New set of tires.

buzzstpoint

XS400 Enthusiast
Messages
52
Reaction score
1
Points
8
Location
Stevens Point, WI
I'm starting my budget rebuild of this bike. I got the front wheel off and going to buy the tires.
Here the tires I picked.
Kenda K657 Challenger Rear 120/90-16
Kenda K657 Challenger Front 100/90-18

Any thoughts on the tires? Good all around cheap tire?
 
Kenda make good tires. The front tire stock size is 90/90-18 so expect your speedo to be off a little.
 
A lot of people plus size the front for aesthetic reasons. The stock front tire is little, but it will weigh less which means you'll get better braking and acceleration. It will be slightly more responsive to steering inputs as well. This could be significant on a small motorcycle, but I haven't actually tested it systematically against the larger tire. From my experience a 100/90/18 front doesn't suffer in terms of cornering grip; it doesn't leave me wanting anyway. If you're a hooligan like me you'll appreciate the grip, but most people would get more out of increased braking and acceleration in real life, day to day, etc. Any larger than a 100/90/18 and you'll start getting some wonky handling due to an odd profile shape and flexing side walls in addition to significantly reduced acceleration and braking.

Just decide what you think is more important.
 
The difference between a 90 and 100 is noticeable visually, yes. There should be lots of photos on here with both sizes. A google image search for xs400s might also work. I can tell the difference right away just by looking.

The difference in cornering grip will only be discernible if you're very experienced and in tune with your motorcycle. If you can ride a motorcycle and give feedback about how suspension settings should be adjusted to improve performance you'll notice.

The day to day effects of enhanced braking/acceleration from running a smaller (stock) tire is something everyone will likely be able to notice.

Also, when I say "handling is improved" or "grip is improved" I'm not talking about normal or even spirited cornering. I'm talking about dragging knee through the turns, pegs scraping the ground, riding at the limit, etc. Hopefully this gives you an idea about how practical my observations are.
 
On my 80 had a 130/90-16 rear when I got it. I pulled it off this winter and put a stock 120/90-16 then weighed them (both kenda) and there was a two pound difference. That is a lot of rotating mass to loose. It is still winter here so I won't be able to get it of for a while but I should notice the change a lot. I don't know what kind of differences in the weight of the front is but you should feel it.
 
Bcware you need to make a video of you riding to show us what these bikes are capable of. If it doesn't already exist.

I am planning to put something up this season. I need all of the sand and ice off the road first, however :p

two pound difference. That is a lot of rotating mass to lose

I've been doing more research on this and its effect on braking/acceleration. It's always very difficult to find good information among the thousands of heated forum arguments out there.

This link is very good. It's about cars, but covers every component of the drive train with formulas, calculators, and great explanations. Much of it will apply to motorcycles.

http://stephenmason.com/cars/rotationalinertia.html

An excerpt:

"The high school physics answer is that the rotational inertia effects braking exactly as much as it effects acceleration. After all, anything you spun up must now be spun down. As usual, though, the high school physics answer is wrong in the practical sense. First off, you don't need to de-spin everything. You can put the clutch in and come to a complete stop with the engine and flywheel still happily revving away. More important, though, is that acceleration is power limited, and braking is traction limited (for the most part, anyway). Let's look at this in more detail.
When you accelerate, the engine has to spin up the various rotating bits of the drive train and use the remaining power and available traction to accelerate the car down the road. As long as you're not traction limited, any reduction in rotational inertia amounts to more engine power that's available for accelerating the car. If you ARE traction limited, say in first gear, then rotational inertia reductions won't improve your acceleration in THAT PHASE of acceleration...though it will likely help on the high end when you're no longer traction limited. And the static weight reduction that usually accompanies rotational inertia reduction will still be of benefit.

When you slam on the brakes, the brake pads have to de-spin wheels and drive train, and the tires' contact patches have to slow the car. This means that if your brakes can already lock up all four tires (and any healthy brake system should be able to, ABS notwithstanding), reductions in rotational inertia won't help. You can already bring the rotating assemblies to a complete stop at speed, it's the tires traction with the road that limits your stopping distance. This is for a single panic stop; rotational inertia reductions will still pay benefits (albeit small ones) in terms of reduced brake load (heating) and better fade resistance for repeated stops.

In both cases, rotational inertia has an impact when you're power limited (in terms of engine power or braking power), but becomes non-important when you're traction limited. The reason why rotational inertia is more important for acceleration is that the average street car is power limited under acceleration and traction limited under braking. And just to be clear, lighter wheels an tires and such will STILL HELP, it's just that you won't get the multiplicative effects given by the calculators below."

and of course:

"Shaving a pound from your tires is equivalent to shaving at most 2 pounds of non-rotating weight. That's PER TIRE, so a pound off each tire could worth close to 8 pounds of weight reduction. For wheels, the multiplier is closer to 1.6, so saving 5 pounds per wheel (20 total) would feel like a static weight reduction of 32 pounds. For brake discs, it can be as low as 1.2. Regardless of the equivalent weight ratio, you're best off reducing weight as much as possible, as you might expect."
 
Good read. So since our bikes have little traction issues ( don't tend to lock up tires or do burn outs:laugh:) and more of a power limit, less rotational mass is a great benefit. I will be able to tell more when I get the 80 out this year. I have pulled 2lbs off the rear wheel and 3lbs off the front wheel. But also 12.5lbs total this year and 75 from stock.
 
Yes exactly. A good first gear pull off the line should benefit quite a bit from that kind of weight reduction.
 
I found lighter tires were a huge difference on my quad. Especially when adding resistance to them such as mud. Having 5 lbs lighter tires than my friends identical quad. Year and displacement. Was night and day difference.
 
Back
Top