- Joined
- Jul 16, 2010
- Messages
- 64
Hi, i'm looking at the avon am26 tires and just wanted to double check that the 100/90 tires onto 2x19 rims is the original setup up? iknow stupid question but thought i should make sure.
Thanks
Thanks
double checking
- Thread starter joeboomer999
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2011
- Messages
- 476
joeboomer999 said:
I am pretty sure that is the correct size. I found the best price here:
https://www.denniskirk.com/search/avon+100%252F90-19.q
Don't forget tubes and rimstrips.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2010
- Messages
- 5,947
Some are fitting differant size front to rear . :mrgreen:
EDIT , like 3.60 front , 410 R ., or 410 F 425 R .
Touring heavily laden a bit more rubber will be adviseable Rear , or if youve a heavy right arm .
EDIT , like 3.60 front , 410 R ., or 410 F 425 R .
Touring heavily laden a bit more rubber will be adviseable Rear , or if youve a heavy right arm .
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2004
- Messages
- 21,090
batrider said:
Avon Roadrunners were not introduced until mid 1975.
The Avon alternative at that time would have been the "Avon GP". Inflation pressures for "TT100", "Avon GP" and "Dunlop ribbed" are quoted in the Riders handbooks up to the 850 MkIII, however there is no reference to Roadrunners.
Previous discussion: post10103.html
Avon GPs were still being fitted as late as 1975-76 as this photo from the Wolverhampton Archive shows:
(There are more Norton Villiers factory photos to look at-if anyone is interested?)
http://blackcountryhistory.org/collecti ... mit=Search
forgot about the Avon GP. I did not see that many here in the states but it was a pretty good working tyre. they both suffer from the straight center line tread and want to follow ANY irregularity in the pavement where the new AM 26 will mostly cure this.
L.A.B. said:
powerdoc
VIP MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2011
- Messages
- 356
You might look at this reply I received from the NOC Commando specialist when I inquired abt the WM2 vs WM3 :
Dan
apologies for the delay I missed this.
The WM3 can be fitted with no real problems, you are right the recommended rim for a 100/90 is a WM3, have used both to good effect.I always wondered if it was a cost saving measure by the factory. One of the US Atlas models was fitted with a WM3 but it had a corrsepondingly wider profile tyre and was primarily intended for an off road type use, it is interesting that Triumph used the WM3 on the T140E with a 4.10.
The choice is yours
All the best
John
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Kingloff
To: JD
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2011 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: Rebuild
I guess one thing I should seriously ask about is wheel width for an Avon Roadrider 100/90 tire. I'm replacing the wheels and the stock is WM2. Avon recommends min of WM3 width. I've read a lot of posts going both with the 2 and the 3. Is there a reason not to go to the WM3? Thanks! Dan
Avon suggests the WM3 as the min width although, if you do a search in this forum, it's been discussed at length as some in the forum run the WM2's.
Also better price: http://www.americanmototire.com/catalog ... Path=33_61
Dan
apologies for the delay I missed this.
The WM3 can be fitted with no real problems, you are right the recommended rim for a 100/90 is a WM3, have used both to good effect.I always wondered if it was a cost saving measure by the factory. One of the US Atlas models was fitted with a WM3 but it had a corrsepondingly wider profile tyre and was primarily intended for an off road type use, it is interesting that Triumph used the WM3 on the T140E with a 4.10.
The choice is yours
All the best
John
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Kingloff
To: JD
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2011 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: Rebuild
I guess one thing I should seriously ask about is wheel width for an Avon Roadrider 100/90 tire. I'm replacing the wheels and the stock is WM2. Avon recommends min of WM3 width. I've read a lot of posts going both with the 2 and the 3. Is there a reason not to go to the WM3? Thanks! Dan
Avon suggests the WM3 as the min width although, if you do a search in this forum, it's been discussed at length as some in the forum run the WM2's.
Also better price: http://www.americanmototire.com/catalog ... Path=33_61
although a WM3 is the min. recommended width I have not seen any issues using the stock WM2 rim's. you can have clearance issues with a WM3 rim and a 100/90 tire on the front and it WILL slow down the turn in characteristic's. also if you change to non flanged alloy rim's it will lighten up the handling by a large margin. if you are really concerned about it use a WM3 100/90 rear and a WM2 90/90 front.
powerdoc said:
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2010
- Messages
- 64
Thanks for the speedy replys,
Would it be bad to fit a 100/90 onto 2x19? or is there a better choice/size of tire?
Would it be bad to fit a 100/90 onto 2x19? or is there a better choice/size of tire?
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2010
- Messages
- 5,947
What year / series is the bile and what use are you putting it too ? ?
Early machine in twisty country roads youd go narrow , for drifting the bends .
Heavily laden two up touring , youd go for more rubber .
Not many people wear the sides of the tyres first . Wider rim will make better use of the rubber on tarmac .
Narrow stuffs good for deep gravel . Bikes ran scrawneyer tires in the 50s , the narrow rear is a throwback to then , essentially. WM3 Fr & WM4 R would be usefull for a laden tourer . WM 2 F , WM3 rear , 18 or 19 makes sense .
Like DogT says Early bikes ran a 3.00 section tyre Front , Fastbacks etc , and the PR was seen with a 3.00 Dunlop
race tyre front, as were half the F-750 machines . Or 16 in. for sidecar raceing . :lol:
The narrower front gets sharper lighter steering , Rake and Trail of the fastback the same as drum 750 Roadsters ? ?
Its a bit like cars ; Scrawney rims with biscuit tyres let you slide it round with gay abandon .
wide rims and tyres tend to grip , but dont like marbles .
Pays to go for a bit of grip on the back though , without going overboard .
Early machine in twisty country roads youd go narrow , for drifting the bends .
Heavily laden two up touring , youd go for more rubber .
Not many people wear the sides of the tyres first . Wider rim will make better use of the rubber on tarmac .
Narrow stuffs good for deep gravel . Bikes ran scrawneyer tires in the 50s , the narrow rear is a throwback to then , essentially. WM3 Fr & WM4 R would be usefull for a laden tourer . WM 2 F , WM3 rear , 18 or 19 makes sense .
Like DogT says Early bikes ran a 3.00 section tyre Front , Fastbacks etc , and the PR was seen with a 3.00 Dunlop
race tyre front, as were half the F-750 machines . Or 16 in. for sidecar raceing . :lol:
The narrower front gets sharper lighter steering , Rake and Trail of the fastback the same as drum 750 Roadsters ? ?
Its a bit like cars ; Scrawney rims with biscuit tyres let you slide it round with gay abandon .
wide rims and tyres tend to grip , but dont like marbles .
Pays to go for a bit of grip on the back though , without going overboard .
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2010
- Messages
- 64
its a 73 750 commando. and nothin to far on either end just general riding.
bill said:
I have to disagree with you on this. Just because the 100/90-19 is about the same width as the 4.10-19 doesn't mean they are the same tire. they share the same width, but that's about it.
Take a coffee cup and trace a couple circles in a piece of paper, mark one 4.10 and erase the bottom 15% off the bottom. Mark the other one 100/90 and erase the bottom 20%. They both have the same width but the 100/90 is much shorter, that's why Avon calls them a "low profile equivalent". You can see at the bottom where the bead is going to be it is wider on the 100/90. You can mount the 100/90 on the same rim width as the 4.10 and it will turn out looking like a 4.10, but it needs a wider rim for them to work as designed. The sidewall on the 100/90 is not as stiff as the 4.10. It relies on the broad stance of a wider rim for it's strength. The tread is going to squirm on the rim, it shows up as wobble, wobble is a function of sidewall stiffness. That's why they recommend a 2.5" rim.
bob
I did not say it was an EXACT replacement but the closest replacement with the metric system. if you want to stay with the old style tires that is up to them. I am still very happy with the 100/90 rear 90/90 front on WM2 wheels also if you look at an earlier post I did tell the poster that if he was uncomfortable with the WM2 than to step up to the WM3
I did not say it was an EXACT replacement but the closest replacement with the metric system. if you want to stay with the old style tires that is up to them. I am still very happy with the 100/90 rear 90/90 front on WM2 wheels also if you look at an earlier post I did tell the poster that if he was uncomfortable with the WM2 than to step up to the WM3
rpatton said:
The only reason I have any feelings on the matter is that I put a WM2-19 shouldered Akront on the front of my bike when I rebuilt it 15 years ago. Every time it gets a little squirrely I kick myself and think about getting a WM3. I still haven't changed it. It would have to be an Excel but it won't match the Akront in the back so I'm in for it if I ever decide to get off my ass and do something about it. It could be I'm putting too much in to it.bill said:
- Status
