Yamaha R3 Forums banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hey guys, interested in buying the S21 evo, they have a stock 110/70 front but only a 150/60 rear. How much is this going to affect my riding?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
73 Posts
Hey guys, interested in buying the S21 evo, they have a stock 110/70 front but only a 150/60 rear. How much is this going to affect my riding?
I've been debating the same thing. I really need to order a new set and I can't decide if I want to get one of the few remaining sets of S20 Evos, go with the supposed better mileage from the S21's, pay too much for Pirelli's or get some dirt cheap Shinkos.....

Has anyone here tried out the S21's yet?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
542 Posts
If you guys still have chicken strips on the 140s,the different size should make little to no difference. If you are riding the 140 to the edges you might notice a difference in feel when leaned over all the way.

Don't have any direct experience with s20/21s so I can't comment.

I can comment on shinkos though, as I've run a few sets on other bikes. If you aren't canyon riding or tracking, the shinkos are probably fine. They are a little heavier and flex a little more, but they are an awesome value for commuting or cruising. On our bike with such little power, I don't think they'd be all that bad. I was spinning them somewhat frequently with 100+hp on spirited rides, but I still got 9,000 miles out of rear (Raven 009s) for $100 installed. Can't complain about that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
I've been debating the same thing. I really need to order a new set and I can't decide if I want to get one of the few remaining sets of S20 Evos, go with the supposed better mileage from the S21's, pay too much for Pirelli's or get some dirt cheap Shinkos.....

Has anyone here tried out the S21's yet?
Actually oddly enough they have a 140/70 rear... I just found it on a random bike website that sells. You just have to find them. I still sorta want the 150 rear just for aesthetics. And if these guys have been saying there wont be too much different i might just go for it. Dont get the s20 get the s21 they are ALOT better in overall everything. From mileage to quality control testing different road variables. The pirellis will defiantly wear faster. Ill let you know if i end up buying them, still got some rubber on my stock at 5900 miles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
73 Posts
I talked to Kevin Hunley from Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations two weeks ago about the S21 in 140/70 and they currently have no plan of bringing them to market in that size, but the 150/60 will work just fine. As far as reviews, the S21 is a superior tire for sure to the S20 EVO. I for one am waiting for a review on the 150/60 from an R3 owner or similar 300cc bike owner before I spend the money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
A 150/60 is wider, yes, but it will lower your rear ride height. Unless you have a shock with length adjustment to change compensate, a lower rear ride height will slow your steering and R3s already have a pretty low rear.

CJ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
143 Posts
I copied this from a guy with a ninja.

"Let us consider the stock tyre sizes;
Front: 110/70/17, which is 110 mm is the breath of the tyre, 70% is aspect ratio (height) of the tyre and 17 inch is the wheel size on which this tyre will fit. Similarly rear is: 140/70/17.

What is interesting is the height of the tyres. The calculation of the height of stock tyres is as follows:
Front: 70% (aspect ratio) of 110mm (width of tyre) = 77mm.
Rear: 70% (aspect ratio) of 140 mm (width of tyre) = 98 mm.

Thus there is a difference of 21 mm between both tyre heights. This 21 mm difference is quite a crucial number. The difference is quite intentional on the part of Kawasaki engineers and it has implications in steering geometry, weight distribution between front and rear of the bike and the overall handling of the bike. In order to maintain the handling characteristics of the bike it is extremely crucial that the new tyres are able to maintain this height difference or come as close to this number as possible.

Considering the above, while a M5 tyre was available in stock size (110/70/17) for the front, the rear tyre 150 mm tyre was not available in 70% aspect ratio. The rear size was available only in 60% aspect ratio and below.

Therefore, if we had considered a front 110/70/17 and a rear 150/60/17, we would have the front tyre height at 77mm and the rear 90mm. The difference in height would have been 13mm instead of the original 21mm. This 8mm change would have a profound impact on the handling of the bike as it is lower at the rear than front. This changes the weight distribution and steering geometry, which effect handling adversely."

I'm not a pro and can't ride the R3 at 100% of its capabilities so I don't believe in the "profound impact on handling" for me personally. I say got for it unless you're dragging elbows on the track
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
424 Posts
A 150/60/17 will only be 0.6 inches lower than the 140/70/17, the tire will also pinch the rim a small amount meaning the difference will be even smaller.
I seriously doubt it will be noticeable to 99% of riders.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
227 Posts
I wonder how much acclaimed extra 30% mileage put into reality for the tires. Other report s20 evo doing 4000miles on R3. It'd still be 5000miles
I guess it's pretty decent for canyon riders, still not an option for commuters who wanna ride aggressive in the weekend.
R3 stock tires doing ~10k on the rear(I changed mine at 9100 and even shop told me there's another 1k in it, I just changed them to shinko 880/881 anyway for riding mountain pass every day for commute this month). Half of that is just not a too great of a choice. I can take 80% but just not half of it(just work to change tire even not too difficult)
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top