• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

A big post on tires

I'm not convinced that changing suspension can make one tire feel like another. If I"m wrong I'd be interested in hearing why

I know that you are not wrong (and that doesn't even get into tire compounds and profiles)
 
So you're saying that you won't be able to feel the difference if you adjust your suspension?

One of the most important things about tires to me is feedback, and changing the carcass of the tire surely changes the feedback the rider is receiving, no?

Every tire brand has a different "feel" and different riders prefer different things from their tires. The point is simply that a "one suspension system" (mostly adjusted with components inside forks) is definitely NOT inferior to a "two suspension system" (soft sidewall + suspension in forks). Paired up with the right suspension settings in the forks, both types of carcass can absorb pavement irregularities just fine (meaning they retain traction), but they will certainly feel different.

I dont like stiff carcass Dunlops because they transmit too much feedback, for me it makes me nervous when I feel every little thing in the pavement which gives me less confidence. The Pirelli's give me feedback to what the bike and tire are doing but at the same time they mask some of the irregularities in the pavement which help me focus more on riding. Like you said in a way, acting as a second suspension, making the ride more plush. I dont' think I can suddenly tune this out by adding dampening. Nor would I want too

Think of a stiff carcass tire like the Dunlops as a "non-factor" in the overall suspension package. It doesn't move, it doesn't flex, it leaves the "suspension" part strictly to the spring and cartridges inside your forks, so that "suspension system" is really mostly adjusted inside the forks (springs, valving, etc.). Now think of the soft tire sidewall as a "secondary suspension" because it will flex up and down (you can easily pinch the sidewall with your thumb and pointer finger) and it has it's own "spring rate/compression/rebound" (except you can't adjust it like the components in your forks). In that scenario, you have two suspension systems (tire sidewall + forks) stacked on top of each other. At the end of the day, can you make suspension adjustments that will allow both stiff sidewall and soft sidewall tires to absorb pavement irregularities? Of course, that's why both Dunlops and Pirellis work, they just have a different "feel". Can you make a Dunlop just as "plush" as your Pirellis? Absofrickinlutely!! The right spring, valving and suspension settings can make Dunlops very plush. Will they "feel" like a Pirelli? Nope, never. For some that's a good thing, for others it's not.

There are subtle pluses and minuses to both Dunlop and Pirelli technology, but to buy into fairy tales that one is vastly superior to the other is... well, a little naive. As far as I'm concerned, a lot of these tire debates are like arguing which ice cream flavor is the best - some like vanilla, some like chocolate, some like strawberry... and it's a bit silly to try to convince someone who likes vanilla that he/she should like chocolate.

I've raced bikes since 1993 and have been on ALL the brands at one time or another - I happen to like the feel of the stiffer sidewalls (Dunlop, Michelin) but there's plenty of riders who like the feel of the softer sidewall tires. There's no right or wrong.
 
Last edited:
I was at a local shop the other day, and they had a BT003RS and a Power One (commercial), both 180, sitting next to each other. The carcass on the Michelin was WAY WAY stiffer than the Bridgestone. Are the commercially available tires significantly different from what you're talking about, or are Bridgestones super stiff?
 
What Alex was saying is that tire flex (whether it be less with Dunlop or more with Pirelli) is part of the overall suspension formula and as such, your suspension components will need adjustment going from stiff carcass tires to soft ones. If you feel like the Pirellis absorb bumps better and Dunlops worse, it's because suspension adjustment (maybe even valving, oil weight, etc.) might be necessary to achieve the same bump damping performance on the Dunlops.

ding-ding-ding... we have a winner! :teeth If the overall suspension package keeps the tire connected to the road/track (i.e. "traction") then both the tire and the suspension are doing their job. If the tire loses traction, then it can often be a result of the suspension improperly adjusted for the tire and the conditions (speed, surface, bumps, etc.) Whether you achieve that "traction" with a soft sidewall or a stiff sidewall is relatively unimportant. If you fail to maintain that traction, you potentially run into more painful problems... :ride
 
Alex, thanks for chiming in to explain things. I tried to keep things as simple as possible, so that's a good point that I didn't quite do justice to. When I'm not on my phone I'll update things to try and make that a bit more clear.

Edit: Editted the first post a bit to try and make things a bit more clear. :)
 
Last edited:
I'm not convinced that changing suspension can make one tire feel like another. If I"m wrong I'd be interested in hearing why

That's not what I meant. What I meant was that comparing tires apples to apples requires the OVERALL suspension to be setup correctly, as Alex explained. I too find differences in tire properties (even comparing apples to apples) and have my preferences to accentuate my strengths and riding style...Vanilla flavored, like Alex said, except my flavor isn't French Vanilla, it's British Vanilla :laughing

That's not to say I won't touch base with Alex in the near future and try French Vanilla (made in Spain, welcome to the global economy) :ride
 
Here's an interesting video recently posted in the Racers Corner: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPcGRO4AcaI

After watching that, anyone care to argue that the few millimiters of flex in the sidewall of a tire even compares to the amount of work your front suspension does to maintain traction?? :laughing

Take a look at the "superbike" that won the AMA Pro title in 1981:

P1020703.JPG


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4A306MeDDU&feature=related:

So think about how far we've come from that machine:

- stiff aluminum frames instead of steel flexy frames
- stiff fork mounted clip-ons instead of flexy steel dirtbike-style bars
- stiff, beefy triple clamps instead of the flexy ones back then
- stiff, thick "upside down" cartridge forks instead of the "old school" flexy forks back then
- stiff, beefy front axles instead of the tiny axles back then
(I won't even get into radial tires vs the old bias-ply tires, the difference is ridiculous!)

So what that should tell you is that major efforts took place to isolate suspension movement on ONE axis (INSIDE the forks!) instead of the old bikes where you had flex in frames, bars, triples, forks and axle. In the old bikes, you had "flex" on three axis: up and down, front to back and side to side. Suspension wasn't nearly as precise as it is today.

Bottom line: your "suspension" these days is inside your forks and your shock, NOT in your tires. You're supposed to adjust your suspension to work WITH your tires and that's why sportbikes handle so much better today then they did many years ago. Your tires are there to provide adhesion to the pavement (traction), not to serve as a suspension component.

(just thought you guys might also enjoy the pics and video of the "old school" bikes... :teeth )
 
BTW, you're talking to the Michelin race tire distributor, if anyone knows close to everything when it comes to rubber it's Alex.


If we were talking to the Pirelli race tire distributor, would the same words be used? Of course not. They both may very well Know "close to everything when it comes to rubber" And they should, they qualified to be put in this positon because of many proven abilities, one of which is how tires work.

Knowing what they do, it will also get presented, with a slant. Favoring the bolstering the Philosophy of the Corporation they work for.

Thing is, These tires get used in a wider range of conditions, than any example used as the basis of some debate. The rider has to learn how suspension works. How chassis works, in that it isn't a question of stiff and it's done. It's a complex matter of how stiff, where, in the chasiss, and always what is the bike being subjected to.

The whole package of rider and bike (all the components in the bike) and the type of surface, have to work in harmony, Every part do it's job.

If everything is right enough to not be a problem, and just two items, tires and type of surface are the variables, than the tire for the Isle of Man race will not be the same tire for Daytona. The tire for Thunder hill, (even as rough as it is, it is still a prepaired for racing, race course)

will not be the same tire for a section of road I have access to that was a wagon trail until it got paved maybe 100 years ago, and being 0 priority, never repaved again, and patched by tossing road patch out of a pickup truck, no smoothing. And the ground (road bed) keeps moving through the winters and summers.

That road is so rough, I can with just a 90 MPH speed, launch and stay launched hitting just the crests, of the bumps.

The rider has to, using all that is available to them, put it together with the Riders chosen components.
 
Last edited:
The tire for Thunder hill, (even as rough as it is, it is still a prepaired for racing, race course) will not be the same tire for a section of road I have access to that was a wagon trail until it got paved maybe 100 years ago, and being 0 priority, never repaved again, and patched by tossing road patch out of a pickup truck, no smoothing. And the ground (road bed) keeps moving through the winters and summers. That road is so rough, I can with just a 90 MPH speed, launch and stay launched hitting just the crests, of the bumps.

:wow I don't think anyone actually builds a DOT race tire designed for that type of road. 90 mph might be a tad too fast for such a POS road and maybe a dual sport or a BMW GS might work better on that type of "wagon trail". I have a 05 ZX10R just like yours and there are definitely such rough roads up in the Santa Cruz mountains that I avoid - clearly a sportbike doesn't have the suspension travel to really soak up the bumps in that type of road and frankly I don't want to stack the bike or bend the wheels. ymmv...
 
If anyone gets a chance, talk to someone who raced superbikes back in the early eighties and ask what it was like. Hint: " It was kinda hard to see cuz the bike shook so much and at 140 on the straight your head was moving around so much that seeing the turn was sketchy, plus the brakes sucked and the tires were scary. The frames flexed in harmonics and the only cure was more gas."
 
If we were talking to the Pirelli race tire distributor, would the same words be used? Of course not. They both may very well Know "close to everything when it comes to rubber" And they should, they qualified to be put in this positon because of many proven abilities, one of which is how tires work.

Knowing what they do, it will also get presented, with a slant. Favoring the bolstering the Philosophy of the Corporation they work for.

Thing is, These tires get used in a wider range of conditions, than any example used as the basis of some debate. The rider has to learn how suspension works. How chassis works, in that it isn't a question of stiff and it's done. It's a complex matter of how stiff, where, in the chasiss, and always what is the bike being subjected to.

The whole package of rider and bike (all the components in the bike) and the type of surface, have to work in harmony, Every part do it's job.

If everything is right enough to not be a problem, and just two items, tires and type of surface are the variables, than the tire for the Isle of Man race will not be the same tire for Daytona. The tire for Thunder hill, (even as rough as it is, it is still a prepaired for racing, race course)

will not be the same tire for a section of road I have access to that was a wagon trail until it got paved maybe 100 years ago, and being 0 priority, never repaved again, and patched by tossing road patch out of a pickup truck, no smoothing. And the ground (road bed) keeps moving through the winters and summers.


That road is so rough, I can with just a 90 MPH speed, launch and stay launched hitting just the crests, of the bumps.

The rider has to, using all that is available to them, put it together with the Riders chosen components.

:facepalm your point of that post fell apart in the first 10words that i highlighted

yes, at the very ragged edge of a tires capabilities (ie under professional race conditions) certain tires perform better than others when comparing road/track conditions. we see that in every pro racing series that doesnt use a spec tire; the Mich/Bridg battle before MotoGP went spec comes to mind. but to assume that a suspension can be "right enough to not be a problem" is the same type of thinking that has trackday riders cruising around w/ horribly setup suspensions. im sure that group of riders all thinks something along the lines of "my suspension didnt kill me on the street, so itll prob ride great/fast/awesome on the track."

however, anyone that knows anything about racing (ie riding at the limit) can tell you this doesnt work. a pro racer/team spends a very large amount of their time adjusting suspension/geometry/electronics... when Rossi made the mid-season switch to Bridgestone, you think he slapped the tires on and just magically expected to be faster because everyone else was going faster on them. no, he spent every minute of testing time adjusting the bike to the tires.

simply put, youve clearly demonstated w/ this post that you picked the tire that runs best on your current suspension... with a complete disregard for the fact that suspension adjustments are the key to making all tires work better. from your post on the prev page, it seems u think Racetech is infallible when it comes to setting up a suspension for a rough road. too bad having a set of forks tuned through the mail isnt even close to ideal...

one question: do u run the same suspension setup on that "wagon" road as you do on the track??
 
Last edited:
:wow I don't think anyone actually builds a DOT race tire designed for that type of road. 90 mph might be a tad too fast for such a POS road and maybe a dual sport or a BMW GS might work better on that type of "wagon trail". I have a 05 ZX10R just like yours and there are definitely such rough roads up in the Santa Cruz mountains that I avoid - clearly a sportbike doesn't have the suspension travel to really soak up the bumps in that type of road and frankly I don't want to stack the bike or bend the wheels. ymmv...


You don't have an 05 just like mine, You didn't have Race Tech R&D (Tony) select the shim stacks and springs for this given his knowledge of off road racing set-ups.
Suspension travel isn't a problem. it only becomes a problem if what it does in the travel distance isn't done right for the job it is given.

If the use was (but it wouldn't be with a ZX-10) MX or Supermoto or Desert Racing then I would have long travel suspension, But I'm not Doing triple jumps or Whoops, I'm on a road, even as rough rough as it is, it is a road. Also the little matter of tossing the clip-ons, because I'm not on a closed course road race track I stand up in the attack position adding my legs to the suspension in the rough.

And I toss the clip-ons and put flat tracker bars on and a Scotts Damper (stabilizer in Scotts speak). Because---- Flat track racers, Supermoto racers, and MX racers, and Desert racers don't sit like they do for nothing

Point is I prepaired my 05 ZX-10 for this, to bring it's performance to this. The end result is No Dual Sport, or any off the show room floor bike that was made in a factory for an un-known customer, delivers the performance in a package like the ZX-10, When it is modified to excell in tight twisties, and rough rough roads.
 
Last edited:
If anyone gets a chance, talk to someone who raced superbikes back in the early eighties and ask what it was like. Hint: " It was kinda hard to see cuz the bike shook so much and at 140 on the straight your head was moving around so much that seeing the turn was sketchy, plus the brakes sucked and the tires were scary. The frames flexed in harmonics and the only cure was more gas."



Yep :thumbup Back when I started dirt riding, we didn't have dirt bikes, we stripped street bikes to the bone, high pipes no muffler, put large sprocket on and knobbies. Two favorite were Triumph 650 (desert sled) and 500 woods and tight trails.

With that Triumph suspension, on a washboard gravel road, my speed was limited to where the vision went away. Actually went away, everything turned to a gray, like thick fog.
 
You don't have an 05 just like mine...

:rolleyes You're right, studmuffin... I ain't half as cool as you. The entire suspension on my ZX10R came off one of my customer's 2005 AMA Pro Superbike that was set up to Factory Kawasaki specs (Ohlins 25mm custom cartridge kit and shock), but I guess I forgot to call "Tony" at RaceTech to hook me up with the trick shim stack.... yo Tony!... :rolleyes

So basically you bastardized a 2005 ZX10R into your version of a Mad Max wagon-trail road warrior and I'm actually supposed to reason with you about the net effect of tire's sidewall stiffness in the overall function of suspension?? I think maybe we're hitting a dead end "wagon trail" on that one... Maybe we could change the topic to building mud boggers out of El Camino's and debating who's the gosh darn baddest banjo player in the world...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uzae_SqbmDE

I give... you win... buh-bye now...
 
AMA Pro Superstock is Not set up for rough rough surfaces.

As long as you don't recognize the difference, your right there is nothing but a dead end.

I'm not looking for any of Your "reasoning" on sidewall stiffness. I wonder how you would do "reasoning" with Pirelli on side wall stiffness. I doubt very much if they would change the way they make tires.

Funny how what I do is called Bastardized and say when Ducati, or Aprilia or, KTM does it, does something it gets Called HyperMotarded. (or some version of that)
 
Last edited:
Funny how what I do is called Bastardized and say when Ducati, or Aprilia or, KTM does it, does something it gets Called HyperMotarded. (or some version of that)

There is no comparison between the shock lengths they use vs. a modded SS.

Apples and oranges.
 
:wow I don't think anyone actually builds a DOT race tire designed for that type of road. 90 mph might be a tad too fast for such a POS road ... clearly a sportbike doesn't have the suspension travel to really soak up the bumps in that type of road and frankly I don't want to stack the bike or bend the wheels. ymmv...

You know, racing didn't start with people taking machines that were perfect for the job and running them against each other. It's been an evolution that has always been driven by the riders exceeding both the design, and actual limits of the machines they ride.

People like Lou doing things that "shouldn't be done" with his machine are the inspiration for racing in the first place, as well as inspiring to riders like myself...I think I got air a few weeks ago on a ride on a wet dirt road on my '94 CBR600...I'm pretty sure it wasn't made for that, but it will still one of the most fun rides I've done on the bike. Even if the back tire didn't come off the ground, it was by far the farthest I'd gotten the front up... :laughing

What my point really is is that sometimes new info about how things work best comes from an odd angle. Do offroad tires have different sidewall stiffnesses to choose from, and do they make a difference to the degree that the riders have preferences?
 
Thanks for the supportive post Cheyenne. I've Gotten e-mails and PM's from people (some outside of the USA) thanking me for inspiring them to modify their ZX-10's the way I did, and what a difference it made in their riding enjoyment. Turning the bike from a track race replica to a ultra high performance public street/road bike, where they actually were using it with it's lights and license plate.

I was always real pleased to get those e-mails and PM's, but your post made my day, even more :thumbup


As far as your question, I've been out of off road racing too long to know whats going on now.

Back (1983-1987) when I was...Dunlop was the tire, and the side wall flex was just a tire pressure issue for controlling it. The racer wanted flex (again that eases the sharpness of the hit to the suspension, and in the dirt tire allows more tire tread (knobs in this case) contact with the dirt. But you did not want the sidewall to flex enough, even on the hard hits (say rock) to pinch a tube, and cut it. So...there was an on going, depending on the course and the racer, little secrets of what the hot pick was for the air pressure.
 
I know desert tires tend to be very stiff, and trials tires tend to be very soft - those would be the extremes. Yes, there are large differences in sidewall stiffness on dirt tires.
 
Thanks for the supportive post...

You know, what I'd like to know from your perspective is, what do you specifically get from having a more compliant tire for your specific type of riding.

Is it the mechanical traction you get, which might be more easy to emulate with a stiffer tire, but a more compliant suspension, in theory...

Or is it the feedback you get from the tire, which might be far more sensitive to tradeoffs in compliance in various suspension components.

My suspicion is that it's harder for riders to account for traction feedback information that's outside of their comfort zone than it is for an engineer to provide the same level of mechanical grip while shuffling parameters around.


So my question to you is, are you looking more for your tire to simply provide grip during the periods of time it's actually in good contact with the ground, or are you also reading precise traction information as well? (During cornering specifically).

I ask because I wonder if instead of tiptoeing around in fear of losing traction in the first place, if you deal with traction issues on the "backside" so to speak, and just deal with loss of traction after the fact, because you know it's going to happen, and it makes more sense to "fix" it then, and get on with not being too cautious into the next corner.

I'm not sure if I'm making any sense here. I guess I wonder if some people care more about traction information telling them how it *IS* going away, as opposed to traction information about how it *MIGHT* be about to go away.

As well as the difference between entering a corner specifically intending to maintain grip throughout it, as opposed to entering the corner focused on the directionality of your exit, being more concerned with getting your direction of travel as a whole changed, and viewing the loss and return of grip throughout that process as incidental.
 
Back
Top