Wat is nu echt het verschil tussen 180 en 190 a.bandje?

Status
Niet open voor verdere reacties.

bredebeier

MF veteraan
9 aug 2003
20.671
0
Ik heb momenteel een R1 uit 2001 als circuitmotor.
De SC2 die er nu op zitten gaan er na 26-5 af omdat ze dan op zijn.

Er zit nu een 180 band achterop, terwijl er volgens mij ook een 190 op kan.

Kan iemand me hier vertellen waaarom de vorige eigenaar wellicht voor 180 koos en of ik dat dus ook moet doen?

Kun je met 190 meer hellingshoek rijden,of heb je gewoon altijd meer rubber aan de weg?
Wat is het grootste merkbare verschil?
En wat doet het met je veerafstelling? moet die ook weer aangepast worden
 

[email protected]

MF veteraan
1 aug 2002
6.514
33
Bezoek site
Het grote verschil is dat de ene 180 breed is en de andere.....inderdaad! 190 breed!

Verder hoef je van mij natuurlijk geen enkele zinnige bijdrage te verwachten.... :P
 

downsider

MF veteraan
30 mrt 2008
12.914
1.019
54
tilburg
Ik heb het vermoeden dat een 180 beter stuurt op een circuit omdat ie smaller is en de motor zich beter om laat leggen.
 

R1Juan

MF'er
30 aug 2005
70
0
Duiven
Ik heb momenteel een R1 uit 2001 als circuitmotor.
De SC2 die er nu op zitten gaan er na 26-5 af omdat ze dan op zijn.

Er zit nu een 180 band achterop, terwijl er volgens mij ook een 190 op kan.

Kan iemand me hier vertellen waaarom de vorige eigenaar wellicht voor 180 koos en of ik dat dus ook moet doen?

Kun je met 190 meer hellingshoek rijden,of heb je gewoon altijd meer rubber aan de weg?
Wat is het grootste merkbare verschil?
En wat doet het met je veerafstelling? moet die ook weer aangepast worden

Ik zou denken dat de vorige eigenaar koos voor de 180 ivm het snellere insturen : O-)
Een 190 achterband heeft een zwaarder onafgeveerd gewicht dan een 180-er. (meer rubber dus meer gewicht) Het verschil zit dus in het onafgeveerde gewicht. Dit staat los van de veerafstelling. Dit heeft alleen betrekking op het afgeveerde gedeelte dus alles boven de vering vd motorfiets dus bijv. gewicht rijder. :X
 

air-cooled

Die hard MF'er
13 dec 2005
849
0
heiloo
niet gehinderd door enige kennis van zaken maar meer wat ik er over gelezen heb;
de keuze die de fabrikant doet voor een bepaalde breedte heeft te maken met het algehele stuurkarakter van de motor. de balhoofdhoek, breedte velg en voorband zal daar zeker mee te maken hebben.
een band in combinatie met de passende velg is gemaakt voor een bepaalde maximale hoek, michelin claimt iets tussen de 52 en 53 graden en geven niet aan dat dit alleen voor een 190 band geldt.
wel staat een brede band boller op dezelfde velg (lees smaller) die geschikt is voor de 180 band, theoretisch houd je dan rubber over aan de zijkant als de 180 aan de max zit, maar waarschijnlijk ga je dan over een bepaalde grens heen wat grip betreft. de voorzijde heb je niet verandert dus welke band verliest nu eerder zijn grip?
voor autobanden geld dat een bredere band op hetzelfde velgbed minder stabiliteit heeft dan de originele "smallere" band. hier geldt dat de stabiliteit van de band komt uit de verhouding hoogte/breedte, waarom dat voor een motorband niet zou gelden zou ik niet weten.
wat het nog lastiger maakt, vind ik, dat is als je je wegmotor bekijkt met 4'' velg met 150 band, bij de 800gs ligt er een 4,25 velg onder ook met 150 band terwijl ktm zijn adv uitrust met 4,25 met 140 band.
het lijkt verstandig om de geadviseerde/standaard maat band erop te leggen.
 

Tapey

MF veteraan
8 sep 2004
2.449
0
omg. Rotterdam
niet gehinderd door enige kennis van zaken maar meer wat ik er over gelezen heb;
de keuze die de fabrikant doet voor een bepaalde breedte heeft te maken met het algehele stuurkarakter van de motor. de balhoofdhoek, breedte velg en voorband zal daar zeker mee te maken hebben.
Ik heb verder ook geen kennis van zaken, maar ik vermoed dat de keuze die de fabrikant doet voor een bepaalde breedte ook heel veel te maken heeft met wat commercieel is. Hoe breder de band, hoe stoerder hij er voor het grote publiek uitziet en hoe beter het model verkoopt.
 

NOSfearatu

soepkip
3 apr 2004
11.291
33
In een groen groen knolleland
daarom bestaan er ook sinds een tijd naast 190/55 ook 190/60 en zelfs 190/65 banden om datgene van dat sneller in te sturen ook te verkrijgen met een breder oppervlak.
180 kan wel maar zit toch minder vlees op. Met een 190er heb je iets meer.
Houd wel ff rekening met je afstand band<>achterbrug ivm centrifugaalkrachten...
 

THe WoLFMaN

MF veteraan
9 aug 2006
3.704
0
49
Rotterdam
Ik heb verder ook geen kennis van zaken, maar ik vermoed dat de keuze die de fabrikant doet voor een bepaalde breedte ook heel veel te maken heeft met wat commercieel is. Hoe breder de band, hoe stoerder hij er voor het grote publiek uitziet en hoe beter het model verkoopt.
Breder is wel stoerder: Zie ik als bijkomend voordeel, maar denk dat er toch echt wel over nagedacht is op technisch gebied gezien. Want je gebruikt bij wijze van ook geen 120 voorbandje als achterbandje op een ZX-10r Ninja ofzo. Denk dat je dan bij voorbaat al weet wat er gaat gebeuren als je het gas er goed op zet op rechte stukken of in de bochten/bochtjes, en dan hoef je niet eens heel plat te gaan om dan plat te gaan als je me snapt. En denk ook dat je dan binnen de kortste keren al een bandje staat te wisselen. |( :9

Daarentegen als er nu ook al 190 banden in andere verhoudingen zijn, zou je dus niks verliezen aan 'insturen' en heb je toch iets meer oppervlak om je vermogen kwijt te kunnen. Dus kom je toch terug op het verhaal waarom zou men grotere banden gebruiken? Om je vermogen beter (makkelijker?) kwijt te kunnen op het asfalt.
 

Jean_BM

MF'er
13 mrt 2005
89
0
Amsterdam
Het gaat helemaal om de hoogte-breedteverhouding van de band.
Een 180/55 is hoger dan een 190/50 (nl. 180*0.55=99 tegenover 190*0.5=95)
Spitser profiel dus makkelijker/sneller insturen.
Een 190/55 is nog hoger met meer rubber.

Uiteraard verschilt e.e.a. ook aardig per fabrikant.

Hieronder de bevindingen van iemand die er goed naar gekeken heeft..
van een ander forum geplukt..

------------
Hello everyone,

Recently, I became very curious about the differences and subsequent effects on handling, between the 3 most common sizes of tire available today - 180/55, 190/55 and the 190/50; when mounted on a 6 inch rim.

After much consultation, it became obvious that there were two schools of thought - The pro-180s, and the pro-190s.

I decided to dive into the Internet and other resources to find out as much as I could, so that I could form an educated opinion for myself.

For those that are not aware:

6 inch rear rims are typically found on ALL late model 1000s

5.5 inch rear rims are typically found on ALL late model 600s and some early model 1000s.

If you are not sure, then whip out your tape measure and find out for yourself, you lazy git!

Here goes...

I found this very revealing picture while researching about the pros & cons of a 180/55 tire versus a 190/50 & 190/55, on a 6 inch rim.

Tire comparo.JPG

What I found validated what some of my most trusted resources divulged to me.

But hey, seeing is believing! (Since I have always been a stubborn twat.)

Disclaimer: I am just sharing what I found, this is not meant to make anyone feel like I know any better or have never believed in what they told me. However, if you do still take offence, please contact my Arizona Service Quality Centre Supervisor, by the name of RAPTOR. (who just happens to be my bike-mad Air Force LAE brother-in-law - Throttlestop)

Steering

Firstly, if you compare the 180/55 with the 190/50, you will notice that the center of the 190/50 is very flat, this gives the 190/50 heavier steering from vertical. The 180/55 has a much more pointed profile, giving it quicker steering. (True)

Contact Patch

It is a popular belief that 190/50s are the original fitment size on most modern 1000s from manufacturers, as they put down a bigger contact patch just off the center of the tread, making it slightly safer for a ham-fisted “newbie” riders. However, this has never been officially acknowledged.:)

As for contact patch at full lean, the 190/50 may well have less of it than a 180/55, because of the way the 190/50 has to curve around the edges near the end of the tire. The 180/55 gives an almost flat contact patch on each side of the tire, due to the taller profile that makes the shoulders “stick out”, giving it it’s typical “triangulated” shape, which is also steeper in terms of angle.

But when comparing the profiles of the 180/55 and the 190/55, I was surprised to see that they were identical! They both have exactly the same profiles. The only difference is that the 190/55 is uniformly taller than the 180/55 all around. So, it may be correct to say that the 190/55 is a copy of the 180/55 with a little bit more rubber across the whole cross section of the tire, to deal with “drive grip”.

Interestingly, the edges of the tire end at almost the same spot for the 180/55 and the 190/55, which in lay-man speak, may indicate that both tires are probably capable of the same maximum lean angle. This may dispel the myth that 180/55s on a 6 inch rim may not allow you to lean over as far as a 190/55.

The only variable here would be the side wall height, how that height contributes to the stiffness and how that stiffness translates to grip.

Ride Height

These are the heights of each size of tire from tallest to shortest:

(Note: Actual measurements may differ from brand to brand)

Ride height is the width of the tire (eg:190), multiplied by the aspect ratio(eg: 55, which is a percentage of the width.)

Formula: For a 190/55 tire, 190mm x 55% = 104.5mm

190/55 104.5 mm

180/55 99 mm

190/50 95 mm

Surprisingly, the 190/50 is the shortest tire among the three.

As for adjusting the ride height, there seems to be no hard or fast rule.

National racers around the world adjust the ride height EVERY SINGLE TIME THEY CHANGE TIRE BRANDS OR SIZES. Their reason is that different sizes of tire affect the geometry of the bike, which can make it behave very differently. Different brands of tire may also not be of the same size; even if it says so, on the sidewall. (This is a fact.)

Other industry professionals say that it is not necessary, as the tire has been made for it to work straight out of the box. An example of this would be when a 190/55 is fitted to an R1 Yamaha. The increase in rear ride height would make the bike flick much easier than before, and may well be intended to work as such.

This leaves us in the middle, so; if it feels fine, it may be better not to fix it! Or, ask someone you trust.

Manufacturer’s Recommendation

Contrary to popular coffeeshop ramblings, a 180/55 is a recommended tire for BOTH 5.5 & 6 inch rims. Dunlop actually supplied 180/55s to a certain magazine when they were performing a group 1000s test. Both are also rated similarly (73W).

However, it is WRONG to put a 190 section tire on a 5.5 inch rim. It distorts the profile and leaves it with a multiple radius:

http://www.sportrider.com/tech/tires...ize/index.html

My Conclusion

For ultimate grip, the 190/55 is a sure winner on paper. It has the handling qualities of the 180/55 with more rubber all around to deal with drive.

However, it does give away a little in terms of weight and also changes the geometry of the bike. Anyone that has ever used a 190/55 can vouch that they are obviously huge tires.

Their size proportionately affects acceleration, braking and cornering negatively due to the added weight.

It's the same as fitting heavier rims, since both rims and tires are considered unsprung weight. Unsprung weight is whatever the suspension does not have to support.

The 180/55 also does increase the rear ride height by 4mm, but it is a small change when compared to a 190/55 which raises it by almost a full centimeter!

The trend as it seems now is to create bigger and bigger contact patches for drive grip on the side of the tyre. This can be done in 2 ways:

1. Reducing the rim size, ala MOTOGP.

(17inch to 16.5 inch and maybe even 16 inches in the future.)

Making the rim smaller creates more space for more rubber, especially on the side.

2. Increasing the aspect ratio.

(Popular for production based racing where rim sizes cannot be changed.)

If you researched race tires, you will be able to find 190 size tires available in slicks with aspect ratios of up tp 70% (190/70)!!

The second method is proving very popular with racers around the world.

But as for me, the proof is in the pudding and thus, I managed to get my hands on a pair of 180/55 tires, to create my own opinion.


Cheers,

Hart
----------
 

THe WoLFMaN

MF veteraan
9 aug 2006
3.704
0
49
Rotterdam
Het gaat helemaal om de hoogte-breedteverhouding van de band.
Een 180/55 is hoger dan een 190/50 (nl. 180*0.55=99 tegenover 190*0.5=95)
Spitser profiel dus makkelijker/sneller insturen.
Een 190/55 is nog hoger met meer rubber.

Uiteraard verschilt e.e.a. ook aardig per fabrikant.

Hieronder de bevindingen van iemand die er goed naar gekeken heeft..
van een ander forum geplukt..

------------
Hello everyone,

Recently, I became very curious about the differences and subsequent effects on handling, between the 3 most common sizes of tire available today - 180/55, 190/55 and the 190/50; when mounted on a 6 inch rim.

After much consultation, it became obvious that there were two schools of thought - The pro-180s, and the pro-190s.

I decided to dive into the Internet and other resources to find out as much as I could, so that I could form an educated opinion for myself.

For those that are not aware:

6 inch rear rims are typically found on ALL late model 1000s

5.5 inch rear rims are typically found on ALL late model 600s and some early model 1000s.

If you are not sure, then whip out your tape measure and find out for yourself, you lazy git!

Here goes...

I found this very revealing picture while researching about the pros & cons of a 180/55 tire versus a 190/50 & 190/55, on a 6 inch rim.

Tire comparo.JPG

What I found validated what some of my most trusted resources divulged to me.

But hey, seeing is believing! (Since I have always been a stubborn twat.)

Disclaimer: I am just sharing what I found, this is not meant to make anyone feel like I know any better or have never believed in what they told me. However, if you do still take offence, please contact my Arizona Service Quality Centre Supervisor, by the name of RAPTOR. (who just happens to be my bike-mad Air Force LAE brother-in-law - Throttlestop)

Steering

Firstly, if you compare the 180/55 with the 190/50, you will notice that the center of the 190/50 is very flat, this gives the 190/50 heavier steering from vertical. The 180/55 has a much more pointed profile, giving it quicker steering. (True)

Contact Patch

It is a popular belief that 190/50s are the original fitment size on most modern 1000s from manufacturers, as they put down a bigger contact patch just off the center of the tread, making it slightly safer for a ham-fisted “newbie” riders. However, this has never been officially acknowledged.:)

As for contact patch at full lean, the 190/50 may well have less of it than a 180/55, because of the way the 190/50 has to curve around the edges near the end of the tire. The 180/55 gives an almost flat contact patch on each side of the tire, due to the taller profile that makes the shoulders “stick out”, giving it it’s typical “triangulated” shape, which is also steeper in terms of angle.

But when comparing the profiles of the 180/55 and the 190/55, I was surprised to see that they were identical! They both have exactly the same profiles. The only difference is that the 190/55 is uniformly taller than the 180/55 all around. So, it may be correct to say that the 190/55 is a copy of the 180/55 with a little bit more rubber across the whole cross section of the tire, to deal with “drive grip”.

Interestingly, the edges of the tire end at almost the same spot for the 180/55 and the 190/55, which in lay-man speak, may indicate that both tires are probably capable of the same maximum lean angle. This may dispel the myth that 180/55s on a 6 inch rim may not allow you to lean over as far as a 190/55.

The only variable here would be the side wall height, how that height contributes to the stiffness and how that stiffness translates to grip.

Ride Height

These are the heights of each size of tire from tallest to shortest:

(Note: Actual measurements may differ from brand to brand)

Ride height is the width of the tire (eg:190), multiplied by the aspect ratio(eg: 55, which is a percentage of the width.)

Formula: For a 190/55 tire, 190mm x 55% = 104.5mm

190/55 104.5 mm

180/55 99 mm

190/50 95 mm

Surprisingly, the 190/50 is the shortest tire among the three.

As for adjusting the ride height, there seems to be no hard or fast rule.

National racers around the world adjust the ride height EVERY SINGLE TIME THEY CHANGE TIRE BRANDS OR SIZES. Their reason is that different sizes of tire affect the geometry of the bike, which can make it behave very differently. Different brands of tire may also not be of the same size; even if it says so, on the sidewall. (This is a fact.)

Other industry professionals say that it is not necessary, as the tire has been made for it to work straight out of the box. An example of this would be when a 190/55 is fitted to an R1 Yamaha. The increase in rear ride height would make the bike flick much easier than before, and may well be intended to work as such.

This leaves us in the middle, so; if it feels fine, it may be better not to fix it! Or, ask someone you trust.

Manufacturer’s Recommendation

Contrary to popular coffeeshop ramblings, a 180/55 is a recommended tire for BOTH 5.5 & 6 inch rims. Dunlop actually supplied 180/55s to a certain magazine when they were performing a group 1000s test. Both are also rated similarly (73W).

However, it is WRONG to put a 190 section tire on a 5.5 inch rim. It distorts the profile and leaves it with a multiple radius:

Consent Form | Sport Rider

My Conclusion

For ultimate grip, the 190/55 is a sure winner on paper. It has the handling qualities of the 180/55 with more rubber all around to deal with drive.

However, it does give away a little in terms of weight and also changes the geometry of the bike. Anyone that has ever used a 190/55 can vouch that they are obviously huge tires.

Their size proportionately affects acceleration, braking and cornering negatively due to the added weight.

It's the same as fitting heavier rims, since both rims and tires are considered unsprung weight. Unsprung weight is whatever the suspension does not have to support.

The 180/55 also does increase the rear ride height by 4mm, but it is a small change when compared to a 190/55 which raises it by almost a full centimeter!

The trend as it seems now is to create bigger and bigger contact patches for drive grip on the side of the tyre. This can be done in 2 ways:

1. Reducing the rim size, ala MOTOGP.

(17inch to 16.5 inch and maybe even 16 inches in the future.)

Making the rim smaller creates more space for more rubber, especially on the side.

2. Increasing the aspect ratio.

(Popular for production based racing where rim sizes cannot be changed.)

If you researched race tires, you will be able to find 190 size tires available in slicks with aspect ratios of up tp 70% (190/70)!!

The second method is proving very popular with racers around the world.

But as for me, the proof is in the pudding and thus, I managed to get my hands on a pair of 180/55 tires, to create my own opinion.


Cheers,

Hart
----------
Interessant stukje. :)
 

mechanicalman

Die hard MF'er
3 aug 2004
993
0
Ligt er een beetje aan welk merk band je wilt gaan monteren,een pirelli 190 is maar 185 breed, scheelt dus maar 5 mm ,"wij"hebben het ook back to back getest in Almeria en Cartegena maar eigelijk bitter weinig verschil kunnen merken toen ( 2005 )we hebben het geprobeerd omdat we toen zijn overgestept van de cup 600 naar het ONK superbike en nog een aantal banden hadden liggen. Ik weet niet of de huidige pirelli`s weer breder zijn geworden.
 
Laatst bewerkt:

bredebeier

MF veteraan
9 aug 2003
20.671
0
Het gaat helemaal om de hoogte-breedteverhouding van de band.
Een 180/55 is hoger dan een 190/50 (nl. 180*0.55=99 tegenover 190*0.5=95)
Spitser profiel dus makkelijker/sneller insturen.
Een 190/55 is nog hoger met meer rubber.

Uiteraard verschilt e.e.a. ook aardig per fabrikant.

Hieronder de bevindingen van iemand die er goed naar gekeken heeft..
van een ander forum geplukt..

------------
Hello everyone,

Recently, I became very curious about the differences and subsequent effects on handling, between the 3 most common sizes of tire available today - 180/55, 190/55 and the 190/50; when mounted on a 6 inch rim.

After much consultation, it became obvious that there were two schools of thought - The pro-180s, and the pro-190s.

I decided to dive into the Internet and other resources to find out as much as I could, so that I could form an educated opinion for myself.

For those that are not aware:

6 inch rear rims are typically found on ALL late model 1000s

5.5 inch rear rims are typically found on ALL late model 600s and some early model 1000s.

If you are not sure, then whip out your tape measure and find out for yourself, you lazy git!

Here goes...

I found this very revealing picture while researching about the pros & cons of a 180/55 tire versus a 190/50 & 190/55, on a 6 inch rim.

Tire comparo.JPG

What I found validated what some of my most trusted resources divulged to me.

But hey, seeing is believing! (Since I have always been a stubborn twat.)

Disclaimer: I am just sharing what I found, this is not meant to make anyone feel like I know any better or have never believed in what they told me. However, if you do still take offence, please contact my Arizona Service Quality Centre Supervisor, by the name of RAPTOR. (who just happens to be my bike-mad Air Force LAE brother-in-law - Throttlestop)

Steering

Firstly, if you compare the 180/55 with the 190/50, you will notice that the center of the 190/50 is very flat, this gives the 190/50 heavier steering from vertical. The 180/55 has a much more pointed profile, giving it quicker steering. (True)

Contact Patch

It is a popular belief that 190/50s are the original fitment size on most modern 1000s from manufacturers, as they put down a bigger contact patch just off the center of the tread, making it slightly safer for a ham-fisted “newbie” riders. However, this has never been officially acknowledged.:)

As for contact patch at full lean, the 190/50 may well have less of it than a 180/55, because of the way the 190/50 has to curve around the edges near the end of the tire. The 180/55 gives an almost flat contact patch on each side of the tire, due to the taller profile that makes the shoulders “stick out”, giving it it’s typical “triangulated” shape, which is also steeper in terms of angle.

But when comparing the profiles of the 180/55 and the 190/55, I was surprised to see that they were identical! They both have exactly the same profiles. The only difference is that the 190/55 is uniformly taller than the 180/55 all around. So, it may be correct to say that the 190/55 is a copy of the 180/55 with a little bit more rubber across the whole cross section of the tire, to deal with “drive grip”.

Interestingly, the edges of the tire end at almost the same spot for the 180/55 and the 190/55, which in lay-man speak, may indicate that both tires are probably capable of the same maximum lean angle. This may dispel the myth that 180/55s on a 6 inch rim may not allow you to lean over as far as a 190/55.

The only variable here would be the side wall height, how that height contributes to the stiffness and how that stiffness translates to grip.

Ride Height

These are the heights of each size of tire from tallest to shortest:

(Note: Actual measurements may differ from brand to brand)

Ride height is the width of the tire (eg:190), multiplied by the aspect ratio(eg: 55, which is a percentage of the width.)

Formula: For a 190/55 tire, 190mm x 55% = 104.5mm

190/55 104.5 mm

180/55 99 mm

190/50 95 mm

Surprisingly, the 190/50 is the shortest tire among the three.

As for adjusting the ride height, there seems to be no hard or fast rule.

National racers around the world adjust the ride height EVERY SINGLE TIME THEY CHANGE TIRE BRANDS OR SIZES. Their reason is that different sizes of tire affect the geometry of the bike, which can make it behave very differently. Different brands of tire may also not be of the same size; even if it says so, on the sidewall. (This is a fact.)

Other industry professionals say that it is not necessary, as the tire has been made for it to work straight out of the box. An example of this would be when a 190/55 is fitted to an R1 Yamaha. The increase in rear ride height would make the bike flick much easier than before, and may well be intended to work as such.

This leaves us in the middle, so; if it feels fine, it may be better not to fix it! Or, ask someone you trust.

Manufacturer’s Recommendation

Contrary to popular coffeeshop ramblings, a 180/55 is a recommended tire for BOTH 5.5 & 6 inch rims. Dunlop actually supplied 180/55s to a certain magazine when they were performing a group 1000s test. Both are also rated similarly (73W).

However, it is WRONG to put a 190 section tire on a 5.5 inch rim. It distorts the profile and leaves it with a multiple radius:

Consent Form | Sport Rider

My Conclusion

For ultimate grip, the 190/55 is a sure winner on paper. It has the handling qualities of the 180/55 with more rubber all around to deal with drive.

However, it does give away a little in terms of weight and also changes the geometry of the bike. Anyone that has ever used a 190/55 can vouch that they are obviously huge tires.

Their size proportionately affects acceleration, braking and cornering negatively due to the added weight.

It's the same as fitting heavier rims, since both rims and tires are considered unsprung weight. Unsprung weight is whatever the suspension does not have to support.

The 180/55 also does increase the rear ride height by 4mm, but it is a small change when compared to a 190/55 which raises it by almost a full centimeter!

The trend as it seems now is to create bigger and bigger contact patches for drive grip on the side of the tyre. This can be done in 2 ways:

1. Reducing the rim size, ala MOTOGP.

(17inch to 16.5 inch and maybe even 16 inches in the future.)

Making the rim smaller creates more space for more rubber, especially on the side.

2. Increasing the aspect ratio.

(Popular for production based racing where rim sizes cannot be changed.)

If you researched race tires, you will be able to find 190 size tires available in slicks with aspect ratios of up tp 70% (190/70)!!

The second method is proving very popular with racers around the world.

But as for me, the proof is in the pudding and thus, I managed to get my hands on a pair of 180/55 tires, to create my own opinion.


Cheers,

Hart
----------
De R1 zou dus , volgens bovenstaand verhaal, eigenlijk sneller in moeten sturen met een 190-er i.p.v. de nu gemonteerde 180-er :) door grotere hoogte vd band
Maar er kleven dus idd ook nadelen aan zoals Juan al meldde.

We gaan dit seizoen een keer voor de 190 band en zullen zien hoe e.e.a. uitpakt.
 
Laatst bewerkt:

Jean_BM

MF'er
13 mrt 2005
89
0
Amsterdam
Neem dan wel een 190/55 en geen 190/50 vanwege het profiel (spitsheid) v/d band.
Je geometrie verandert wel meer met de hoge 190/55. Motor staat nog meer op z'n neus.
Het kan ook te veel worden dan moet je wat aan je rijhoogte aan de achterzijde wijzigen..
succes
 

Jean_BM

MF'er
13 mrt 2005
89
0
Amsterdam
En hou inderdaad rekening met de extra ruimte die de band in hoogte inneemt bij je achterbrug en eventuele hugger. Anders ff op een R1 forum checken o.i.d.
 

bredebeier

MF veteraan
9 aug 2003
20.671
0
En hou inderdaad rekening met de extra ruimte die de band in hoogte inneemt bij je achterbrug en eventuele hugger. Anders ff op een R1 forum checken o.i.d.
Als de 19* standaard afgeleverd wordt de de R1 lijkt me pasprobleem niet aan de orde

ik zal iig 190-50 kiezen.thnxs
 

supermug

Die hard MF'er
10 okt 2005
259
0
53
Noord Holland
Bezoek site
Ik heb op mijn R1 uit 2005 altijd gereden met 190 55 en daarvoor1x met 180. De 180 beviel iets minder. Minder rubber op het asfalt. Ik blijf bij 190 55. Moet altijd passen op een R1 ongeacht bouwjaar volgens mijn info.
 

chris46R1

MF veteraan
10 jul 2005
1.351
0
Ik rijd met een R1 uit 2004

De standaard 190 die er toen op lag heeft onmiddelijk plaats moeten maken voor een 180/55 de maten waar ik nu nog steeds mee rijd..
Heb wel is een paar keer een 190/55 geprobeerd maar was telkens trager dan met de 180/55

minder rubber aan het asfalt, ik heb er althans nog nooit problemen mee gehad.......
 

redbikestar

MF'er
31 jan 2008
111
0
32
ik heb zelf de ervaring dat een wat kleinere band zeker makkelijker de bochten in rold. De vorige eigenaar van mijn motor had er ook een maatje te groot op zitten. Nu ik er nieuwe bandjes op heb laten zetten stuurd dit zeker een stuk prettiger.

gr. Kevin
 

bredebeier

MF veteraan
9 aug 2003
20.671
0
Ik heb op mijn R1 uit 2005 altijd gereden met 190 55 en daarvoor1x met 180. De 180 beviel iets minder. Minder rubber op het asfalt. Ik blijf bij 190 55. Moet altijd passen op een R1 ongeacht bouwjaar volgens mijn info.
Wat zijn je tijden gemiddeld op Assen ?
 

bredebeier

MF veteraan
9 aug 2003
20.671
0
Ik rijd met een R1 uit 2004

De standaard 190 die er toen op lag heeft onmiddelijk plaats moeten maken voor een 180/55 de maten waar ik nu nog steeds mee rijd..
Heb wel is een paar keer een 190/55 geprobeerd maar was telkens trager dan met de 180/55

minder rubber aan het asfalt, ik heb er althans nog nooit problemen mee gehad.......
Wat zijn je gemiddelde tijden ongeveer?
 
Laatst bewerkt:
Status
Niet open voor verdere reacties.