Tires Tires Tires....

[Baileyrock]

I sure wouldn't waste the money on a PP2ct rear especially with wear as an issue. They provide nothing over a standard PP rear other than wearing out faster.

?? Thought the 2ct had more edge grip??

What STT found at the track along with many members here who push HARD on the street is that the PP2ct rear tends to get greasy and squirmy when hot, where the standard PP rear grips consistently and provides more consistent feedback when pushed hard!

It may not make sense, but it seems to be the reality! :blink:

For me, I've never had a grip issue with the standard PP even when at extreme speeds and lean angles on the street (over 30k miles of rippen twisties on PP's) and they wear out to fast as it is (2200 miles), why would I spend More money for a tire(2ct) that wears out faster and adds nothing to my traction or confidence level? :cool:

Now the front 2ct works great. :blush:

[Ponger]

I sure wouldn't waste the money on a PP2ct rear especially with wear as an issue. They provide nothing over a standard PP rear other than wearing out faster.

?? Thought the 2ct had more edge grip??

They do.

[Guest]

ROADSMARTS FTW!! Second set and I love em. Live long, stick very well, and in the wet I can basically forget its raining. Initial turn in seem reluctant, but once initiated, holds the line at any angle.

[jeremy556]

I sure wouldn't waste the money on a PP2ct rear especially with wear as an issue. They provide nothing over a standard PP rear other than wearing out faster.

?? Thought the 2ct had more edge grip??

They do.

Not if pushed really hard. After a few laps with high ambient and surface temps, they slide all over the place as they overheat, even when upping the pressure to try to keep them cooler. Regular Powers work a lot better, at higher temps at least, IMHO.

[Guest]

ROADSMARTS FTW!! Second set and I love em. Live long, stick very well, and in the wet I can basically forget its raining. Initial turn in seem reluctant, but once initiated, holds the line at any angle.

Good info they will be on my short list :biggrin:

So how many miles did you get on the rear?

[Bren]

120/70 will have the steeper side wall, so will turn in the quickest . assuming ou have been running 120/70's up to know, no geometry change is needed. if going from a 120/60 to 120/70, you might want to raise the forks to compensate for added tire height. technically, the 70 means 70% of the first number. so a 120/70 should be 120mm wide and 84mm tall as far as profile

Ahhhmmm actually....

Aspect ratio number on your tyre.

This is the height of the sidewall from the rim to the tread, expressed as a percentage of the tread width.For example, if the tire is 120 mm wide, and its aspect ratio is 70, then the sidewall is about 84 mm tall (70 percent of 180 mm).

ahhhmmmmm and where are we disagreeing??? :biggrin:

Ahhhhmmmm the " 120/70 will have the steepest side wall, so will turn in the quickest. " bit.

The 70 may have the steeper sidewall, because its longer, BUT it has less tyre profile than a 120/60 AND it doesnt have the steepest TYRE profile, that makes a tyre responsive to turn in.

It seems you have mixed up what the number means, the number relates to sidewall height NOT tyre profile height.

If you quote you shouldn´t be selective, include the full quote. The rest of my post explained the error.

Re-posted for clarity!!!

Sidewall height is important for a number of reasons.

The sidewall height affects the turn-in feel (the responsiveness you feel at bars) and the ride quality.

Lower aspect ratio (shorter sidewall) provides better turn-in response than a higher aspect ratio, but at the expense of less break-away warning and a more jarring ride — in extreme cases, even exposing the wheels to potential bending and breaking damage from potholes and other surface irregularities.

By the way 100% agree on the rest of your post regarding coming from a 60 to a 70 and the forks.

Any questions :biggrin: ?

Bren

You can tell I´ve just found the " BOLD " button. :biggrin:

[JBAXX]

Hey, this is starting to feel like a real tire thread!

Awesome! Haha

[turtlecreek]

120/70 will have the steeper side wall, so will turn in the quickest . assuming ou have been running 120/70's up to know, no geometry change is needed. if going from a 120/60 to 120/70, you might want to raise the forks to compensate for added tire height. technically, the 70 means 70% of the first number. so a 120/70 should be 120mm wide and 84mm tall as far as profile

Ahhhmmm actually....

Aspect ratio number on your tyre.

This is the height of the sidewall from the rim to the tread, expressed as a percentage of the tread width.For example, if the tire is 120 mm wide, and its aspect ratio is 70, then the sidewall is about 84 mm tall (70 percent of 180 mm).

ahhhmmmmm and where are we disagreeing??? :pissed:

Ahhhhmmmm the " 120/70 will have the steepest side wall, so will turn in the quickest. " bit.

The 70 may have the steeper sidewall, because its longer, BUT it has less tyre profile than a 120/60 AND it doesnt have the steepest TYRE profile, that makes a tyre responsive to turn in.

It seems you have mixed up what the number means, the number relates to sidewall height NOT tyre profile height.

If you quote you shouldn´t be selective, include the full quote. The rest of my post explained the error.

Re-posted for clarity!!!

Sidewall height is important for a number of reasons.

The sidewall height affects the turn-in feel (the responsiveness you feel at bars) and the ride quality.

Lower aspect ratio (shorter sidewall) provides better turn-in response than a higher aspect ratio, but at the expense of less break-away warning and a more jarring ride — in extreme cases, even exposing the wheels to potential bending and breaking damage from potholes and other surface irregularities.

By the way 100% agree on the rest of your post regarding coming from a 60 to a 70 and the forks.

Any questions :biggrin: ?

Bren

You can tell I´ve just found the " BOLD " button. :biggrin:

I disagree. if you have a tire shaped like a 'V' (the 70) and one shaped like a 'U' (the 60), the 'V' will have the quicker "flop over" that the PP is so loved/hated for, while the other will tend to "roll over". a shorter side wall WOULD tend to be stiffer i would think and have less surface area when leaned over....ok, so we agree on most everything except which is quicker....i am open to education.

[billyjackjimbob]

I thought I knew which tires to buy...... :biggrin: :biggrin:

[JBAXX]

I sure wouldn't waste the money on a PP2ct rear especially with wear as an issue. They provide nothing over a standard PP rear other than wearing out faster.

?? Thought the 2ct had more edge grip??

What STT found at the track along with many members here who push HARD on the street is that the PP2ct rear tends to get greasy and squirmy when hot, where the standard PP rear grips consistently and provides more consistent feedback when pushed hard!

It may not make sense, but it seems to be the reality! :biggrin:

For me, I've never had a grip issue with the standard PP even when at extreme speeds and lean angles on the street (over 30k miles of rippen twisties on PP's) and they wear out to fast as it is (2200 miles), why would I spend More money for a tire(2ct) that wears out faster and adds nothing to my traction or confidence level? :pissed:

Now the front 2ct works great. :biggrin:

Totally agree with your assessment. I think the standard PP is more than enough tire for pretty much anyone on the street. But here's my thinking on the 2ct for street riding: I think of that extra edge grip as "cheap insurance" if you are riding at a moderate pace (not a lot of heat in the side of the tire) and need to lean the bike more than expected to avoid a road hazard or something of that nature. I'm thinking it could keep you out of trouble some situations, and provide a bit of extra confidence on the side of the tire. I use them on my CBR1k and have never overheated them (at my pace). I do use all of the tire (no chicken strips front or rear), and they feel great when heeled over on the edge.

Keep in mind, I'm a B-level rider, not an A-level expert. Your thoughts??

[Bren]

I disagree. if you have a tire shaped like a 'V' (the 70) and one shaped like a 'U' (the 60), the 'V' will have the quicker "flop over" that the PP is so loved/hated for, while the other will tend to "roll over". a shorter side wall WOULD tend to be stiffer i would think and have less surface area when leaned over....ok, so we agree on most everything except which is quicker....i am open to education.

Hi TC

why would the 70 have a V shape profile and the 60 a U? Surely it would depend on what type of tyre it is ie. Super Sport or Sport Touring etc. The 60 could also have a V profile eg Pilot Power 2CT 120/60.

As you pointed out earlier there are geometry changes going from a 70 to 60 or vice versa but the difference in the 2 sizes will be between 4mm and 6mm. 70 as the taller of the two. Therefore the 60 will in fact have MORE contact tread as the profile will be longer, minus the dimension difference, thanks to the shorter sidewall.

From the high speed capability point of view at least, lower aspect ratio tires can successfully use softer tread compounds. It seems this is due to the more uniform stress distribution of these tires as compared to high aspect ratio tires. The use of a softer compound increases the traction of the tire on the track. At track or twisties speeds thats what we need.

In lower aspect ratio tires, reduction of flexible sidewall side·wall height improves the structural integrity of the tire and increases radial, lateral and circumferential stiffness. Increased lateral stiffness improves cornering performance. Increased circumferential stiffness improves handling during acceleration and deceleration, particularly in combination with cornering. Also forces associated with irregularities in road surface will be transmitted more directly from the tire to the suspension. Feedback!

This is all from my own experiences and things read over the years, like you, if there is better wisdom out there I´m very interested to hear it.

Bren

[turtlecreek]

i have no real "facts" to agree or disagree with your points.

post 22 shows my point of view. as you go to a taller tire, the slop on the sides gets steeper. i agree that they could simply put the "v" on top of a taller sidewall, but i would think that would not be how it was done, but instead, it would "bend" more like the pic in post 22 shows.

my experience with a 120/60 vs a 120/70 on an old YZF bike was that the 70 seemed to turn quicker. was that because I was told it would or because I over changed the geometry to compensate? i don't know.

maybe someone smarter then me can wipe my opinion away and provide facts. until then, Bren and I will be sitting over here waiting patiently...:-)

[JBAXX]

So I got around to mounting my PR2/PP2ct combo and all I can say is - gawd, I love Michelins. :blush: I've been running them on my CBRs since they came out with the Pilot Power several years back, but this is the first time I've ran them on my VFR. Was running Avon Storms (always wanted to try them) with zero complaints - a great ST tire IMO. But jeeze, I don't think I'm ever gonna run anything else but Michelin Pilots on my bikes. Such a precise steering tire, and I just love the way they roll over on the side - just feels like you can lean forever with no effort. Very happy! :beer:

[billyjackjimbob]

LOL I Just put on a brand new set of Pilot Powers.... This must be what a heroin addict feels like! So I can only get 5k on a set... I DON'T CARE! No comparing the feel of the Road2 rear Power front combo and the complete set. I am off to scrub em' in! WOOT!

Kevin

[spud786]

Billy jack

you might try the Ppower front and Bt21 rear, it will quicken the rear turn in alot(very good match), plus more miles than the Ppower rear.

I run the road 2 rear because of the life, but its not as good as Bt21 rear IMO in rain or sharp cut in.

[Guest]

ROADSMARTS FTW!! Second set and I love em. Live long, stick very well, and in the wet I can basically forget its raining. Initial turn in seem reluctant, but once initiated, holds the line at any angle.

Good info they will be on my short list :cool:

So how many miles did you get on the rear?

about 5K. Sorry it took so long to post...

[Guest]

...sorry guys have to repent; gave erroneous info above^^^ . I was trying to use my MEMORY as opposed to what I had written down... I actually got a very real 9500 miles out of my 2nd set of 'smarts right at the wear bars on the rear and maybe half life left on the front. I didn't log the first rear I bought, however I did the new one. Time flies for me; i do about (documented, lol) 20k a year.

[spud786]

So, I am going back to just straight up Pilot Powers for front and rear. I have tried the Road2 rear and Power front combo and it's not bad. But, as some of you may have read I've not been 100% sold on the idea. Simply put, the bike for me doesn't turn as easily as with the powers all around. No major complaints on the Road2 just that I have to make the bike really corner instead of simply asking it to. Also there have been way too many odd responses from the bike at turn in with the front and rear falling at different times. Also, my front is totally shot and the rear still has a ton of tread on it. I'm afraid that if I go with Road2s front and rear I'll really need to push the bike to get it to perform and honestly, I just love the way the Powers work for me. I get about 5000 miles on rear and that's where I am with the front now which needs to be replaced.

So, here is a question. What is the difference between a 120/60 120/65 and 120/70. Which one do I want for living in the curves?

Kevin

stick with standard size, more cushion from pot holes, that equals dented rims

[Guest]

OK. Now for those of us who are not trying to challenge the fates when we ride (i.e. - "B" riders) where are we on tires (tyres for those in the UK/Aussieland) for commuting and some relaxed fun on the weekends? I recently read a review of the new Pirelli Angel and it sounded really good too. I get about a 1/4" or less chicken strip on my tires and do a lot of slab commuting during the week so I need a tire that will stand up to those straight line runs every day and not square off, but still be grippy in the mountains when I am sweeping the road 10 minutes behind Sebspeed. (I know, swerve back and forth in my lane on those commutes - but the LEO's seem to take offense to my doing that, at least that's what I have been told! Tires with a ridge due to the commuting wear are a rear hoot to ride on! Sort of like an amusement park ride. Tire thoughts designed for us "B" riders guys?

[turtlecreek]

OK. Now for those of us who are not trying to challenge the fates when we ride (i.e. - "B" riders) where are we on tires (tyres for those in the UK/Aussieland) for commuting and some relaxed fun on the weekends? I recently read a review of the new Pirelli Angel and it sounded really good too. I get about a 1/4" or less chicken strip on my tires and do a lot of slab commuting during the week so I need a tire that will stand up to those straight line runs every day and not square off, but still be grippy in the mountains when I am sweeping the road 10 minutes behind Sebspeed. (I know, swerve back and forth in my lane on those commutes - but the LEO's seem to take offense to my doing that, at least that's what I have been told! Tires with a ridge due to the commuting wear are a rear hoot to ride on! Sort of like an amusement park ride. Tire thoughts designed for us "B" riders guys?

i like diablo, pp, m3 in that order for sport riding. mileage varies, but is roughly 2400.

just my opinion, any of the above on the front with a PR2 rear will win the day for you. the PR2 rear gets 1.5 times the life and yet has 95% of the grip of the above tires. it is the perfect balance for the type of riding you mention above and that many of the VFR owners do.