Turning The TW200 Into A Street Bike (Mostly)
in [Tech]
|
From: Bill Miller. on 11 Aug 2008 03:13 On Aug 10, 6:01 am, Blattus Slafaly <boobooililili...(a)roadrunner.com> wrote: > Bill Miller. wrote: > > On Aug 9, 5:52 pm, "Susan \(CobbersMom\)" <dittohead1...(a)yahoo.com> > > wrote: > > "Bill Miller." wrote in message So I guess it just boilsdown to > > finding > > tires that fit the current wheels that are more"highway-friendly." > >> There is nothing "unhighway-'unfriendly" about the tires that come on the TW. > > Except for the fact that the tires I linked to would be "more > > friendly" on the highway than the straight knobbies of the stock TW200 > > and still remain somewhat friendly to off-road use. > >> If you want a street bike, why not just buy one and ride tha occasionally/seldom off road? I've done that with my VStar and would much rather have knobby tires on the highway than street tires off road. > >> Sue > > Because, as I stated, the TW200 provided me with the best fit and the > > 196cc motor with enough power to fit my needs. It's just too bad that > > Yamaha doesn't produce a street bike in the 150-200 cc category and > > this conversation wouldn't even be happening. And the tires I linked > > to are not straight "street tires," just more of an on-road style than > > the stock knobbies on the TW200. And I believe that most would agree > > that the front tire I linked to would provide better steering and > > handling than the stock TW200's fron tire, especially perhaps in wet > > weather. Here's that link again... > >http://www.motorcycle-superstore.com/2/29/393/14780/ITEM/Bridgestone-... > > I think if you compare the tread on this one with the stock TW200 > > you'll see how it is perhaps more highway-friendly while still > > functional for light off-road riding. > > Bill > What kind of gas mileage does a 250 street get? > Blattus Slafaly ? 3 Well, Blattus, you got me there on two points. 1--The mpg of a 250 street bike probably varies with the bike. 2--How in the world does the question you posed have anything whatsoever to do with my post and selecting either Choice A or Choice B on the tires, the questions I asked? Bill (shaking head)
From: Bill Miller. on 11 Aug 2008 03:21 On Aug 10, 6:05 am, "." <yefelnag...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Aug 10, 12:27 am, "Bill Miller." <jay-smith-1...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > Anyone looking at the stock knobbies on the TW200 can clearly see that > > they are primarily designed for off-road (non-pavement) use. True or > > false? > TW200 was designed as a beach cruiser. If you go to ride the dunes at > Pismo, you'd want a paddle tire. The knobbie tire is designed to dig into loose soil and find traction below. The height of the knobs depends upon how deep the loose soil is on top of the hard packed surface below. Radical knobbies have widely-spaced knobs that are an inch tall, less radical knobbie have lower knobs that are more closely spaced. The relative softness or hardness of a knobby depends on just how hard (or deep) the substrate is. A simple "True" would have been sufficient, especially since I've already clearly stated the following...."and most (approximately 80%) of my riding will be on-road (pavement) ... and the other 20% of "off-road" use will be very light and easy trails and/or dirt/gravel secondary roads. IOW, I know what knobbies are designed for but I don't want 'em!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IOW, I want the bike, but not the tires! I really don't know how to be any clearer on this. > > Then when you look at the two tires in the link I provided, anyone can > > clearly see that the tread on those tires leans more toward on-road > > (pavement_ use than off-road. > The more street-oriented tread relies more upon the pavement surface digging into the rubber and providing traction like a street tire does. Okay, that's what I said wasn't it? The tires would be better for mostly street use.
From: Bill Miller. on 11 Aug 2008 03:35 On Aug 10, 2:30 pm, totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) wrote: > Bill Miller. <jay-smith-1...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > Anyone looking at the stock knobbies on the TW200 can clearly see that > > they are primarily designed for off-road (non-pavement) use. True or > > false? > Probably true, yes. Yes = true, not "probably true." And when you have a clear black and white choice as presented there is no room for "probably," only true or false. And if you say false, you are clearly and absolutely refuting the following statement. "Anyone looking at the stock knobbies on the TW200 can clearly see that they are primarily designed for off-road (non-pavement) use." Therefore, by saying false or "probably" you are essentially stating that knobbies are not PRIMARILY designed for off-road use. Ergo, the only possible answer is T-R-U-E without any qualifications. Yet my Uncle Jay has told me how dificult it is for you to ever agree totally with someone or to agree to a statement that is true that someone else, and not you, came up with, so I understand. > > Then when you look at the two tires in the link I provided, anyone can clearly see that the tread on those tires leans more toward on-road (pavement_ use than off-road. That's all I was saying---that these two tires ... > > FRONT: > >http://www.motorcycle-superstore.com/2/29/393/14780/ITEM/Bridgestone-... > > -Trail-Wing-Dual-Sport-Front-Tire.aspx > > and REAR: > >http://www.motorcycle-superstore.com/2/29/393/14781/ITEM/Bridgestone-... > > -Trail-Wing-Dual-Sport-Rear-Tire.aspx > > ...are not "superior" to the stock tires but only that they appear to > > have a tread better suited for on-road (pavement) use. True or > > false? Nothing more! > True. But still far from ideal. And I previously clearly stated that I knew the change would not be "ideal" as per my earlier statement ...Except for the fact that the tires I linked to would be "more friendly" on the highway than the straight knobbies of the stock TW200 and still remain somewhat friendly to off-road use. I was talking about degrees of road riding improvement, not nirvana. > > And if that's the case, and most (approximately 80%) of my riding will > > be on-road (pavement) then why wouldn't I replace the stock tires with > > these? No need to carry this discussion into any other areas. It's a > > rather simple selection...pick choice A (stock tires) or choice B (the > > tires shown in the links) for a bike that going to be driven on-road > > (pavement) at least 80% of the time and the other 20% of "off-road" > > use will be very light and easy trails and/or dirt/gravel secondary > > roads. > > If you truly think, based solely upon the planned uses I've described > > for my particular situation, that this idea has no merit, then please > > give me the facts and data to refute what I've just said regarding > > these two choices of tires. No generalizations needed about this or > > that but please just pick choice A or choice B and W-H-Y. Thank you. > No, fair enough. But still far from ideal. And we still have been in agreement from the beginning of the thread that "ideal" was not an option in this matter.
From: The Older Gentleman on 11 Aug 2008 03:51 Bill Miller. <jay-smith-1935(a)excite.com> wrote: > "Anyone looking at the stock > knobbies on the TW200 can clearly see that they are primarily designed > for off-road (non-pavement) use." Therefore, by saying false or > "probably" you are essentially stating that knobbies are not PRIMARILY > designed for off-road use. Ergo, the only possible answer is T-R-U-E > without any qualifications. Wrong. You see, we do not know what was going on in the design team's mind, do we? Had you asked: "more suitable for off-road than on-road use" I'd have agreed. -- BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Yamaha XT600E Honda CB400F chateau dot murray at idnet dot com "What you're proposing to do will involve a lot of time and hassle for no tangible benefit."
From: Blattus Slafaly on 11 Aug 2008 08:48
Bill Miller. wrote: > On Aug 10, 6:01 am, Blattus Slafaly <boobooililili...(a)roadrunner.com> > wrote: > >> Bill Miller. wrote: >>> On Aug 9, 5:52 pm, "Susan \(CobbersMom\)" <dittohead1...(a)yahoo.com> >>> wrote: > >>> "Bill Miller." wrote in message So I guess it just boilsdown to >>> finding >>> tires that fit the current wheels that are more"highway-friendly." > >>>> There is nothing "unhighway-'unfriendly" about the tires that come on the TW. > >>> Except for the fact that the tires I linked to would be "more >>> friendly" on the highway than the straight knobbies of the stock TW200 >>> and still remain somewhat friendly to off-road use. >>>> If you want a street bike, why not just buy one and ride tha occasionally/seldom off road? I've done that with my VStar and would much rather have knobby tires on the highway than street tires off road. >>>> Sue >>> Because, as I stated, the TW200 provided me with the best fit and the >>> 196cc motor with enough power to fit my needs. It's just too bad that >>> Yamaha doesn't produce a street bike in the 150-200 cc category and >>> this conversation wouldn't even be happening. And the tires I linked >>> to are not straight "street tires," just more of an on-road style than >>> the stock knobbies on the TW200. And I believe that most would agree >>> that the front tire I linked to would provide better steering and >>> handling than the stock TW200's fron tire, especially perhaps in wet >>> weather. Here's that link again... >>> http://www.motorcycle-superstore.com/2/29/393/14780/ITEM/Bridgestone-... >>> I think if you compare the tread on this one with the stock TW200 >>> you'll see how it is perhaps more highway-friendly while still >>> functional for light off-road riding. >>> Bill > >> What kind of gas mileage does a 250 street get? >> Blattus Slafaly ? 3 > > Well, Blattus, you got me there on two points. > > 1--The mpg of a 250 street bike probably varies with the bike. > > 2--How in the world does the question you posed have anything > whatsoever to do with my post and selecting either Choice A or Choice > B on the tires, the questions I asked? > > Bill > (shaking head) > > Instead of shaking your head, read the rest of the posts. -- Blattus Slafaly ? 3 :) 7/8 |