I was discussing this with a co-worker (he rides a K5 GSX-R1000) the other day. It seems that a lot of guys on the various forums that he visits hold the opinion that a 180/55 rear tire will make the bike handle 'better' than the stock 190/50, while keeping the same OEM 6" wide rim. There are many guys here who subscribe to the same school of thought. Most of the guys who switch from the OEM 190/50 to a 180/55 (while retaining the stock 6" wide rim) report that they think the bike handles 'better' or 'turns in quicker.'
I've had a couple of 180/55s on my bike when the 190/50s weren't available, and to be honest with you, I really didn't notice a huge difference. I think that's because the 180/55 is ideal for a 5.5" rim, not the 6" rim. The normally more rounded profile of the 180/55 is somewhat flattened when stretched across that wider, 6" rim.
As competitive as the Big 4 are when it comes to making sure their bikes win the accolades of the various magazine testers, wouldn't you think that they would do anything that they could to make sure their bike handled better? If putting the 180/55 on a 6" rim really made a significant difference in handling, I'd think that any manufacturer would take full advantage of it and make it OE. During all of the various new bike tests, if a bike with a 180/55 (on a 6" rim) was out-handling all of the other bikes, consistantly throughout all of the tests, why wouldn't the makers put that tire on the bike?
I understand that some folks will say that the only reason that the Big 4 put the 190/50 tires on their bikes is because they 'look cool' and they hope to attract buyers that way, just by pure looks alone. However, why would they go to the trouble of making the bikes as light as possible, make the engines as powerful as they can, make the suspension as best that they can, etc., all to have it be 'handicapped' by a tire that will take away from the handling of the machine? If they know a 180/55 will make their bike handle 'better' then why isn't it OE?
Thanks for all of the thoughts you guys can provide.
Cheers all,
S.
I've had a couple of 180/55s on my bike when the 190/50s weren't available, and to be honest with you, I really didn't notice a huge difference. I think that's because the 180/55 is ideal for a 5.5" rim, not the 6" rim. The normally more rounded profile of the 180/55 is somewhat flattened when stretched across that wider, 6" rim.
As competitive as the Big 4 are when it comes to making sure their bikes win the accolades of the various magazine testers, wouldn't you think that they would do anything that they could to make sure their bike handled better? If putting the 180/55 on a 6" rim really made a significant difference in handling, I'd think that any manufacturer would take full advantage of it and make it OE. During all of the various new bike tests, if a bike with a 180/55 (on a 6" rim) was out-handling all of the other bikes, consistantly throughout all of the tests, why wouldn't the makers put that tire on the bike?
I understand that some folks will say that the only reason that the Big 4 put the 190/50 tires on their bikes is because they 'look cool' and they hope to attract buyers that way, just by pure looks alone. However, why would they go to the trouble of making the bikes as light as possible, make the engines as powerful as they can, make the suspension as best that they can, etc., all to have it be 'handicapped' by a tire that will take away from the handling of the machine? If they know a 180/55 will make their bike handle 'better' then why isn't it OE?
Thanks for all of the thoughts you guys can provide.
Cheers all,
S.