll give it a try and report back.

The review you shared from Cycle World is pretty glowing. Supposedly the tire will last twice as long ("claims to have increased the milage of the Battlecruise H50 by about 100 percent over there closest competitor").

On handling.... "reduction of 40 percent less input over the closet competitor could be achieved. They did this by increasing the contact patch of the front tire which provides a more uniform contact pressure distribution. This in effect reduces the amount of deflection of the tire which enables the profile to sustain a constant attitude though out the whole turning process. It can take a lot to get a big cruiser to turn especially at slow speeds so after a full day of riding, you might be worn out. Easier turning equals less fatigue."

Hmmm, if all that is true I wish they made a rear version for us too. The Exdra is great, but I push to get more than 5k miles out of one.

I have, maybe, a month to go before I'll need to order. I'll chime back in once I've had time to see how it feels compared to the Dunlop on the front.

 

[warp9.9]

Thank you @1olbull. I was about to start a new thread to get back to the question of the H50. Maybe no one else on the forum has sampled one (?), so I'll give it a try and report back.

The review you shared from Cycle World is pretty glowing. Supposedly the tire will last twice as long ("claims to have increased the milage of the Battlecruise H50 by about 100 percent over there closest competitor").

On handling.... "reduction of 40 percent less input over the closet competitor could be achieved. They did this by increasing the contact patch of the front tire which provides a more uniform contact pressure distribution. This in effect reduces the amount of deflection of the tire which enables the profile to sustain a constant attitude though out the whole turning process. It can take a lot to get a big cruiser to turn especially at slow speeds so after a full day of riding, you might be worn out. Easier turning equals less fatigue."

Hmmm, if all that is true I wish they made a rear version for us too. The Exdra is great, but I push to get more than 5k miles out of one.

I have, maybe, a month to go before I'll need to order. I'll chime back in once I've had time to see how it feels compared to the Dunlop on the front.

I haven't mounted them on the bike yet but soon I will be back down south. Found another rim here I'll probbly run that throw the 150 rear on that @1olbull is presently running just so I can compare the difference between the 16 inch exedra max and the 18 inch h50

 

[Journeyman]

I haven't mounted them on the bike yet but soon I will be back down south. Found another rim here I'll probbly run that throw the 150 rear on that @1olbull is presently running just so I can compare the difference between the 16 inch exedra max and the 18 inch h50

I had to go back to find what you said on @1olbull's post Tire Changes & Geometry Affects on Rocket Roadster to make sure I understood. Maybe I still don't. You've gone to a larger rim on the rear? How? Is that to change the rake and gain some clearance?

 

[warp9.9]

I had to go back to find what you said on @1olbull's post Tire Changes & Geometry Affects on Rocket Roadster to make sure I understood. Maybe I still don't. You've gone to a larger rim on the rear? How? Is that to change the rake and gain some clearance?

The 240/55/16 is larger diameter then the 240/40/18 so two different rear axle centerlines three if you count the 240/50/16. That alone changes things.

 

[Grumpy Ole Codger]

The 240/55/16 is larger diameter then the 240/40/18 so two different rear axle centerlines three if you count the 240/50/16. That alone changes things.

What is the circumference of the 240/40/18 in comparison to the 240/55/16 standard (?) tyre size?

 

[warp9.9]

What is the circumference of the 240/40/18 in comparison to the 240/55/16 standard (?) tyre size?

Ok, not sure why you need the circumference which is 3.1416 x diameter but ill go calculate them for ya.

 

[Grumpy Ole Codger]

Ok, not sure why you need the circumference which is 3.1416 x diameter but ill go calculate them for ya.

It's that bloody pie thingy again! The circumference determines the distance travelled and therefore the speed of the bike. Just wondering how the calibration of the speedo would be affected. Was actually a serious question!!

 

[warp9.9]

What is the circumference of the 240/40/18 in comparison to the 240/55/16 standard (?) tyre size?

Ok here we go
240/50/16 dia. = 25.4488" circ. = 79.9499"
240/55/16 dia. = 26.3937" circ. = 82.9184"
240/40/18 dia. = 25.5590" circ. = 80.2963"
150/80/17 dia. = 26.4488" circ. = 79.3816"
140/75/17 dia. = 25.2677" circ. = 79.9499"
150/70/17 dia. = 25.2677" circ. = 79.9499"

Hope this helps

 

[warp9.9]

It's that bloody pie thingy again! The circumference determines the distance travelled and therefore the speed of the bike. Just wondering how the calibration of the speedo would be affected. Was actually a serious question!!

Actually its a surface feet per minute calculation. Same formula used to figure out cutting speeds in the machining world.