[Beer4blood]

Hmmmm well the goober I got my Kat from has a 180/55 shoved on there....the bike has been through several hands tho perhaps they're not stock rims. Is there a definitive tell?

[katanarider]

Had nothing better to do, so went ahead and took some pics.
Shinko Verge 170/60/17
I dented the brake brace with a hammer on both my 600cc and my 1100cc. The first pic is the 1100 brake arm, but its the same process for both bikes. EDIT: I also used the stock pre-98 sprocket hub on the post-98 wheel then grinded down the sprocket bolts flush with the nuts.

http://i649.photobucket.com/albums/uu214/buckdat/ba2.jpg

https://s25.postimg.org/n8dc39pa7/10_Shinko.jpg

https://s25.postimg.org/xfvvfobi7/3_Shinko.jpg

https://s25.postimg.org/694do0e2n/5_Shinko.jpg

https://s25.postimg.org/bhzelvwhr/6_Shinko.jpg

https://s25.postimg.org/ti8lq9oov/1_Shinko.jpg

[katanarider]

Yeah, the Macadams are pieces of crap. The only reason I got them was because I bought a spare set of rims and they were already installed. I got my moneys worth out of them I guess. Now, if I could only just polish those new wheels to reflect like chrome I'd be really happy.

[92xjunker]

I could see that being the Macadam was discontinued some time ago.

[katanarider]

I think I understood you there. What your saying is if the tire is pinched it will turn quicker ? Yes, but my Continental Attack 170 wasn't pinched, so it was just a wider tread. The walls are contoured to fit 4.5" rim. Thats the whole big deal with saying a 160 is what is generally accepted. As a matter of fact, the new Shinko 170 I just installed 2 weeks ago measured 115mm from bead to bead with my digital calipers. Thats 4.5 inches exactly which is the size of my post-98 rim Now that I have this Shinko installed, I feel it turns quicker than the 160 Michelin Macadam I just took off. Not all tires are created equal

[SmokeyMcNug]

I don't think he was making a argument, but rather speaking of what is generally accepted.
I corner my bike so sharp I feel like I run out of thread with the 160, I just feel safer with a 170. On the other hand, the 160 seems to fall over easier/turn with less effort.
For someone carrying a load/riding 2 up often, then you may consider a 170 for stability...just my opinion tho

just a quick excercise i was thinkin about:

draw a "U" shape and label it 160,
now draw a wider "U" shape and label it 170.

if the shapes are tires, at mid-point on the line, you are headed forward. if you were you were to "turn", the roll off the first shape would be quicker because the angle is sharper and run out of tread faster because there is less width to begin with and the lean angle would be too far. idk..

[MotorBikeMike]

Lower profile = less tire flex. That means you will feel the road more. For really spirited riding it works well, for any thing else it means a rougher ride and abusive to your butt/wrists.

Wider tires = less response on turns, but larger contact patch for more grip in general. You only need that larger contact patch if you putting out a lot more power... 140+ hp let's say. Other wise, no gain for you. Just a heavier slower tire. But.... if you like the looks then that's a bonus.

For the 4.5" rim on a katana... 150-170 isn't really going to make a difference. I'd suggest 70 series tires, the 60 series are not going to give you a good ride.

You can adjust the ride height on the front by moving the front forks up or down. Max lowering this way is .75".

If you want a more sporty ride, I'd suggest raising the tail with a new shock instead of worrying about tires. A proper suspension setup will do 1000 times more for you than any tire size change.

Krey

Thanks Broseph.....very helpful

[Black_peter]

Wow, I was away for how many years and this is one of the first posts I see?
Somethings never change..

[Kreylyn]

Lower profile = less tire flex. That means you will feel the road more. For really spirited riding it works well, for any thing else it means a rougher ride and abusive to your butt/wrists.

Wider tires = less response on turns, but larger contact patch for more grip in general. You only need that larger contact patch if you putting out a lot more power... 140+ hp let's say. Other wise, no gain for you. Just a heavier slower tire. But.... if you like the looks then that's a bonus.

For the 4.5" rim on a katana... 150-170 isn't really going to make a difference. I'd suggest 70 series tires, the 60 series are not going to give you a good ride.

You can adjust the ride height on the front by moving the front forks up or down. Max lowering this way is .75".

If you want a more sporty ride, I'd suggest raising the tail with a new shock instead of worrying about tires. A proper suspension setup will do 1000 times more for you than any tire size change.

Krey

[zuma]

This is a too personal query.

[MotorBikeMike]

Hey there....beating a dead horse here, but are there any benefits between replacing the rear tire on a post kat from a 150/70 to either a 160/60 vs. 170/60? Most importantly, what are the drawbacks with both of those sizes? I went ahead and ordered a 160/60 rear tire a month ago and am now worried that the rear end will now be too low. How can I compensate for that? Is there an adjustment I can make to level the bike off?

[katanarider]

Its a 160/60
I have been working on my technique. I'm less abusive now days, which is why I still have a 1/4" chicken strip to go before I contact the sidewall.

[ZukiFred]

My thought is if you feel you run out of tire with a 160 then my opinion is you need to work on your riding technique and not just try and run a bigger tire. Also are you running a 160/60 or 160/70?

[katanarider]

... however, what is "generally accepted" does not always equal fact...

Understood, No worries

[TRPUT]

I don't think he was making a argument, but rather speaking of what is generally accepted.
I corner my bike so sharp I feel like I run out of thread with the 160, I just feel safer with a 170. On the other hand, the 160 seems to fall over easier/turn with less effort.
For someone carrying a load/riding 2 up often, then you may consider a 170 for stability...just my opinion tho

Mate, I agree. As you have discovered and as is often the case however, what is "generally accepted" does not always equal fact. When I first joined the forum, "experts" would comment on pics of a 170 on a post Kat and claim unequivocally that it was "pinched", when in actual fact, it was mounted on its design rim width and profiled perfectly as intended by the manufacturer. The fact is, most 170s will fit and some are actually designed to fit perfectly.

And as I've stated several times previously, and again, which you have proven ... if carrying extra loads and touring stability are considerations, then a 170/60 tyre designed specifically for the Kat's 4.5" rim is an excellent alternative to the stock 150/70. It may not allow the bike to tip-in as quickly/easily as a 150 or 160 (although varying profiles between brands will effect this characteristic) but it keeps the bike feeling solid, predictable and well-planted. The stability is related to the (usually) flatter profile and gyroscopic effect of the slightly increased rotating mass. It still has a marginally smaller OD than the 150, but is a lot taller than the 160. The bonus is, it also looks great.