[robfromsc]

Originally Posted by LDH

A couple of you are spot-on and obviously have some real world experience at speed that allows you to discern the REAL differences in tires sizes, some of you guys think you know way more than you do and some of you are just plain full of shit.


190/50 = The Suck
180/55 = More than adequate even for track use
190/55 = Even better, but also more expensive.

On the RC I preferred the 190/55, but not really for traction reasons, but more for the geometry of the bike. It just made the bike work better at higher lean angles. There is something in the profile of the 190/55 versus the 180/55 that affects the geometry of the RC51 in a way you cannot achieve by simply altering the ride height.

On my 1000RR which I am moving around the track at a MUCH higher velocity than I ever managed with the RC51 I am now back to using the 180/55 as it truly helps the fat bitch turn better in high speed transitions and that is what is most important to me getting the bike to steer! I've never had a true problem with traction unless it was geometry related (swingarm length or down angle etc..)

The added ride height and size of the contact patch is the main difference as most know, but the contact patch is really only appreciable at full lean where it may give you a little bit more margin of error (or safety depending on how you look at it), but let's be honest who here is putting the spurs to the bike at full lean angle??? The vast majority of riders me included pick the bike up to the meaty part of the tire before they start hammering on the gas and by that time the contact patch is pretty much the same regardless of what tire size you are running.

what did you run with the link? a 180/55 or 190/55?