Page 1 of 2
160 rear?
Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 3:22 pm
by Tamburinifan
Anyone tried 160/60 as rear tyre?
Your impressions?
Better/quicker handling?
Re: 160 rear?
Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 3:34 pm
by persempre907
I have the stock 170/60 and here in Italy fitting a 160/60 would get the bike not legal for road use...
No matter, I find the handling could be improved with a fine tuning of the suspensions, rather than changing the rear wheel.
Ciao
Re: 160 rear?
Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 5:30 pm
by Finnpaso
I use 180/55 in rear and i am very happy with that.... no need to change and chain DONT hit to edge of tire, cause i keep on eye to right chain tightening... I havent tested such tire ever in 907, what U are talking about.

Re: 160 rear?
Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:16 pm
by ducbertus
I wouldn't do that as the 5.5" wide rim is to wide for a 160 tire.
The heels of the 160 tire spreads more in a 5.5" so the profile will be more flat, so more like the shape of 170 or 180
So overal there isn't much gain.
fine tuning suspension could be more rewarding
ducbertus
Re: 160 rear?
Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 2:09 pm
by jcslocum
What Ducbertus says is right. The wheel is too wide.
Re: 160 rear?
Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 3:00 pm
by Laddie907
Gert,
I similarly run a 170/60 and the handling is fine; my rear is cranked up hard (probably too hard, actually) and this makes the bike steer a bit quicker. I don't find the 907 as sensitive to front-end feed-back to the rider so I don't push it as hard as my 900SS.
The poor old 907 doesn't have the refinements of the newer bikes (like rake adjustment) to take full advantage of the tyres - and I believe the 160 might be a bit narrow on the rim.
The 1990's brought wider rims into the world - it seems a step back to try to fit the narrower tyre. The tyre footprint is reduced (so less traction / more slipping & sliding) also consider you might also lose some ground clearance.
Re: 160 rear?
Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:39 pm
by Tamburinifan
OK, thx, guys.
Just asking, 1 or 2 have done this on other bikes but I remember now
the M900 guy also switched rim to 4,5".
170 stays.
Re: 160 rear?
Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:49 pm
by Finnpaso
Thinking, that 180/55 (if chain is in right tight) and 170/60 fits to 5.5" rear rim, but 4.5" rim needs 170/60
Gert, i make measurements, what U asked, at weekend but i have lost Your private mail address, so send it to me! To:
finnpaso@gmail.com
Re: 160 rear?
Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:18 pm
by ducbertus
I have a 6" magnesium rim laying around. maybe with a 190 tire. I think this will look brutal
Ducbertus
Re: 160 rear?
Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:06 pm
by Finnpaso
I quess, that, problem with such wheel/tire will be rubber worn out from chain side...

Re: 160 rear?
Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:47 pm
by Tamburinifan
Fatter rims/tyres than those who perform best is only for
impressing teenage girls at the village square....

Re: 160 rear?
Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:08 pm
by ducbertus
to avoid the chain hitting the tire the chain has to move outside. just as simple as that.
ducbertus
Re: 160 rear?
Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:24 pm
by jcslocum
Tamburinifan wrote: is only for impressing teenage girls at the village square....

What is wrong with this approach???? I can tell you they are not impressed by my gray hair and pot belly!
Re: 160 rear?
Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 11:30 pm
by higgy
My hairs not yet gray at 55, I am told I look 38ish but they are still not impressed

Re: 160 rear?
Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 11:36 pm
by Tamburinifan
What is wrong with this approach???? I can tell you they are not impressed by my gray hair and pot belly!
Nothing is wrong w that, really!
Anything that could you get a taste of that sweet honey....
Pic from the Italian Monster Forum...
I envy you, Frankie...
My hairs not yet gray at 55, I am told I look 38ish but they are still not impressed
Have you
really tried to convince them how cool your bike/ rear tyre is?!?
