Author Topic: So what's the best brand/model tires for the C10? (Read 197159 times)

jacksdad · « **Reply #550 on:** January 10, 2018, 07:08:41 pm »

How are they in the rain? I'm not the most confident rider in the wet, after a couple of spills many years ago!
Thanks once again

cra-z1000 · « **Reply #551 on:** January 10, 2018, 11:50:00 pm »

I don't ride much in rain so can't say how they are .

Rev Ryder · « **Reply #552 on:** January 11, 2018, 02:53:28 pm »

Quote from: jacksdad on January 10, 2018, 07:08:41 pm

How are they in the rain? I'm not the most confident rider in the wet, after a couple of spills many years ago!
Thanks once again

Jacksdad, they are pretty good in rain, not outstanding. Very good on dry pavement, but not as good in the wet as the older Avons now discontinued, not as good as the older Michelins now discontinued, but better than most others IMHO. The most comparable tire to the 3DXM in my book is the original Dunlop RoadSmart. I don't know about the later RoadSmarts. IMHO these two tire types ride very much alike with the Avon maybe being a little better in the dry and the Dunlop being a little bit (tiny bit) better in the wet. But I have not kept up with these so much since going 17" on most of my bikes. But these tires are fairly "confidence inspiring" IMHO. Good luck!

SteveJ. · « **Reply #553 on:** January 11, 2018, 03:02:13 pm »

Quote from: jacksdad on January 10, 2018, 03:42:55 pm

I was just about to ask about these tyres!
I'm looking at a pair of Storm 3-D XM with a 120/70 on the front, mines the later version A9.
Its one of only a handful of tyres actually advertised for the GTR A9 here in England, and at £160 pair delivered they are excellent value
Are you using the XM type, the newer "Xtra Mileage" compound?

You will be a happier camper iff'n you go to the 110/80 size in the front. Checking the rim width vs tire size the 110 is a better match. I'd run about 10-12 110's on the front, mostly PR2, PR3 and Angel. Awesome handling and ride.

HTH.

jacksdad · « **Reply #554 on:** January 11, 2018, 04:01:08 pm »

Thanks again, getting sorted out now..except all the books and charts say the later bikes like mine went up to 120 on the front. Insurance firms over here just love an excuse not to pay out, and the state of tyres is a big get-out for them !
Riding wise, which front is your choice, 110/80 or 120/70 ?

ron203 · « **Reply #555 on:** January 11, 2018, 09:22:58 pm »

I had both on my 2000 C-10 and the 110 was better (less V-shaped) in my opinion. Once I went to the 110 from the last 120, I never went back.

SteveJ. · « **Reply #556 on:** January 11, 2018, 11:26:00 pm »

Quote from: ron203 on January 11, 2018, 09:22:58 pm

I had both on my 2000 C-10 and the 110 was better (less V-shaped) in my opinion. Once I went to the 110 from the last 120, I never went back.

Ditto.

jacksdad · « **Reply #557 on:** January 13, 2018, 12:51:39 pm »

Well then.....the UK supplier only lists a 120 front. They sell as a pair, as said for £160. I've searched a few sites but I'll have to buy from 2 suppliers and will cost another £30 $:-\$
Bike has an Avon AV55 Storm 2 Ultra fitted, 110/80ZR18 and AV46ST Azaro standard size rear..so many different names, numbers, letters

jacksdad · « **Reply #558 on:** January 13, 2018, 02:48:37 pm »

FINALLY...I hope...I've bought a pair of...drum roll..."Avon Storm 3D X-M 110/80/ZR18 & 150/80/ZR16 XM Pair Deal Ducati"
£152 with free delivery, that's cheaper than a rear Shinko!
Just one last question for you guys: the numbers in brackets after the part number etc. front has (54W) rear (69W), just how important is this, I'm assuming its weight loading?
I found a rear tyre which was identical but (71W) Whats the difference please I'm getting like

ron203 · « **Reply #559 on:** January 13, 2018, 02:58:19 pm »

You can do a little reading on sites like this:
https://www.denniskirk.com/learn/tire-sizes-explained

https://www.webbikeworld.com/motorcycle-tire-information/

connie_rider · « **Reply #560 on:** January 13, 2018, 03:34:51 pm »

On (71W / etc) the number is the weight rating, and the letter is the speed rating.
The; 71W is 761 lbs / 168 mph
69W is 761 lbs / 168 mph
54W is 467 lbs / 168 mph

Ride safe, Ted

jacksdad · « **Reply #561 on:** January 13, 2018, 05:35:12 pm »

Thanks again, some more charts saved on my laptop

Not a clue why the rear tyre has 2 different weight numbers: probably a typo error. Either way, I think all bike tyres (decent brand!) are well inside the weight limits

ron203 · « **Reply #562 on:** January 13, 2018, 07:30:24 pm »

Better more capacity (safe) than less (sorry).

You figure about 600# for the bike, 400-500# for two riders if they are good sized (I'm ~280# alone with full gear and a full stomach

) . You should step on the scale sometime just before you hop on. Through in 20# of farkles, 50# for a full gas tank. Add some gear for camping or hoteling and it adds up.

That's close to 1200# rolling down the road (yes, over the limit but who tells?). And people talk about how top heavy these bikes are. Ha!

All depends on who you are and how you ride.

jacksdad · « **Reply #563 on:** January 13, 2018, 11:07:57 pm »

what weight is a #?
Isn't the total weight split between the 2 tyres? Maybe not 50/50 but near enough.

ron203 · « **Reply #564 on:** January 13, 2018, 11:14:45 pm »

# = pound = 16 ounces abbreviation, sorry.

I always figured the weigh was split between both tires.

connie_rider · « **Reply #565 on:** January 14, 2018, 10:19:21 pm »

Weight is split about 60/40.
With Rider and gear it's maybe more like 70/30.

Ride safe, Ted

works4me · « **Reply #566 on:** January 15, 2018, 12:27:19 am »

Quote from: connie_rider on January 14, 2018, 10:19:21 pm

Weight is split about 60/40.
With Rider and gear it's maybe more like 70/30.

Ride safe, Ted

That may be true for a static motorcycle but a moving bike is dynamic,
especially during braking when nearly all that weight transfers to the
front tire.

connie_rider · « **Reply #567 on:** January 15, 2018, 03:11:58 pm »

Good point works4me.
Hadn't thought of that.

I think their talking about loaded or rolling weight distribution.

I don't have a C-10 handy to look at what the correct tires are, but do have a C-14 here.
So, I'll use that for a reference.
The C-14 has a 58W on the front, 75W on the rear.
The 58w is rated at 520 lbs. the 75W is rated at 853 lbs.
If you compare 520 to 853, that's about a 40/60 ratio..
I think the tire ratings for a C-10 will work out to be about the same..

Ride safe, Ted

jacksdad · « **Reply #568 on:** January 15, 2018, 04:09:50 pm »

The new Avons are 54 and 69W, the only other different version was a rear saying 71W. That means a difference of 20Kg on the rear, I'm only about 12 1/2 stone, usually ride solo, so all's well

Oh yes..those Shinko you guys like: Now cost just over £300 pair here in the UK $:-\$

connie_rider · « **Reply #569 on:** January 15, 2018, 04:24:33 pm »

Sorry jacksdad.
Most of us live here in the Colonies...

Can you tell us approx. what 12 1/2 stone is equal to in lbs?

Ride safe, Ted

ron203 · « **Reply #570 on:** January 15, 2018, 05:13:33 pm »

Quote from: connie_rider on January 15, 2018, 04:24:33 pm

Sorry jacksdad.
Most of us live here in the Colonies...
Can you tell us approx. what 12 1/2 stone is equal to in lbs?

Ride safe, Ted

Google says it's about 175 lbs.

connie_rider · « **Reply #571 on:** January 15, 2018, 05:20:45 pm »

ron,, "Now ya dun went and dun it"....
Ruined all my fun..

I was giving him a chance to make a comment about my "the Colonies" comment.. <sly grin>

Besides, you know good and well I'm a Computer Illiterate..
Google is "your' Friend, not mine.......

Ride safe, Ted

ron203 · « **Reply #572 on:** January 15, 2018, 06:02:10 pm »

True dat! No matter how hard I try....

jacksdad · « **Reply #573 on:** January 16, 2018, 01:29:28 pm »

I put the weight in "Old Fashioned" so you would understand...its 78 Kg over here...we went Metric in 1971 after all

Can't do the old pound and ounces nonsense any more, 13.45 lbs to the Franble, 76 ozs to pint etc....whats wrong with mm and kilos?
And don't even start about inches, all that 43/63 makes an inch, 3 inch to a flooter, 78/27 of a yard...what a load of nonsense...no wonder you built the Hubble telescope wrong size, all them conversions are easy to get wrong

jacksdad · « **Reply #574 on:** January 16, 2018, 02:05:04 pm »

Tyres now delivered: rear is 71W after all, was a mistake in the listing
Just got to fit them now, I'll wait until it stops snowing...