Wide, low back tire for r3t

1olbull said:

@Btubbs2
I would say, "DANGER, WILL ROGERS, DANGER!"
JMHO

Click to expand...

Boog said:

Isn't that "Robinson"?

Click to expand...

GPMAZ said:

I'm starting to think we need to start a new section dedicated to Little People.

Click to expand...

GPMAZ said:

I'm starting to think we need to start a new section dedicated to Little People.

Click to expand...

1olbull said:

@Btubbs2
My inseam is 29 inches, so I feel your pain. One needs the use of only a single foot for stops and low CG is over-rated anyway as far as handling goes. Riders have better sight distance and it's safer up there in the air anyway.
When doing your static testing, I suggest sitting your fender onto the rear tire without the shockies and measuring between eye mount points. If that distance plus about 4.5 inches is equal to or less than your shock length, I would say, "DANGER, WILL ROGERS, DANGER!"
JMHO

Click to expand...

cr0ft said:

It's worth noting here that altering the bike's geometry a lot and shortening the stocks will massively affect how it drives and how well it can lean. In other words, it will become a worse motorcycle for it. The place to start is narrowing the seat and shaving that, or getting a very low-profile seat made, and seeing if there is any way to live with having to hang a leg over the side to hold the bike up. Just one man's opinion, obviously.

Click to expand...

1olbull said:

@Btubbs2
My inseam is 29 inches, so I feel your pain. One needs the use of only a single foot for stops and low CG is over-rated anyway as far as handling goes. Riders have better sight distance and it's safer up there in the air anyway.
When doing your static testing, I suggest sitting your fender onto the rear tire without the shockies and measuring between eye mount points. If that distance plus about 4.5 inches is equal to or less than your shock length, I would say, "DANGER, WILL ROGERS, DANGER!"
JMHO

Click to expand...