|
Author |
Message |
PyroVee |
This post is not being displayed .
|
PyroVee L Plate Warrior
Joined: 15 Mar 2019 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
MarJay |
This post is not being displayed .
|
MarJay But it's British!
Joined: 15 Sep 2003 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
P. |
This post is not being displayed .
|
P. Red Rocket
Joined: 14 Feb 2008 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
PyroVee |
This post is not being displayed .
|
PyroVee L Plate Warrior
Joined: 15 Mar 2019 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
ThatDippyTwat |
This post is not being displayed .
|
ThatDippyTwat World Chat Champion
Joined: 07 Aug 2016 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
MarJay |
This post is not being displayed .
|
MarJay But it's British!
Joined: 15 Sep 2003 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
kramdra |
This post is not being displayed .
|
kramdra World Chat Champion
Joined: 28 Oct 2010 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
Nobby the Bastard |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Nobby the Bastard Harley Gaydar
Joined: 16 Aug 2013 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
MarJay |
This post is not being displayed .
|
MarJay But it's British!
Joined: 15 Sep 2003 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
Robby |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Robby Dirty Old Man
Joined: 16 May 2002 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
MarJay |
This post is not being displayed .
|
MarJay But it's British!
Joined: 15 Sep 2003 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
Sister Sledge |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Sister Sledge World Chat Champion
Joined: 17 Aug 2018 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
RhynoCZ |
This post is not being displayed .
|
RhynoCZ Super Spammer
Joined: 09 Mar 2012 Karma :
|
Posted: 17:58 - 16 Mar 2019 Post subject: |
|
|
The 919RR uses 16 inch front wheel, the only difference to a ''standard'' 17 inch wheel, that I can tell is limited selection of 16 inch front tyres.
I remember people talking about going from 16 inch to 17 inch wheel, only because it's easier to get a good deal on the 17 inch tyres.
Also, as said by others, you're gonna have to run smaller brake discs. Normally you would run anything between 300 and 320mm front disc on a 17 inch wheel. A 16 inch wheel would run something like 280mm discs which means, you're gonna have to fabricate some brackets to fit the calipers. That being said, if you really want to switch to 16 inch wheel, get a complete front end from a bike, that runs 16 inch wheel. It'll be less hassle replacing the front end, rather than just the wheel and then figuring out how to adapt the front brake caliper brackets. ____________________ '87 Honda XBR 500, '96 Kawasaki ZX7R P1, '90 Honda CB-1, '88 Kawasaki GPz550, MZ 150 ETZ
'95 Mercedes-Benz w202 C200 CGI, '98 Mercedes-Benz w210 E200 Kompressor |
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
Teflon-Mike |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Teflon-Mike tl;dr
Joined: 01 Jun 2010 Karma :
|
Posted: 13:26 - 17 Mar 2019 Post subject: |
|
|
The 16" wheel debate is an old one. OTMH it was Bimota, who pioneered the idea, in the late 70's, early 80's, with 16" ers both ends.
At the time, motorbike tyres were universally cross-ply, and likely tubed, and usually in larger rim sizes, with 19" fronts and 18" rears common. Conventional wisdom, also advocated low centers of gravity, the BMW boxers aplauded for it, and long wheel-bases for 'stability', whilst 'slow-steering' was oft critasised, and blamed on large front wheels rather than large amounts of fork rake.
Vogue of the 16" front in the early 80's then was peculiarly vaunted as to quicken up steering, the smaller wheel having less gyroscopic effect.... BUT, after half a decade of back-pedaling on the advert-science of 16"ers, going back to 17" or 18" rims, the oiriginal '93 Fire-Blade, got rather unfashionable right-way-up forks and a 16" front wheel, and a specially developed tyre, ISTR from Bridghestone for it.
Curiousely the 16" front combo on the launch year Fire-Place has exactly the same rolling diameter as the earlier VF1000's 16incher suggested to make its handling rather 'twitchy'; but also the same rolling diameter as the 17" wheels and low-profile tyres used on things like GSXR's or FZR!
A-N-D the debate still rages.... and so much of the ad-science is still being regurgitated.
To regurgitate a bit more; Interestingly; when Honda launched the fire-place, they defended the use of the then retrograde 16" front wheel, with some quite pertinent propper science. It was a big leap, and one where they did have to get Bridgestone to developp a brand new tyres just for that bike. Basically their argument was that with the advent of radial tyres, the limits of making a tyre almost as tall in the side-wall as it was accross the tread, were peculiarly removed, and you could make a tyre almost any width and any diameter you liked... and using ever lower-profile tyres then, they reckoned was not 'such' a wonderful thing.
With less tyre side-wall taking out 'small' road-irregularities almost at source, it meant that the suspension system had more work to do, so a more conventional higher side-wall tyre COULD actually save having such a sensitive set of forks... so they could be better.... or lighter..... or cheaper....
The gyroscopic effect of the wheel, was also not so much dependent on the overall rolling diameter, but on the moment of intertia of the rotating assembly... ie how heavy the whole wheel was.
So a smaller wheel, with less heavy metal in it, and a bigger, lighter rubber tyre making up the same roling diameter should have less gyroscopic inertia, and change direction more easily... should also, being lighter, give less un-sprug mass, and again, give the suspension less work to do, so that could be more better/lighter/cheaper still.
In which there is more than a little sense... BUT, point is that the nominal rim diameter is but ONE specification, and one very small part of the over-all handling equation.
And I'm sure the debate over the rim diameter will contuinue....
However... shelving all that 'lore' and possible repitition distortion.... old rule of racing... "Before looking for more than standard, make sure you have all yuou should AS standard'
Honda has spenmt gazzillions on developing front ends for different bikes; they have the Yen, they have the man-power and they have the super-computers to do it.... true, big chunk of thier interest is in more 'cheaper' than more liughter or more better... but still... they chuck a heck of a lot of engineering hours and money at the job, and probably get it pretty close to 'right'... certainly they have a far better chance to get it closer to right than some oik in a shed with a halfrauds socket set....
So what are you looking to achieve?
PyroVee wrote: | Is for a rebuild and customisation project on an already totalled bike, hence why I am looking. So need to know what 16" will fit. |
Again, echoing Marjay, WHY? Are you looking for something better, or cheaper, or simply easier? And what 'better' are you hoping for? Better looks, better tyre choice, easier brake pad removal? What?
Back to the Hamatsu Hammerers... Before moving away from standard... make sure you have all you should as standard... and that brochure spec standard does have a LOT in its favour.... not least its exactly like wots in the Haynes, and when you turn up to order a set of brake pads you dont have to answer so many silly questions... or swar at them when they dont fit....
Baby's and bathwaters are the imediete idea here.
Personally I would be very very sanguine over a 16" wheel conversion, especially from 17 to 16, not the other ways about, A-N-D I would want to be very clear on my thinking before I started.... a-n-d... given that there are so many variables in the equation over and above the 'simple' rim size...
PyroVee wrote: | Would either of these be a straight swap? If not are there any wheels out there that can be swapped with little to no modification? |
SORT of suggests that in the ponderations, easy and cheap, is somewhat more of an imperative than what it looks like or how it performs or how dificult it is to service of get tyres or brake pads for.....
Short answer IS, Keep-It-Simple & Standard!
Looks likie the book says it should, Bits the book say should fit, do, and how book says they sghould, its not got any idiocyncracies A-N-D ultimately, longer term, making iut like the lab-rats designed it, it will likley be the cheapest, best looking, most easy to live with and best performing set-up you can get....
DONT chuck the baby out with the bath-water, and if you have to ask what will fit, you probably dont know ebough to fit something different, and actually see any benefit from it.
So back to the question WHY? ____________________ My Webby'Tef's-tQ, loads of stuff about my bikes, my Land-Rovers, and the stuff I do with them!
Current Bikes:'Honda VF1000F' ;'CB750F2N' ;'CB125TD ( 6 3 of em!)'; 'Montesa Cota 248'. Learner FAQ's:= 'U want to Ride a Motorbike! Where Do U start?' |
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
Wafer_Thin_Ham |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Wafer_Thin_Ham Super Spammer
Joined: 18 Nov 2005 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
Nobby the Bastard |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Nobby the Bastard Harley Gaydar
Joined: 16 Aug 2013 Karma :
|
Posted: 20:52 - 17 Mar 2019 Post subject: |
|
|
Teflon-Mike wrote: | The 16" wheel debate is an old one. OTMH it was Bimota, who pioneered the idea, in the late 70's, early 80's, with 16" ers both ends.
At the time, motorbike tyres were universally cross-ply, and likely tubed, and usually in larger rim sizes, with 19" fronts and 18" rears common. Conventional wisdom, also advocated low centers of gravity, the BMW boxers aplauded for it, and long wheel-bases for 'stability', whilst 'slow-steering' was oft critasised, and blamed on large front wheels rather than large amounts of fork rake.
Vogue of the 16" front in the early 80's then was peculiarly vaunted as to quicken up steering, the smaller wheel having less gyroscopic effect.... BUT, after half a decade of back-pedaling on the advert-science of 16"ers, going back to 17" or 18" rims, the oiriginal '93 Fire-Blade, got rather unfashionable right-way-up forks and a 16" front wheel, and a specially developed tyre, ISTR from Bridghestone for it.
Curiousely the 16" front combo on the launch year Fire-Place has exactly the same rolling diameter as the earlier VF1000's 16incher suggested to make its handling rather 'twitchy'; but also the same rolling diameter as the 17" wheels and low-profile tyres used on things like GSXR's or FZR!
A-N-D the debate still rages.... and so much of the ad-science is still being regurgitated.
To regurgitate a bit more; Interestingly; when Honda launched the fire-place, they defended the use of the then retrograde 16" front wheel, with some quite pertinent propper science. It was a big leap, and one where they did have to get Bridgestone to developp a brand new tyres just for that bike. Basically their argument was that with the advent of radial tyres, the limits of making a tyre almost as tall in the side-wall as it was accross the tread, were peculiarly removed, and you could make a tyre almost any width and any diameter you liked... and using ever lower-profile tyres then, they reckoned was not 'such' a wonderful thing.
With less tyre side-wall taking out 'small' road-irregularities almost at source, it meant that the suspension system had more work to do, so a more conventional higher side-wall tyre COULD actually save having such a sensitive set of forks... so they could be better.... or lighter..... or cheaper....
The gyroscopic effect of the wheel, was also not so much dependent on the overall rolling diameter, but on the moment of intertia of the rotating assembly... ie how heavy the whole wheel was.
So a smaller wheel, with less heavy metal in it, and a bigger, lighter rubber tyre making up the same roling diameter should have less gyroscopic inertia, and change direction more easily... should also, being lighter, give less un-sprug mass, and again, give the suspension less work to do, so that could be more better/lighter/cheaper still.
In which there is more than a little sense... BUT, point is that the nominal rim diameter is but ONE specification, and one very small part of the over-all handling equation.
And I'm sure the debate over the rim diameter will contuinue....
However... shelving all that 'lore' and possible repitition distortion.... old rule of racing... "Before looking for more than standard, make sure you have all yuou should AS standard'
Honda has spenmt gazzillions on developing front ends for different bikes; they have the Yen, they have the man-power and they have the super-computers to do it.... true, big chunk of thier interest is in more 'cheaper' than more liughter or more better... but still... they chuck a heck of a lot of engineering hours and money at the job, and probably get it pretty close to 'right'... certainly they have a far better chance to get it closer to right than some oik in a shed with a halfrauds socket set....
So what are you looking to achieve?
PyroVee wrote: | Is for a rebuild and customisation project on an already totalled bike, hence why I am looking. So need to know what 16" will fit. |
Again, echoing Marjay, WHY? Are you looking for something better, or cheaper, or simply easier? And what 'better' are you hoping for? Better looks, better tyre choice, easier brake pad removal? What?
Back to the Hamatsu Hammerers... Before moving away from standard... make sure you have all you should as standard... and that brochure spec standard does have a LOT in its favour.... not least its exactly like wots in the Haynes, and when you turn up to order a set of brake pads you dont have to answer so many silly questions... or swar at them when they dont fit....
Baby's and bathwaters are the imediete idea here.
Personally I would be very very sanguine over a 16" wheel conversion, especially from 17 to 16, not the other ways about, A-N-D I would want to be very clear on my thinking before I started.... a-n-d... given that there are so many variables in the equation over and above the 'simple' rim size...
PyroVee wrote: | Would either of these be a straight swap? If not are there any wheels out there that can be swapped with little to no modification? |
SORT of suggests that in the ponderations, easy and cheap, is somewhat more of an imperative than what it looks like or how it performs or how dificult it is to service of get tyres or brake pads for.....
Short answer IS, Keep-It-Simple & Standard!
Looks likie the book says it should, Bits the book say should fit, do, and how book says they sghould, its not got any idiocyncracies A-N-D ultimately, longer term, making iut like the lab-rats designed it, it will likley be the cheapest, best looking, most easy to live with and best performing set-up you can get....
DONT chuck the baby out with the bath-water, and if you have to ask what will fit, you probably dont know ebough to fit something different, and actually see any benefit from it.
So back to the question WHY? |
No, sorry, I only got through the first sentence.
Did you say that 16 inch is twitchier than 17 inch or did you come out with some random shit?
If thats the former I did it in a single sentence.
And I just did it again. ____________________ trevor saxe-coburg-gotha:"Remember this simple rule - scooters are for men who like to feel the breeze on their huge, flapping cunt lips."
Sprint ST 1050 |
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
Ste |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Ste Not Work Safe
Joined: 01 Sep 2002 Karma :
|
Posted: 22:44 - 17 Mar 2019 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
Teflon-Mike |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Teflon-Mike tl;dr
Joined: 01 Jun 2010 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
Old Thread Alert!
The last post was made 5 years, 43 days ago. Instead of replying here, would creating a new thread be more useful? |
|
|
|