Wilsons Sandbox

On Wed, 25 May 2005 23:19:23 -0000, "lippetd" said:

> Of course, the IRC GP1 list sizes 4.60-17 or 5.10-17. > > Naturally I would lean towards the 5.10-17, but is it to wide?

4.60 is a Callista Flockhart tire. Get the 5.10. RM

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "lippetd" wrote:

> > Naturally I would lean towards the 5.10-17, but is it to wide?

I've always run the 3.00 up front and the 5.10 in the rear, no clearance problems.

> > I also want a heavy duty tube, the size shown for HD is 4.00/5.10-17, I > assume that is a range, from 4 to 5.10.

10-4 Pat G'ville, NV

My experience has been that tire sizes are not 100% consistent. One manufacturer's 5.10 may not be the same exact dimensions (or look) as another tire maker's 5.10. It can even vary between tire models. I think the load bearing is consistent though. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Particularly in motorcycles, bigger is not always better. A bigger tire will give you more load carrying (good) but will also be heavier(bad) and can effect the handling. The smaller tire will get more over on the side tread in cornering which should be good, than the larger tire. As far as traction, as in braking, while it is true that a footprint is better for stopping it is also worse for hydroplaning. As far as tubes, it seems to be generally accdepted that HD tubes are better although I've read some concern that heavy duty tubes on the highway generate more heat than standard tubes and should be used only if needed. That one is up for discussion.

>From: "lippetd" >To: DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [DSN_KLR650] Rear tire size >Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 23:19:23 -0000 > >I want to buy an IRC GP1 for the rear. But the IRC is not sized in >Metric. I know the stock Dunlop is 130/80-17. Conversion charts show >130/80-17 converts to 5.00-17 > >Of course, the IRC GP1 list sizes 4.60-17 or 5.10-17. > >Naturally I would lean towards the 5.10-17, but is it to wide? > >I also want a heavy duty tube, the size shown for HD is 4.00/5.10-17, I >assume that is a range, from 4 to 5.10. Please correct me if I am >wrong. > >Thanks for any info you can provide, > >Tom >A16 Medford, OR > > > > > >Archive Quicksearch at: >http://www.angelfire.com/ut/moab/klr650_data_search.html >List sponsored by Dual Sport News at: www.dualsportnews.com >List FAQ courtesy of Chris Krok at: www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > >

On 5/26/05, Mike Peplinski wrote:

> As far as tubes, it seems to be generally > accdepted that HD tubes are better although I've read some concern that > heavy duty tubes on the highway generate more heat than standard tubes and > should be used only if needed. That one is up for discussion.

Heavy Duty tubes are better at resisting punctures because they are thicker. Never had a problem with an HD tube. Running HD tubes and Slime with no punctures yet. Knock on wood. Jim

> Heavy Duty tubes are better at resisting punctures because they are > thicker. Never had a problem with an HD tube. Running HD tubes and > Slime with no punctures yet. Knock on wood. > > Jim

Running normal tubes w/o slime, no punctures yet. Knock on head. __Arden

On Wed, 25 May 2005, RM wrote:

> If you can't get a suitable oil in East Bumfsck, you'd better > not be riding it there.

Anywhere that trucks go, you can get Rotella or one of its clones. No esoterica required. Available at all Wal-marts and all truck stops. We're not exactly talkin' Red Line or Amsol here, me bucko. I'm going to try the Rotella synthetic next time I change my oil, just to see if it makes my shifting smoother when the bike is cold. The 15W40 (which, BTW, has about the same film properties as an automotive 20W50, despite its lighter viscosity) seems to be working great, but my transmission does clunk a bit for a minute or two until the oil gets nice and toasty. -E