Tires... really, a question about tires...

[Polo]

OK, a twist on the usual questions.

 

I mounted 4,000 miles ago a set of Continental Road Attacks, LOVE THEM!

 

Talking with Greg (LIMECREEK) about tire sizes and such, we pretty much agreed that BMW is mounting 180/55-17 on both K's and R's by the most part. Mine is a 2004 RT, still using 170/60-17.

 

Now, the Contis are different in their design. Their cross section is very doughnut like... .

 

What I mean by that is that the edge of the thread is very even with the wall, instead of protruding out past the wall. Thus they look, and probably are narrower than others the same size, this allowing for clearance. This can be easily tested.

 

The question, since the 180/55-17 is only 6mm taller overall than the 170/60-17, what would the high/down side of going to 180/55-17's on my bike.

 

I readily understand that the bike would feel different with a wider tire, and design differences, and all that. I really am fishing for someone's take on whether this would give me any sort of more planted feel once I am accustomed to the difference, and not a word of caution against going astray from the disign of the Teutonic Gods of engineering.

 

With very similar wheelbases, my 1150 58.5 VS the 1200 58.3, I can't imagine that the geometry would be impacted too severily, and from what I understand the 1200 is a great handling bike.

 

????

 

 

[Firefight911]

 

Now, the Contis are different in their design. Their cross section is very doughnut like... .

 

What I mean by that is that the edge of the thread is very even with the wall, instead of protruding out past the wall. Thus they look, and probably are narrower than others the same size, this allowing for clearance. This can be easily tested.

 

The question, since the 180/55-17 is only 6mm taller overall than the 170/60-17, what would the high/down side of going to 180/55-17's on my bike.

 

I readily understand that the bike would feel different with a wider tire, and design differences, and all that. I really am fishing for someone's take on whether this would give me any sort of more planted feel once I am accustomed to the difference, and not a word of caution against going astray from the disign of the Teutonic Gods of engineering.

 

With very similar wheelbases, my 1150 58.5 VS the 1200 58.3, I can't imagine that the geometry would be impacted too severily, and from what I understand the 1200 is a great handling bike.

 

????

 

 

There are several factors at play here.

 

First, we need to understand tire sizing. 180 refers to cross section width. 180 mm vs 170 mm in the case you are citing. 55 vs 60 is referring to a percentage of sidewall height in comparison to cross section width.

 

The next thing we need to know is the wheel dimension. Most likely, you have a 5 inch wheel vs Lime's 5.5 inch wheel. What this affects is the profile of your tire once mounted.

 

Typically, what you will find with a 180 mounted on to a 5 inch rim where a 170 usually goes is that your tire will be more "pinched" and create a greater step off in its profile. This will create, potentially, a bike that wants to fall down in to a turn in comparison to the stock size. Additionally, this configuration can cause a smaller contact patch of tire to road surface.

 

My bet is that you will feel the opposite of what you are looking for. Additionally, if you are not using up every mm of your current set up, ie., no chicken strips, you are not gaining any benefit.

 

Best example I can give to this is with the K1200RS. The bike came with a 170 tire and a 5 inch rim. You could purchase a 5.5 inch rim and put a 180 tire on it. This tended to actually slow the steering slightly while providing a slightly greater contact patch and was of no real use except in "extreme" riding conditions where the bike was heeled over to the edge, etc. I looked in to this option on my K1200RS and opted out after having ridden both set ups. I preferred the more nimble handling of the 5 inch set up as opposed to the 5.5 inch set up.

 

YMMV, of course, but I would not recommend this change as you are not going to gain anything by doing so, IMO, and most likely will find the feeling to go opposite of what you seek..

[Polo]

The kind of comment I was looking for. Thanks.

 

 

[stubblejumper]

So what is it that you like most about the Road Attacks,my ST needs new tires,and I am still deciding between the Road Attacks,Avon Storms,and the Dunlop Roadsmarts?

[Polo]

They hold the straight very staedy, and they turn in very, very easy. My experience with Dunlops and Metzellers was that I felt they fought me to turn in, and to stay in a turn.

 

With the Contis once I dial the turn, they stay in w/o input. A very neutral tire.

 

They are great on wet paviment.

 

As far as longevity, so far after 4,000 miles on the rear, it seems I still have plenty of rubber left, I could be wrong if they go the way of the Dunlops and wear out exponentially towards the end, but I'm very optimistic about mileage so far.

 

I got about 5K from the Dunlops and used to get about that from metzellers. The jury is still out on the Contis.

 

The front tire doesn't show any wear yet.

 

As far as price, I got a great deal from RiderDirect.com They've gone up a bit, but still are by far better priced than most others for my bike.

 

I recommend them.