ADVrider

Go Back   ADVrider > Bikes > Old's Cool > Airheads
User Name
Password
Register Inmates Photos Site Rules Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-27-2011, 02:54 PM   #1
iansanderson OP
Adventurer
 
Joined: Jun 2008
Location: Canton, Ohio
Oddometer: 35
What tires did a '78 R100 roll out of the factory on?

It's time for new tires on the R100. If I remember correctly, my dad (the previous owner) put on an oversized rear tire. That's great and all, but I want 100% factory size when it comes to tires and tubes. The problem is everything I find in the manual is in inches, but shopping online, everything is metric.

I can't seem to figure out the conversion, so any help would be appreciated. Any brand recommendations?

My bike: 1978 R100/7T. Build date 10/77

Wheels: Stock spoked 1.85X19 fronts and 2.15X18 rear.

Tubes: Unknown?



Here's what the manual says, but, of course, it's in inches again! argh..

__________________
1978 R100/7
iansanderson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2011, 03:11 PM   #2
ozmoses
Ride On
 
ozmoses's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: USA
Oddometer: 2,551
I switched to Avon Road-Runners/Riders at first for the proper sizing, stayed w/ them for the ride.
YMMV, of course-sorta like oil...
ozmoses is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2011, 04:05 PM   #3
Lornce
Lost In Place
 
Lornce's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Way Out There.
Oddometer: 17,665
Bridgestone S-11 Spitfires are a great all round tire that stick well, last respectably, offer good ride quality and steer nicely on an airhead. They're cheap, too. Whatever.

You need a 100/90-19" front and a 110/80-18" rear.


Lornce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2011, 04:14 PM   #4
lkchris
Albuquerque
 
lkchris's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Oddometer: 975
You're just not shopping hard enough, as there are still inch-size tires available in the correct sizes.

Tubes must be fitted.

BTW, there are ZERO metric equivalents to these sizes.
__________________
Kent Christensen
Albuquerque
'12 R1200RT, '02 R1100S, '84 R80G/S
lkchris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2011, 07:25 PM   #5
Tosh Togo
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Oddometer: 1,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkchris View Post
You're just not shopping hard enough, as there are still inch-size tires available in the correct sizes.

Tubes must be fitted.

BTW, there are ZERO metric equivalents to these sizes.

That may be a bit of an overstatement, since the tire's listed size, whether it's metric or imperial, isn't exactly what the tire ends up being in terms of width after being mounted. A 4.00 tire will be close to its' metric equivalent, but it's probably not exactly 101.6 mm wide. It's close enough, and your implication that there are "ZERO" metric equivalents is a bit misleading. In addition, each tire has a range of approved widths, and that will have a little bit to do with the final mounted dimensions.

The tire sizes themselves are nominal, ie: the size on the sidewall is a group size, and the tire fits somewhere within that group's limits. It may be at the high end of spec, (wider/taller), possibly dead-on in the middle of the range, or it may be at the small end...but it's still the same listed size on the tire sidewall. Whether it's sized in millimeters or inches, all that really matters is- does the tire fit your wheels, and does the rider like it?.

Getting back to the OP's question, I have a bike of the same era, with the same skinny rim sizes. Spec tires are a 3.25X19" front & 120/18" rear, and the few current 120's that I've tried are just too wide. The manufacturer's tire spec pages also seem to agree, as the smallest approved rim with for a modern bias-ply 120 is a 2.5" rim.

My best combo so far in terms of overall ride & handling was a 100 or 3.25 front, and a 110 or 4.00 rear Metzler Lazertech pair. Downsides to that approach is that it's an expensive choice, so I've switched to a BT45 rear in the same 4.00 inch size and kept the ME33 front. The Bridgestone rear is ~$35 cheaper, handles just as well, but it's noticeably smaller in diameter than the Metzler, to the tune of about 200 rpm at freeway speeds. The pegs also touch down a wee bit sooner.

I tried a BT45 front once, and didn't like it one bit. Your results may be different, so feel free to try one, as it's about $30 bucks cheaper than the Metzler.

I've got a set of Michelin Pilot Activs, 3.25H19 front and 4.00H18 rear; they're going on next, and fwiw the rear Michelin is noticeably both wider and taller than the Metzler rear. It's design rim width is a 2.15, and it was $172.98 for the pair, delivered.

Whatever you choose to go with, get the "H" speed-rating flavor instead of the "V" variety, and you'll save about $10 up front per tire as well as lose a bit of unsprung weight. My guess is that the lower speed-rating's lighter tire might also be a bit more compliant, but the money difference made the choice for me. I only get about 3.5K miles to each set, and that adds up in a hurry.

Have fun, and when in doubt, skinnier's better.
Tosh Togo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2011, 09:27 PM   #6
supershaft
because I can
 
Joined: Sep 2010
Location: San Francisco Bay area
Oddometer: 8,275
Where does BMW spec the rear tire at 120/90? I have only seen 4.00. Most 120's (probably not BT45's since they run pretty small) are too wide with the stock axle spacer.

I find that usually the 90/90's handle better than the 100/90's. Many a conversion chart recommends 90/90's for our bikes. Speaking of approved rim sizes for 120's. Most 100/90 front tires are not approved for 1.85 rims, just 90/90's. It seem like a lot of people make fun of some running a fat 120 rear tire when they themselves are often running a fat front tire? What gives?

I am curious why you think V rated tires are heavier?
supershaft is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2011, 08:36 AM   #7
lkchris
Albuquerque
 
lkchris's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Oddometer: 975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tosh Togo View Post
Whatever you choose to go with, get the "H" speed-rating flavor instead of the "V" variety, and you'll save about $10 up front per tire as well as lose a bit of unsprung weight. My guess is that the lower speed-rating's lighter tire might also be a bit more compliant, but the money difference made the choice for me. I only get about 3.5K miles to each set, and that adds up in a hurry.
Most of the time the major difference between an H and V version of the same tire, is initial tread depth.

The V will have less tread depth in order to somewhat eliminate the tire squirm that causes the heat that causes the tire to fail the "V" test.

Given this, I'd expect the H tire to be heavier, as it has more rubber.

H is, in fact the better buy, as no Airhead needs a V tire.

It's pretty academic in any event.
__________________
Kent Christensen
Albuquerque
'12 R1200RT, '02 R1100S, '84 R80G/S
lkchris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2011, 04:18 PM   #8
bikerfish
flyfishandride
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Location: western pa
Oddometer: 1,427
yep, I agree with what lornce says, those bridgestones are great tires for the money, and those are the proper sizes. lots of folks put a 120 in the rear, but you have to let the air out of it to get it between the swingarm and the brake shoes, the 110 will slip through with a minimal of fuss.
trust me, NONE of those bikes will overpower a 110 rear. I thinks its the "big rear tire syndrome", makes folks think they can ride faster.
if you hunt around, you can still find the original equipment style continentals or dunlops, in the proper inch sizes, but they are getting harder and harder to get, and you'll probably pay dearly for them.
bikerfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2011, 05:12 PM   #9
supershaft
because I can
 
Joined: Sep 2010
Location: San Francisco Bay area
Oddometer: 8,275
I remember most of them coming with Continentals and some with Metzlers. I don't remember them coming with Dunlops right off hand.

Most conversion charts convert a 3.25 to a 90/90 and a 4.00 to a 110/90. I don't think a S11 comes in 90/90. 90/90 and 110/90 are usually a little smaller than 3.25 and 4.00 and 100/90 and 120/90 are usually a little larger but all that ultimately depends on the specific tires in question since they all vary in size.
supershaft is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2011, 05:17 PM   #10
bikerfish
flyfishandride
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Location: western pa
Oddometer: 1,427
they do come in a 90/90, I have one in the garage as I type this.
my bad, your right, some did come with metzlers, not dunlops.
I just always order the 100 for the front and the 110 for the rear, been using that combo for years and have no problems. bike is ridden two up and loaded most of the time.
bikerfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2011, 06:20 PM   #11
Cogswell
Spudly Adventurer
 
Cogswell's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: Riding with my pal Richard Cranium
Oddometer: 4,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lornce View Post
Bridgestone S-11 Spitfires are a great all round tire that stick well, last respectably, offer good ride quality and steer nicely on an airhead. They're cheap, too. Whatever.

You need a 100/90-19" front and a 110/80-18" rear.


I just spooned a set of those on my airhead last weekend.

Good to hear Lornce


Mike
__________________
Cogswell Rides To Big Bend
See my airhead project here
Time Warp Vintage Motorcycle Club
The good thing is, your damn motor can't read. If it says oil on the container, it's pretty much OK to dump in there.... ED.
Cogswell is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Share

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

.
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


Times are GMT -7.   It's 12:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ADVrider 2011-2014