BMW K1600 Forum banner

321 - 340 of 418 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,077 Posts
One thing to keep in mind is that the tires that have rubbed have been significantly over the specified width. I think this is a tire problem, not a BMW problem.
It may very well be, but didn‘t a couple, including the PR5GT, and I think the Angel GT II, specs allow for up to 203mm, while the Bridgestones were over a full cm narrower, with a size 190 that was actually about 190? Has BMW ever published a specified width, other than the tire size itself?

I thought guys here supposedly in the know debunked my first thought, which was a 190 tire ought to be about 190, and if your 190 is over 200 (or exactly 200, in my case), it’s out of spec. by definition, and the rest didn’t matter, so either they designed a tire too wide for the bike, or they mis-manufactured a batch of tires, but either way it was clearly the tire companies’ goof.

And some of those who would seem to know more than me indicated it wasn’t remotely that simple, so....???
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,077 Posts
FYI
2016 GTL 41,789 miles
190/55/17 Dunlop RS3 with 8,912 miles
Clearance 0.145" measured using a tapered wedge

I will be installing an Avon Storm 3D of the same size later this week and will report the clearance afterward.

As an unbiased bystander (I haven't purchased the Michelin 5GT) this whole rubbing thing just surfaced since the 5 GT tire has been available and being used. With these bikes being out for almost 9 years now I think the age old question "what was changed recently" comes into heavy play.

With so many other models of Michelin tires and brands of tires available why would you want to install a 5GT on your bike?
Jim, I’m excited to hear your results, including wear.

I know on my old Warrior, most went with the Battlax, but I got much better results with the cheaper Avon Storms, on both wear and wet traction, which made me a believer in the company, so if their basic ST, non-GT tire works even close to the RS3s, it’ll be nice to have another quality, value option.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,077 Posts
That was my initial impression. The tire size molded into the rubber should be accurate. If it's really 200mm wide, it should be called a 200.
Nice to know an engineer thinks so, too. I remember thinking, “If it’s not that simple, it dang well oughta be!” Design or manufacturing, I don’t care; if I bought a 190 from your company, it oughta be close to a 190 mounted, even allowing for slight lip variances on the wheels.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,982 Posts
The size categories like 190 mm refer to the usable tread width, which is not identical with the widest part of the tire. Michelin has a very pronounced rib that could be a part of the clearance issue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
386 Posts
When a manufacturer specifies a certain tire size, I think their responsibility ends at that point. A tire manufacturer can make a product of any dimension they want, but if they claim it is a proper fit for a particular size specification, in my opinion it should not deviate significantly from that specification. Conceivably, someone could make a tire with a tread width of 190mm but a total width of 240mm. What size do they assign to that?
At some point, a definition has to be a definition. A 190mm tire will fit just fine in the K1600. The problem seems to be in the error tolerance.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,939 Posts
Jim, I’m excited to hear your results, including wear.
I ran a previous set of Avon Storm 3D on my bike and got 9,215 miles on them. I don't feel like I ride conservatively and always have my throttle response set to Dynamic. I do a fair amount of mountain roads but also lots of Interstates. Probably 80% of the time I'm on trips so the bike is loaded down with gear. I do ride solo 98% of the time.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,879 Posts
It may very well be, but didn‘t a couple, including the PR5GT, and I think the Angel GT II, specs allow for up to 203mm, while the Bridgestones were over a full cm narrower, with a size 190 that was actually about 190? Has BMW ever published a specified width, other than the tire size itself?

I thought guys here supposedly in the know debunked my first thought, which was a 190 tire ought to be about 190, and if your 190 is over 200 (or exactly 200, in my case), it’s out of spec. by definition, and the rest didn’t matter, so either they designed a tire too wide for the bike, or they mis-manufactured a batch of tires, but either way it was clearly the tire companies’ goof.

And some of those who would seem to know more than me indicated it wasn’t remotely that simple, so....???
That was my initial impression. The tire size molded into the rubber should be accurate. If it's really 200mm wide, it should be called a 200. Controlling the mold dimension isn't a black art.

All items are made to a +/- tolerance. It appears tires are about +/- 7 percent (based on 190 vs. 203). Some things are made to tighter tolerance, such as engine/transmission parts, but they still have ranges of tolerances.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,939 Posts
All items are made to a +/- tolerance. It appears tires are about +/- 7 percent (based on 190 vs. 203). Some things are made to tighter tolerance, such as engine/transmission parts, but they still have ranges of tolerances.
(y)
(y)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
932 Posts
Yeah, folks' pics have made me think that from the beginning, as well my own finger just feeling the inside of my own swingarm. Not the best place to shave pennies, pardon the pun, in the manufacturing process.

Perhaps the ultimate irony is that the small rub may have polished some people's swingarms just enough they won't have issues going forward. In all seriousness, if I had the rub, it would make me mad, but there's sufficient metal there that the loss of some shouldn't make a difference, and I'd bet anything that even if BMW were hounded into fixing the issue, it would involve the equivalent of applying a Dremel, anyway. Which somehow would make me even angrier than if I did it myself. "Let me get this right...I'm supposed to schedule a service appointment and bring the bike in to you, so you can grind a little spot down, just like I could do myself in my own garage?"

I wouldn't want to play around with spacers, and I don't see BMW giving us new swingarm casings with a relieved area.
I tend to agree, the only thing I can see with it being recorded with BMW and against a Vin Number there could be an issue that they may well look at if they had enough issues/cases to make them look at it. Not too much unlike the issue with the recall on our transmissions, they may have done nothing if they only heard of 1 or 2 cases but with multiple problems, then they had to acknowledge they had a problem and look for a fix. So it may well be the same in this case who knows. If we all go ahead and fix our own issues and I agree we may well do it faster and better than BMW dealerships in some cases. But it is not helping those that can't do any more than turning a key or push a button. ( Not everyone is mechanical minded.) Who knows the casting molds may be older than most of our members including me for that matter so they may need to be replaced to fix the issue for future bikes or the owners with the current issue. Just my thoughts for all they are worth.

Now with all that I said, I am going outside and uncover my bike take the bags off so I can inspect my swing arm.

Awww wow I ran outside like kid chasing their dog off the lead lol . I put the bike on the centre stand got under it checked the gap that was close enough to 10 mm or 0.39 inches clearance between the tyre and swingarm. The tyre I am running was on the bike from day one it is a Metzeler Road Tech O1. I am happy with that so lets hope the guys having problems can find the solution asap.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
932 Posts
All items are made to a +/- tolerance. It appears tires are about +/- 7 percent (based on 190 vs. 203). Some things are made to tighter tolerance, such as engine/transmission parts, but they still have ranges of tolerances.
Correct and the very reason they supply shims for the transmission fix on the recall. Some bike transmissions need shimming, while others are a neet fit and don't need any. I seem to remember the techs saying my transmission tolerances were spot on and they did not need to use any of the supplied shims for my bike.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,250 Posts
Last question: If you were walking up to an airplane to board it and you saw a tire plug sticking out of a tire would you get on that plane?
I have personally landed an airplane with a flat tire and I did not died.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
543 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
390 Posts
When a manufacturer specifies a certain tire size, I think their responsibility ends at that point. A tire manufacturer can make a product of any dimension they want, but if they claim it is a proper fit for a particular size specification, in my opinion it should not deviate significantly from that specification. Conceivably, someone could make a tire with a tread width of 190mm but a total width of 240mm. What size do they assign to that?
At some point, a definition has to be a definition. A 190mm tire will fit just fine in the K1600. The problem seems to be in the error tolerance.
There are two factors here:
  1. Nomenclature (what something's called)
  2. Standards (a description of characteristics and their tolerances)
Taking the points in turn, some people are getting hung up on the fact that the tyre has "190/55 ZR 17" moulded into the side of it. This does not mean that the nominal width is 190mm +/- a tolerance factor. It is simply a size designation, i.e. a reference to a set of dimensions, just like a part number. The appropriate dimensions (max / min / etc. for width, overall diameter, and other characteristics) are contained in a set of Standards. Instead of "190/55 ZR 17", the tyre could be called (and have moulded into it's sidewall) "Carrot Size", likewise a "120/70 ZR 17" tyre could be called "Onion Size" and as long as the Standards describe the dimensions for "Carrot Size" and "Onion Size" a vehicle manufacturer could specify "Onion Size" for the front tyre and "Carrot Size" for the rear and so long as everything - including the vehicle - is designed and manufactured respecting the Standards, it will all work fine.

Now the Standards. For a 190/55 ZR 17 tyre the ETRTO Standards specify a maximum overall width of 203mm. I have no idea what the minimum width specified is, but within reason that's an irrelevance because a tyre narrower than that won't foul on anything if the vehicle is designed and manufactured to accommodate the maximum width that the Standards permit. The point of this is that someone could not "make a tire with a tread width of 190mm but a total width of 240mm" and call it a "190/55 ZR 17" as it doesn't meet the criteria laid out in the Standards for that tyre designation.

Bottom line is that if a vehicle manufacturer specifies a particular tyre size designation, then any and every tyre manufactured in accordance with the Standards that describe the size limits of that particular size designation will fit without issue.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am informed that the actual maximum measured width of the 190/55 ZR 17 PR5GT in homologation testing was 201.9mm. This means that, absent a manufacturing fault, examples of this tyre will never be wider than 201.9mm, which is less than the maximum permitted width in the ETRTO Standards.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,879 Posts
There are two factors here:
  1. Nomenclature (what something's called)
  2. Standards (a description of characteristics and their tolerances)
Taking the points in turn, some people are getting hung up on the fact that the tyre has "190/55 ZR 17" moulded into the side of it. This does not mean that the nominal width is 190mm +/- a tolerance factor. It is simply a size designation, i.e. a reference to a set of dimensions, just like a part number. The appropriate dimensions (max / min / etc. for width, overall diameter, and other characteristics) are contained in a set of Standards. Instead of "190/55 ZR 17", the tyre could be called (and have moulded into it's sidewall) "Carrot Size", likewise a "120/70 ZR 17" tyre could be called "Onion Size" and as long as the Standards describe the dimensions for "Carrot Size" and "Onion Size" a vehicle manufacturer could specify "Onion Size" for the front tyre and "Carrot Size" for the rear and so long as everything - including the vehicle - is designed and manufactured respecting the Standards, it will all work fine.

Now the Standards. For a 190/55 ZR 17 tyre the ETRTO Standards specify a maximum overall width of 203mm. I have no idea what the minimum width specified is, but within reason that's an irrelevance because a tyre narrower than that won't foul on anything if the vehicle is designed and manufactured to accommodate the maximum width that the Standards permit. The point of this is that someone could not "make a tire with a tread width of 190mm but a total width of 240mm" and call it a "190/55 ZR 17" as it doesn't meet the criteria laid out in the Standards for that tyre designation.

Bottom line is that if a vehicle manufacturer specifies a particular tyre size designation, then any and every tyre manufactured in accordance with the Standards that describe the size limits of that particular size designation will fit without issue.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am informed that the actual maximum measured width of the 190/55 ZR 17 PR5GT in homologation testing was 201.9mm. This means that, absent a manufacturing fault, examples of this tyre will never be wider than 201.9mm, which is less than the maximum permitted width in the ETRTO Standards.

I disagree. The tire sizes are indeed dimensions, by definition, but with specified and acceptable tolerances above and/or below that amount. Every tire reference you look at says the first number is the width in mm, the 2nd number is the height at a percentage of width.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
543 Posts
I have various shoes and boots that are of the same size and width to fit my foot (more or less...obviously tolerances within a shoe or boot are not regimented), but they have quite a variety of soles and some have longer outside measurements in the length and the width and the height than others...perhaps, we have tires that meet the proper spec for the given wheel size and aspect/tread dimensions but there is a slight geometry difference due to design? Why aren't the Darksiders rubbing???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
204 Posts
Man, this sucks for the guys having the rub. I just bought new tires a couple of weeks ago (right before this issue popped up) and was considering the Michelins but decided to stick with Dunlops mainly because there were no long term reviews of the Michelins yet. Read this thread, then went out and looked at the clearance on the new Dunlops (literally just a couple hundred miles on them) and my highly calibrated eyeball says there’s almost 4mm of clearance. I hope there’s a resolution for this soon for you guys. Whatever is causing this, (although at this point, I suspect a tire issue rather than a bike issue) should not be happening
 
321 - 340 of 418 Posts
Top