[ozzy701]

Hey everyone this is my first new topic post. Anyway, i just installed the Metzler 200mm rear tire on my '01 Vavulsa, and i wanted to throw my two cents out. Here goes:

I found this tire for $192 shipped (this is the cheapest i found it, for anyones refrence i found it at sporttour.com). Most other places wanted $200-$300 at my local steeler, so right off the bat the metzler was more expensive which for cheapskates like me is an immediate drawback, but i figured 170mm to 200mm, worth the extra $$. (The stock dunlop was around $100 for a 170mm.)

Okay so thats the money issues. Now, my friend has a VTX1800 with a Metzler 200mm which is a FAT tire (what you'd expect the 200 to look like)!! so thats what im expecting (a rounded car tire) what i get is a "200mm" tire which is .5" wider then the stock dunlop 170mm (measured outside to outside of the tread including curve on both tires). Needless to say i was a bit peaved i payed twice as much for .5" Im a mechanic and work on cars, planes, and bikes, so i know that different manufacturers have different measurments which is retarded. But i saw a Metzler 200 on the VTX so you'd think they'd be the same width... not so...

That covers the sizing. As far as the ride quality and my feelings on the tire thus far (100 miles on it so far) I must say i really am pleased with the handeling and comfort characteristics of this tire. (could be because the old tire was worn almost flat) The handeling really is great. Its well improved over the dunlop many times over.

After all was said and done if you have the money and just want the tire to say 200mm, then get the Metzler it is a great pricey tire. If you are on a budget and want to get the most bang for your buck and dont mind that the same sized tire minus 1/2" says 170 instead of 200 then i would deffinately go with the dunlop.

Alright thats my opinion, i hope it helps someone in deciding what tire to replace there worn one with. Feel free to comment if you disagree or want to add anything, or tell me to make shorter posts.

 

[Rizzo]

Thanks for the review and the honesty. It saved me money when I go to replace my back tire in the future as I'll just stick to the stock width now.

Happy riding!

 

[Fstpicker]

Thanks for your review.

As a matter of fact, I just ordered a Metzler rear tire today online from a place called Motorcycle Superstore. It is a ME 880 Marathon Wide Whitewall 170/80HB-15 and I got it with free shipping out the door for $148.99 (including a $5 tire fee). Here's the link: http://www.motorcycle-superstore.co...ler-ME-880-Wide-White-Sidewall-Rear-Tire.aspx

I have 15K on my original IRC tires, and while having my valves adjusted, the repair guy showed me my almost bald rear tire. I didn't realize it was almost bald as I would look at the tire from the side where there is still plenty of tread left. Good thing I had this work done on it, or I might have had a disaster down the road soon.

Jeff

 

[bikerboy]

Thanks for the words...

I had Dunlop WWs on my scoot... didn't like them too much.

Got a rear flat... went with Metzler BWs (stock sizes). LOVE THEM!

I had Metzlers on my gixxer... loved them then too!

Thanks again for the review.

Ken

 

[Petey2006(No)C50C]

My next rear tire will be a 200.

Pete

 

[rcsiki]

If you are on a budget and want to get the most bang for your buck and dont mind that the same sized tire minus 1/2" says 170 instead of 200 then i would deffinately go with the dunlop.

Why Dunlop and why not a 170 Metz? Cheaper?

 

[The Captain]

Does anyone have a photo compairson of a 170 and 200 rear tire?

 

[TDragon]

Metz 200 drive shaft space

Does anyone have a photo compairson of a 170 and 200 rear tire?

But how much room is left between the tire and the drive shaft?

Here is a pic (not great quality), but you can see the space between the drive shaft and the Metzler 200 tire. Eye balling with tape measure (could not fit in nicely) looks like about 1/4 inch space. I will find something to slide in there and take a better measurement.

Here is a pic of my Metz 200 with drive shaft space.

Hopefully someone will post pic of stock 170 IRC with drive shaft space.

 

[jladd]

After reading a lot on this topic is seems as though intuitively the 200 should be noticeably wider than the 170, but in reality the difference is negligible when you slap it on your bike. Everyone seems to be very pleased with the tires performance (both 170 and 200), it just never achieves "the look" they are shooting for.

Is there a way to mod the rear fender to get an even wider tire than the 200 or is it the swing arm that gets in the way?? (I think I read it was the swing arm)

Also, can you still run a 200 if your bike is lowered? I am in need of a new set of rubber but I just lowered 2". Anyone?

 

[TDragon]

Lowered

Yes,

My bike is the pic above and I am lowered 2 inches with no problems.

 

[jimKo]

E-Bay tire 180 70\15 $110.00 plus $20.00 to ship

I see that Metzler builds a 180 for the rear also.
What's that about 3\4 of an inch less than the 200 and you could keep the chrome shaft cover too...

 

[loudlarry]

I have the 200 avon venom and I can barely fit a dime inbetween the driveshaft cover and the tire, it is bigger than the stock in every way, haven't noticed any rubbing yet 700km on the tire some where around 400 miles I guess. had me a little worried at first.
Guess the metz uses the worn metric sizing, as the avon looks much larger.

 

[RevBill]

I have the 200 avon venom and I can barely fit a dime inbetween the driveshaft cover and the tire, it is bigger than the stock in every way, haven't noticed any rubbing yet 700km on the tire some where around 400 miles I guess. had me a little worried at first.
Guess the metz uses the worn metric sizing, as the avon looks much larger.

... aha ... 200 Avon Venom ... saving the tire info for future reference ... thanks man ...

 

[Scottyd409]

From each company's websites:

Avon Width = 203 mm or 8.00 in

Metzeler Width = 207 mm or 8.15 in

Each are measured on a 5.5 in rim.

C50 has a 4 in. rim so you must subtract 5mm width for every 1/2 in decrease in rim width due to compression caused by mounting on the smaller rim. Which means the Avon now becomes 188 mm or 7.40 in and the Metzeler becomes 192 mm or 7.56 in.

Stock IRC 170/80-15 mounted on a 4 in. rim is 175 mm or 6.89 in

So, you only gain 13 mm or .51 in. with the Avon and 17 mm or .67 in. with the Metzeler when mounted on our 4 in. rims.

The bottom line; if you want a wider tire, get a wider rim. http://www.motorrad-burchard.de/pages/produkte_en.php4?produktwahl=felgen6.00x15vl8oovolusia

 

[Tx bohemian]

All this talk is fine and dandy but here is a reality story (been posted here before) :

I went from the factory 170 IRC to a Metz 180 on the same rim. The metz, to my dismay, was 1/4" narrower!!

Later I purchased a M50 rear wheel with a 170 Metz and it's 3/8" wider than the 180 metz.

Both Metz are the Marathon 880s.

Even the explaination of the rim width doesn't hold water for this experience.

The only explaination that makes sense to me was a discusion here a couple of weeks ago that the metz are made in two different contries. Possibly the reason for the discrepancies in the widths. Maybe they use different yard sticks!!

 

[Mort]

On Sunday we had 2 Volusias and 2 C50 lined up. My Maxxis looks like almost an inch wider that the other bikes.

 

[Scottyd409]

All this talk is fine and dandy but here is a reality story (been posted here before) :

I went from the factory 170 IRC to a Metz 180 on the same rim. The metz, to my dismay, was 1/4" narrower!!

Later I purchased a M50 rear wheel with a 170 Metz and it's 3/8" wider than the 180 metz.

Both Metz are the Marathon 880s.

Even the explaination of the rim width doesn't hold water for this experience.

The only explaination that makes sense to me was a discusion here a couple of weeks ago that the metz are made in two different contries. Possibly the reason for the discrepancies in the widths. Maybe they use different yard sticks!!

I suppose it's possible that they use a different yard stick in germany but consider this explanation:

The international standard allows tire manufacturers a 10% variance in the stated width of a tire.

In the case of a 170, 10% is 17 mm meaning the tire can be anywhere from 153 mm to 187 mm; the metzeler 170/80-15 is 187 mm wide (when mounted on a 4 in. rim), pushing the upper limit of the allowance.

In the case of a 180, 162 mm to 198 mm is acceptable; the Metzeler is 178 mm (when mounted on a 5 in. rim).

Again, subtract 5 mm for every 1/2 inch in rim width, and the Metzeler 180 mounted on a 4 in. rim is 168 mm wide which is 7 mm or .28 (pretty darn close to 1/4) inches narrower than the stock IRC 170 on a 4 in. rim.

There you go, clear as mud.

Why Metzeler chose to make the 170 wider than the 180 is beyond me.

 

[rcsiki]

I have the 200 avon venom and I can barely fit a dime inbetween the driveshaft cover and the tire, it is bigger than the stock in every way, haven't noticed any rubbing yet 700km on the tire some where around 400 miles I guess. had me a little worried at first.
Guess the metz uses the worn metric sizing, as the avon looks much larger.

Someone mentioned earlier on another thread the only 200 rear tire that fits Vol800/C50 is Metz 880.
Good to know Avon Venom also fits, although it's hardly pushing up the limits.

 

[Tuned200]

Why go with a fatter tire? wouldnt that hurt turn in? The whole rim logic makes sence to me. It the same logic with cars, which i deal with all the time.

I use to ride a ninja zx6. I dont recall the tire size but the guys on that site who tracked there bikes said going to a wider tire would hurt handling.

It would cause the tire to be more "rolled" for it to seal against the smaller wheel

 

[Scottyd409]

It would cause the tire to be more "rolled" for it to seal against the smaller wheel

Exactly. the tire becomes taller and narrower on the narrower rim.

Likewise, if you used a wider rim the same tire would have a wider lower profile.