Recommended Tire Pressure - BAR & PSI

[Woodburn]

The manual for the 01 V11 Sport specifies 2.3 / 2.4 BAR front tire pressure for solo/two up riding. For the rear, it specifies 2.5 / 2.6 BAR.

 

PSI being the standard for tire pressure measurement here in the States, I went ahead and converted the numbers:

 

Riding solo:

Front: 33 PSI front

Rear: 36 PSI rear

 

Two up:

Front: 35 PSI front

Rear: 38 PSI rear

 

I couldn't find this information when I used the forum's search, so I thought I'd go ahead and post it.

[callison]

I'm using up the remaining tread I had on a tire in my garage that came off of my 97 Sport 1100i. It's a Pirelli MTR24 which is a 160/70 versus the 170/60 used on the earlier V11 Sports. I use the Pirelli's exclusively on the Sport 1100i and I think they're well suited to that bike. On the V11 Sport though, the 160/70 carcass feels... well, weird to me. I'm not used to it and it doesn't really go as well with the faster steering front end. The bike does feel dramatically lighter in the handling department, but it also seems to make the overall handling twitchier. Doesn't matter. I'll use up this tire and revert to the Sportecs or something. One interesting thing about the 160/70 tire though. Gas mileage showed an immediate increase of two miles per gallon at high speeds. Speedometer reads a tad low as well. These are subjective observations, YMMV.

[Janusz]

I found that the best suited rear tire size (I use B010 by the way) for me is 160/60. The handling is markedly better then stock size 170/60.

 

I wouldn't use 160/70 for a fear of too tall sidewall IMO.

[docc]

So, John, how much did your speedo change from 170/60 to 160/60? And your impression of the handling change...? Thanks,docc

[Guest k.tx]

The speedo shouldn't change at all by replacing 170/60 with 160/60.

In case you put 160/70 on it should change and BTW, in case you increase the diameter of the wheel take the rear hugger of. The tire will expand with increasing speed and I can imagine hat happens if you leave the hugger on.

On the other hand I don't see a reason why tou would install a tire with increased size.

Am I wrong?

[Janusz]

Theoretically by switching to 160/60 from 170/60 your tire circumference should decrease by less then 2%, therefore adding so much to your speedo error. Who cares!? My speedo is off at least 10 % anyway and 2 more % makes no difference.

 

And also the real dimensions of the tire are never precise and one manufacturer's 160/60 will measure differently then the other's. Luckily I stick with Bridgestone B010.

 

But handling seems to be better by virtue of the bike being more tossable, easier turning. Also the tire seems to be wearing better, more evenly and it look like it will last LONGER then 170/60.

 

The only explanation I can think of is the fact that 4,5 rim width is better suited for 160 wide tire.

[Guest k.tx]

Those 2% are because of less air volume in the tire and it doesn't count!

[docc]

My theory on tires for bikes has always been, "try something new. If you don't like it , it'll be worn out pretty soon anyway."

It sounds like the concensus is 160/60-17. I'm hearing Bridgestone but isn't there a good handling decent mileage alternative?

Ride well, docc

[Janusz]

Those 2% are because of less air volume in the tire and it doesn't count!

Maybe true, but according to my math abilities 60% of 160 mm is always less then 60% of 170 mm .

[callison]

I'm on my sixth set of Pirelli MTR23/24's on my Sport 1100i. The rear tire for the Sporti is 160/70 and the rim width is the same as the one on the V11S. They consistently get 7500 miles per set. I had an MTR24 rear tire with probably about 1000 miles worth of tread left hanging around in the garage so I mounted that on the V11S Monday when the Sportec 170/60 finally reached minimums. To me, the handling is dramatically different. I'm not certain if I like it or not. It is very much more responsive but it also seems to twitch more on bumps when heeled over. This is pretty subjective, but for me, it is colored by the handling of the Sport 1100i which is a longer and much slower steering bike. The V11S is quick by comparison and making it quicker just seems sort of alien. I find myself going into corners a little hotter than before (a bad thing if you're calibrated to a road you've ridden thousands of times) because the increased tire circumference has the tach and ear rpm calibration off. The upside is the slightly increased gas mileage which has been as much as 2 miles per gallon at around 85 mph. There is no problem with clearance. The difference in height is mere millimeters. I have seen tire expansion at speed demonstrated on a test stand. The tire grew about four inches in overall diameter - at 270+ mph. This was on an LSR streamliner at Bub's in Grass Valley four years ago. Somehow, I doubt that my street speeds will get high enough to worry about tire carcass growth. For danged sure, 200 mph is well out of reach for any streetable Moto Guzzi!

[Janusz]

...because the increased tire circumference has the tach and ear rpm calibration off.

But Carl, your tire circumference is DECREASED now not increased...

[docc]

I dunno. 60% of 170 is 102mm and 70% of160 is 112 mm making the 160/70 a taller tire , therefor more circumference. yet if you could figure actual tire size this way ( I'm not convinced the real measure comes out like this) the 160/70 would be 20mm (3/4") taller! It just seems incredible.

Using the same questionable method makes a 160/60 12mm (1/2") shorter. Still there's got to be enough difference in the circumference to skew the gas mileage computation from speedo error. Yet:taller tire= taller gear=more fuel economy.

Damn, now I'm dizzy again !

[Mike Stewart]

I think the only real way to figure tire height is to check with the tire manufacture. Different brand tires equal different heights. This is why racers usualy stick to one brand. Just by changing tire brands they would have to raise or lower the forks to bring the head angle back to specs. I have read this many times in tire test.

 

Carl, if I remember correctly, you had Z3 Metzelers on your V11 not the M1 sportecs. The Z3 tires are less rounded than the M1's and most likely the Pirelli tire you just installed. If you remembered when I had the Sportecs on, I loved the way they turned in but hated the high speed sweepers because the bike would just not settle down. Any type of bump or rider input caused stains in my panties. It was very nervous! (the bike not me) Some tires just do not work on some bikes. My Falco came with the Z3 Metzelers and the thing turned like a Mack truck. Switching to the M1 Sportec's off my V11 transformed the Falco into a flickable road racer.

So the moral of the story is, not all tires are made equal in the biking world, what works on one brand of bike may not work on another.

 

Mike (needing to go for a ride)

[callison]

The Metzelers were gone at 5400 miles. I went to M1's because there were some on the shelf at the local BMW shop. The front one is still okay, the back one retired at - 5400 miles. Now there is a definite mismatch now between tire types as well as rear size, but since I'm primarily commuting, I could probably get away with riding on fat rubber bands... I'm hoping that a full set of new Pirelli MTR23/24's will be less susceptible to bumps, which really may be just the result of the current tire type mismatch. I do know that the MTR's feel just a tad less tractive then the Sportecs when leaned over, but my riding style is not at all extreme so I can live quite handlily with them. The likelyhood of getting 7500 miles plus better gas mileage and having commonality among two bikes is a plus as well. I did like the Sportecs though.

 

These bikes are not that awesomely powerful, can anyone really prove that a wider rear tire is an advantage on the V11 Sports? I know that it's the style, but I think that some people place too much in visual attributes than actual performance.

 

Although the Sport 1100i is noted for it's slow steering, it is at least as much fun to ride as the V11 (because it's a Guzzi - what else?) and is absolutley rock stable. The only time you can get a wiggle out of it is when you're accelerating, leaned over in a curve and hit a good bump and your body mass is not on the center of the centrifugal force vector. It'll shake it's head a tad there and then keep charging. The V11 Sport does exactly the same thing, but shakes a tad harder and noticeably longer. What I think I may be saying here, is that I think that the Guzzis respond better to the Hailwood style of riding - tucked in and stable - rather than the Roberts style of hanging off. There's a lot to be said for stability - it keeps your confidence level higher.

[Cliff]

Carl, do you still have the steering dampener on. Mine leaked and developed air bubbles so I shelved it. Made a huge difference. Most of the weight of the bike was the dampener, even at the lowest settings.. Still stable at the speeds I ride at.