Serious AT question

90/90/21 is normal for a real bike's front wheel, multitude of offroad tyre choice, off road the bike will handle much better with a larger dia wheel.
..... thought an engineer would know that :D

No cons unless some may say it'll turn in slightly slower on the road but most wouldn't notice it in a big way else they get used to it.
 
The thinner the tyre, the better the grip.


Except on tarmac of course.
 
The larger diameter is better for riding over (rather than in) small potholes.
 
benefits: tyre Choice
cons: that's requires a in comparison to what answer - in comparison to a GS being ridden with some gusto not much, in comparison to diving into a hairpin on as say a super moto/sports bike and leaning hard on the front then it might not have all the grip you think you need but for the majority although it may feel like that actually it will still have all you need.
 
benefits: tyre Choice
cons: that's requires a in comparison to what answer - in comparison to a GS being ridden with some gusto not much, in comparison to diving into a hairpin on as say a super moto/sports bike and leaning hard on the front then it might not have all the grip you think you need but for the majority although it may feel like that actually it will still have all you need.

But with rubber like Conti TA2 available in 90/90/21 there is plenty of grip.I think Jumpjim of this parish will vouch for that fact after chasing my 950 up the Col du Torini last summer on his 1190.


I much prefer the 21/18 wheel combo for twisty alpine roads.Much more feel and turn in.
 
You could have said....Lines become long and smooth, I find the bike follows my eyes with a sort of weighty momentum like the tail of a stunt kite :D

Poetic :blast:D

peterpowell.jpg
 
I get the advantage larger diameter on rough roads or off-road (everything else being equal) but how does skinny help i.e. 90 instead of 110/120. Is it a necessity to offset the extra weight caused by the larger diameter?
 
No they havent! a few opinions but no real explanation, the diameter has been explained, but I already knew that - but why skinny? there has been no convincing explanation as yet.

Well, you're an engineer so think of all the advantages of using a really fat tyre on the front, then when you can't find any, work backwards :D
 
Well, you're an engineer so think of all the advantages of using a really fat tyre on the front, then when you can't find any, work backwards :D


That doesn't answer the question does it?

Anyone got a simple technical explanation as to what the advantages/disadvantages of narrow tyres are on and off road?

I have done a google search but just end up with the same sort of confusions as here.
 
And while you're at, it imagine what happens to the steering when you hit rocks with a fat tyre, what happens when you try to steer, how much load you can put on a wide tyre versus narrow before it slides, consider also why even with my KTM the standard shite rim is much wider than the one I currently use etc etc :beer:
 
Why are skinny tyres better in snow, gravel and mud?
 
Goodness me ..... !!


A skinny tyre will dig in. Probably the best example I can give you is aquaplaning. Think of a big wide fat car tyre hitting just a few inches of water hard - it will skim over the top of the water like a flat bottomed barge. A thin tyre will cut through the water and continue to make contact with the tarmac below.

Off roading is much the same - a skinny tyre on dirt will perform much better than a fat wide one.


On tarmac, the downside (in my opinion) is pretty much only contact patch. Jump jim and Arsey may not think so, but they ride like a pair of girls :D If you really are going to push the envelope on corner entry then front end feel is your whole world, and a 90/90 won't give you quite the confidence that a conventional front tyre will. (pretty subjective though)

For the benefit of that welsh Cock mellors I will now bang on about slow steering and stunt kites :D





This bend is just down the road from me. It's a good example of real road riding (as opposed to 1190 pannigale developed from the track riding..). If you swiftly take this corner, eyes into the vanishing point etc, a sports bike will want to come off line and follow your eyes. But I don't want that to happen. I want my eyes to steer faster than my bike! I want my bike in the above example to track that nearside hedge row and ..... almost under steer! I want it to be just slightly lazier than my brain and to catch up with it half a second later - like the kite tail!

If the bike BANG followed my eyes BANG every where I looked BANG :)D) ..... then long lazy lines are harder to achieve because every turn of the head and that moto GP inspired 17" front wheel with geometry that puts it under my bollocks will follow me.

Of course ... of course .... a 21" front wheel never has and never will win the IOM!! But for you and me, who play a more gentle serenade on the public roads, (not that gentle Arsey ... keep up FFS ..) then the laziness of under steer, has real benefits.

:thumb2
 
.. Another way of writing that I guess, is that I prefer being aggressive with slower steering when needs be, than trying to slow down and calm down the fast twitch response of track derived geometry :thumb2
 
Good example is WRC. If you look at the tarmac tyres they're 12"-15" wide slicks but check out the snow/ice tyres and they're skinny 5"-6" wide to cut into the surface.

from the dark side this was sent
 


Back
Top Bottom