TIRE SIZE ON F2
actually I thought my tire was a 180 but it's a 160 and it barely fits under the fender... I don't think I could do a 180 no way, unless maybe, maybe I chopped the fender.
But still....
I don't think our bikes need a 180 anyway, they aren't designed for one.
But still....
I don't think our bikes need a 180 anyway, they aren't designed for one.
F2's have 4.5" rims, 160 is the absolute biggest you SHOULD put onto that size rim. Apparantly 170's and 180's will have issues with the sidewalls folding up on the narrow rims. Later CBR's came with 5" and 5.5" rims I am pretty sure, and THOSE could take wider tires. But other then looks, why waste your money on a 180? Its not like our old F2's need the extra tire and If anything it could cause a degradation in performance and handling.
Also if you put a wider or larger tire or smaller on the back it wont handel as well. That tire is small because it was tested as the most efficent and best handeling tire that they could put on the bike while saving money at the same time.
THANKS FOR THE INPUT GENTS, A FRIEND OF MINE WENT TO ROAD ATLANTA AND PICKED THE TIRES UP I GOT FRONT AND REAR FOR 100.00 BUCKS I THOUGHT THE 180 WOULD HOLD ME OVER TILL THE FRON BATTLAX WORE OUT THEN I COULD CHANGE BOTH TIRES. I'M ALMOST AFRAID TO PUT THEM ON NOW. I DID RIP OFF REAR FENDER TO OPEN BACK UP A LITTLE AND CUT OFF EVERYTHING ON BACK EXCEPT FOR THE REAR SET. I WISH I COULD POST PICS BUT IT SAYS FILE IS TOO LARGE. TALK TO YOU SOON.
i really don't like to revive old threads but I just want to pitch in on something that was certainly relevant in case anyone else comes across it.
when I first got my bike i (being a novice rider at the time) thought it ran perfectly fine. Really it was good. Later I found out it had a 190 (yes one, nine, zero) in the rear. I switched to stock 2 years later when it started to run low on thread and definitely noticed an increase in handling.
for info purposes I went from the battleax to angel gts
when I first got my bike i (being a novice rider at the time) thought it ran perfectly fine. Really it was good. Later I found out it had a 190 (yes one, nine, zero) in the rear. I switched to stock 2 years later when it started to run low on thread and definitely noticed an increase in handling.
for info purposes I went from the battleax to angel gts
i really don't like to revive old threads but I just want to pitch in on something that was certainly relevant in case anyone else comes across it.
when I first got my bike i (being a novice rider at the time) thought it ran perfectly fine. Really it was good. Later I found out it had a 190 (yes one, nine, zero) in the rear. I switched to stock 2 years later when it started to run low on thread and definitely noticed an increase in handling.
for info purposes I went from the battleax to angel gts
when I first got my bike i (being a novice rider at the time) thought it ran perfectly fine. Really it was good. Later I found out it had a 190 (yes one, nine, zero) in the rear. I switched to stock 2 years later when it started to run low on thread and definitely noticed an increase in handling.
for info purposes I went from the battleax to angel gts

On account of first hand expirience
Finally! I'm back on the forum! (**only gone for a few weeks**
) I don't know if it's something wrong with me/my account/my PC/my crap luck but I only see:
"Click the image to open in full size.
On account of first hand expirience"
with a little broken 'picture' icon next to "click"
no actual image. I've seen this a lot but thought it was just something for older threads. Now I think it's me.
Knowing me I'm probly doing something wrong....

"Click the image to open in full size.
On account of first hand expirience"
with a little broken 'picture' icon next to "click"
no actual image. I've seen this a lot but thought it was just something for older threads. Now I think it's me.
Knowing me I'm probly doing something wrong....


