PDoz Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Scud, I'll be interested to hear how you find the narrower tyre. I've got the 180/55 gt on the back of my 03 lemans and really wouldn't want the tyre any flatter. The rear tyre is just reaching the edge as the pegs drag, tip in feels fine to me, and I'm really happy with feel in corners. If anything, the front might be a bit too high? I've got an st angel 120/70 on the front and there's a good 3/4 mm of wasted rubber. Then again, I had 480 k's of heaven today ....absolutely no complaints ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
czakky Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Sounds right to me.... The Angel's are great tires, I'm about to lever on my second set. Gonna try the 170/60's too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowRyter Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 I put on an Angel GT on the rear this past Spring. I've done trips from OKC to Austin, the Ark Ozarks, Springfield Mile. Still have PR4 on front. Seems to be hold up OK but squaring, Of course she's in the shop this week sorting out the fuel pump issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scud Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 I need some help or maybe just some affirmation. The Angel GT does not have a clear "rotation" indicator. I assume the rotation is indicated by the arrow in this picture: If that's correct, then the tread patterns seem opposite on the front and rear tires. This picture shows them from the rear - direction indicators at the top of the tire pointing forward. Are the tread patterns supposed to be opposite (ie front pointing down and rear pointing up in the picture)? Sorry if this is a total newbie question, but it will be my first time mounting my own street tires. I've done lots of knobby dirt tires - but they are not directional. I still need to wait a bit to put them on though - since I am waiting for some stuff to arrive (angle valve stems, wheel balancer, etc.). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
czakky Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Correct, opposite tread. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.POLEGATO Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 I'ts a mistake, the true is Metzeler is owned by Pirelli ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docc Posted January 28, 2015 Author Share Posted January 28, 2015 I'ts a mistake, the true is Metzeler is owned by Pirelli ! It seems the Germans and the Italians see this differently . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emry Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 Tread patterns are not what they seem. The old force water out theory is just a wives tale. It really is more about finding somewhere for the water to go. Hydrodynamics of a tire at speed is very different from what most people would expect it to be. Run it in the direction of the arrow if you can. But to be honest, the arrow is a usually decided by the marketing department, not engineering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhino1 Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 Tread patterns are not what they seem. The old force water out theory is just a wives tale. It really is more about finding somewhere for the water to go. Hydrodynamics of a tire at speed is very different from what most people would expect it to be. Run it in the direction of the arrow if you can. But to be honest, the arrow is a usually decided by the marketing department, not engineering. Emry, this is not entirely true. While tires can be run in reverse to rotation indicated (we used to do this with old Dunlop D364's and D208GP's on the track to "use the other side"), there is an argument to be made for how the casing is bonded and the theoretical possiblity of separation if run counter to indicated rotation. I've never seen it happen, but I have read notes and articles on this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scud Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 I'm ready to put a second set of Angel GTs on the Scura. Yesterday morning, I still had a little bit of tread above the wear marks. I did about 150 miles of freeway (had work in Los Angeles) and decided to avoid the Friday afternoon LA to San Diego traffic by taking the scenic route home (including a lovely 7,000 foot ascent into the San Bernardino Mountains and another 4,000 foot climb over San Jacinto). Narrowly missed a nasty wildfire (hydrant icon on map) that burned a bunch of cars and closed the freeway. Check out the roasted E-Type Jaguar on the car carrier at 1:31.... so sad. http://ktla.com/2015/07/17/15-freeway-shut-down-in-cajon-pass-due-to-30-acre-north-fire/ Anyway, the rear tire is done now; the tread is even with some of the wear bars. I got about 6,000 miles out of it, running 34psi front and 38psi rear. I felt comfortable on the tire up until about the last 100 miles yesterday, when it started feeling a little mushy in the corners. The front still has life in it, but it's got ridges on the sides - those bumps after the flat spot from my most common lean angle (which apparently is not very deep). I estimate I could squeeze another 2,000 miles out of the front, but I'll probably just put a new one on at the same time. Wildfire on the San Andreas Fault... Welcome to Los Angeles... Shake and bake... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docc Posted July 19, 2015 Author Share Posted July 19, 2015 6,000 is great for a rear tire (for me at least - unheard of! ) I like 40 psi in the rear, 35 front - while our tire sizes are different and all that, but the V11 are certainly, well, "rear biased." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scud Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 Mileage, of course, depends on many factors. I think a wider tire will generally last a bit longer than a narrower tire under the same conditions. I ran the 170 rear - I think 160 for you. Our pressures were pretty close. However, I understand curves and corners tend to inspire you toward hard acceleration and hard braking. I am no stranger to that style, but most of the time I aim for smooth transitions and settle into a flow that's sustainable for me - so I'm probably not riding quite as hard as you most of the time. I'm really pleased with how the Angels wore - pretty evenly (not squared off too badly) and there was only minimal scalloping. The wear indicator is in the right spot - once the tread got even with the indicator the handling deteriorated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gio Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Just about to order a set of Angel GT's - and see that my preferred supplier (Canada Motorcycle) offer the front 120/70/17 in both regular (?) and what is referred to as "A" spec (for a few more $). The only information on the site about this A spec is that it is a "2 layer structure for better stability". No A spec option for any of the rear sizes (160/60/17 in my case) Anyone have any additional insight into this A spec option? Gio PS - The only other info I found was the "D" spec front which OEM for the Ducati Multistrada Edit - I just noticed on the Pirelli site the load indices differ between the regular (55W) and "A" spec (58W) front options ie A spec has a higher rating (520 vs 481 lbs) ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docc Posted March 2, 2016 Author Share Posted March 2, 2016 Does that make it "stiffer?" Possibly even heavier? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gio Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 I'm not really sure Doc - the Pirelli site also just says "2-ply carcass for improved stability" for the A-spec ... but the higher load index would presumably require increased "stiffness" in the construction (and possibly weight) I would think. The Pirelli tire guide recommends the A-spec (58W) 120/70/17 for '99 / '01 V11 ... then again it specs the regular 170/60/17 when many of us (myself included) feel that 160/60 is a more appropriate size for the 4.5" rear rim on the earlier models. Strange that there is no "A" spec for these rear sizes (there are for some others) ... given a choice I think I would prefer a stiffer rear tire for our rear-biased bikes, than a front, so am thinking I'll just go with the standard front - there isn't that much relative difference in the load rating (less than 10%) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now