rear tire pics???

[96kat]

hey guys. anyone have any pics of rear tires on a suzuki katana? im trying to see how wide i can go with my rear tire. any ideas?

[OtLa]

Without modifying the swing arm the widest you can go to is a 160.

[Wingspan]

The widest you should go is a 160...unless your just a poser.

[96kat]

few new pics on nice day in canada!

heres a few pics from today. i have my new decals going on this week so there will be some more changes! not bad for a 96 kat eh!!!

[irenekat]

here's my 160 from an angle at the back

[irenekat]

my fault, just noticed you have a pre98 lol

[HS2020]

You can see the 160 I have on my 89 Kat in the pics and flicks under the topic My Rear is shiny too. With the pre 98's having a 3.5 inch rear rim 160 is the widest you can go. Now if you were to get a 98+ rear rim and rotor you can actually put a 170 on there but that is the widest you can go with that rim. It is really best to go no bigger than a 150/60 on the rear and put a 110/70 on the front. This is a good set up and works great.

[chriskatana]

here are some pics of mine,
a 170/60-17 on my 93 with a 98+ rim.
notice the VERY tight clearances, this is after modifying the rear brake arm mount.


The tire was so close to the swingarm, that the little rubber hairs on the tire were touching the swingarm.


I don't have a direct shot of the current clearances with the 98+ swingarm, but there is a minimum of 1/2" on each side.

IMO you can put a 170 on a 98+ bike as long as you find a 170 that is rated for the 4.5" rim

[irenekat]

you need a wash chris!!!! hahaa

[WildKat]

holy geez chris, can you even fit a hair in between there! wow !!

definatley looks hot though!

[DooD]

As far as what I can remember from the threads on KP.....Avon was the only company who made a 170 for the 4.5" rim....

It looks cool, but believe me, it's useless. I can't even get to the edge of my 160/60...there's about 1/8" on either side of the rear which aren't really wearing at all....

I think BISQ was also having the same problem with the 160...and I'd imagine that he's a WAY better rider than I am!

[ProZac]

It's strange that since I've been on this board and when I was on KP before seems like everyone wants to go with a wider tire on the Kat. Now that I have a Z1000 and spend quite a bit of time on another message board alot of people there talk about going down a size from the stock 190 on the Z.
IMO why would you want to go wider if it's not gonna make the bike faster or handle better in the corners? Is it just for looks?

[WildKat]

new tires in general always take alittle bit to get used to, especially when you change brands and sizes totally.. but going to a 170 from a stock rear tire.. Wow !!

[toobalicious]

IMO why would you want to go wider if it's not gonna make the bike faster or handle better in the corners? Is it just for looks?

ding ding ding ding

wider tires on narrow rims = smaller contact patch at "normal" tire pressure, or greatly increased rolling resistance and tire wear at lower pressures... no 3 ways about it... 160/60 on a pre-98 rim can never be worn into the "less-chicken" tread areas, as with the distorted tire profile it is not possible to lean the bike that far without grinding (and/or crashing)...aside from that (and IME on other bikes), reducing profile size has the effect of making the steering seem heavier, and the bike feels like it kind of falls into turns... my pre-98 came to me with a BT-56 160/60 tire (with stock size on front), and i think it sucks; of course we all know what part of the anatomy opinions are compared to...
but hey, do what you like....
a

[stevnmd]

ding ding ding ding

wider tires on narrow rims = smaller contact patch at "normal" tire pressure, or greatly increased rolling resistance and tire wear at lower pressures... no 3 ways about it... 160/60 on a pre-98 rim can never be worn into the "less-chicken" tread areas, as with the distorted tire profile it is not possible to lean the bike that far without grinding (and/or crashing)...aside from that (and IME on other bikes), reducing profile size has the effect of making the steering seem heavier, and the bike feels like it kind of falls into turns... my pre-98 came to me with a BT-56 160/60 tire (with stock size on front), and i think it sucks; of course we all know what part of the anatomy opinions are compared to...
but hey, do what you like....
a

Excellent post.

I've seen 160 width tires on a pre-98 3.5" rim. I don't care what ANYONE says, it's simply unsafe. The bead of the tire can't POSSIBLY be sitting flat on the rim of the wheel. The profile is GROSSLY distorted. Plus, I know someone who actually PUT a 160 on a 3.5" wheel (meaning, installed it, not rode on it) and he said it was absolutely ridiculously difficult to even get the thing on, and then took forever to seat the bead. He even flat out said it was nuts to even attempt it.

Do what you want, folks. I guess I'm just of a different mindset. I actually enjoy RIDING and do things to increase performance and handling. I guess some people are just in this sport for posing. While I don't understand, it's their buck...

My humble opinion, which was formed from first hand experience, is that you do NOT want to go wider than a 150 on a pre-98 and a 160 on a 98+.

A 150 or 160 provides MORE than enough contact patch to give you MORE than all the grip you will ever need on a Katana. And, like the Z owners mentioned above, I couldn't wait to eat up the 190 that came stock on my Tuono so I could put a skinnier tire on it (180). It improved handing by giving me greater lean angle capabilities and quickened turn-in. I have a 6" rear wheel, so a 180 is the narrowist tire I can go with.