I had a 190 previously.
Now I have a 180.
There is a minor height difference but I can't tell the difference on the bike. The 190 might be ever so slightly easier to get onto the center stand but it seems equally tough to me.

Now I'm anxious to hear what others say. Maybe some comparative pictures would help.

 

I've never found any advantage of a 190 over a 180. Some folks say a 190 affects (corrects) the speedometer- not on my bike. Some folks say it 's easier to put on the center stand- not on my bike. Some say the bike handles differently- I can't tell. If there's a height difference I can't tell. Maybe I'm just not sensitive enough.

 

.....Maybe I'm just not sensitive enough.

.....starting to sound like my wife.....

But that da%@ woman she's never right.

 

I have tried both sizes, and found no significant difference in any performance parameters.

 

I couldn’t tell much difference.

 

are all these responses about a 190/50 or a 190 55 ??

one would think a 55, but a FB group the other day was a 50,
guess i'm use to people stating a proper size, not just half of it then talking about it.

 

are all these responses about a 190/50 or a 190 55 ??

Yes. I tried both, no noticeable difference.

 

Never once have i given a thought to run anything but the stock 180/55 rear tire size. Personally, i think that is the perfect rear tire size and overall profile (yes, i know if varies some from tire to tire) so would never try anything else.
I did change the rear on my FZ1 from the stock 190/50 to a 190/55.... and that made a HUGE difference. Then again, that bike has a 6" rim and designed for a wider tire.
Apart from looks of a wider tire, i don't see any benefit of putting any sized 190 on a 5.5" equipped rear rim on the FJR.

 

I follow this logic. The only bike have a changed a tire size on was a Concours 14. I too went from a 190/50 to a 190/55 on that bike. That bike felt much better. More responsive handling without being twitchy. I had a Ninja 1000 which many people were also making that same change but I never felt the need to on that bike.

I have learned over the years to quit "fixing" things that never felt broke.

 

It's not perhaps truly justifiable as you have to pay more, but I run a 190/55 all the time now. Because of the slightly higher profile, the rear end is 1/4-3/8" higher depending on brand (if you can find that info any more). Most specs say OK for 5.5-6.0" rims. It doesn't compensate fully for the speedo error on Canadian FJR's but may on US due to less error, I go by GPS speed. A higher rear end means slightly better turn-in and handling. You could simulate that by raising your forks in the triple tree.

 

Some simply have to change things to make it uniquely theirs. Because Yamaha knows nothing and The Internet knows everything!

For many there is that lure to "make mine better", that if 180 is good then 190 must be better. That if a 1300 FJR is good this year then the next model update to 1400 must be even better! Its a bigger number! In engineering we call this "bean counting."

If in a bind needing a tire right now and only 190/50-17 was available then I'd take it, even if it was a junk Cycle Gear 2-for-$129 Continental. Perhaps otherwise if one is curious then try a 190. I bought different tires every time but once for my FJR. Has been a long time since I have had a PR4GT so perhaps its time again when the Shinkos need replacement?

 

Bob, I guess I would say that going from a 180 to a 190 should theoretically give you an additional 10mm of tread width not taking the aspect ratio into account that would be about it, so if you were out really scraping the pegs the added 10mm might make a difference with a bigger (wider) foot print,, maybe.

But the aspect ratio does figure into it a bit same as the rubber compound which would probably have a bigger effect than most anything else.

The aspect ratio is a bit deceiving in that you could Taylor the tire height a bit going with a bigger aspect ratio (55 vs a 50) Which because the tire is taller will give you a slightly bigger foot print (longer).

A 50 aspect ratio means the sidewall is 50% of the width of the tread in sidewall height.. so to figure a tire height you would multiply the sidewall (aspect ratio) x2 and then add in the the rim diameter, but as I said before there are manufacturing variances so it’s close but not all that simple either. I hope this helps some.

 

Thanks Passx...imho playing with tire sizes is just another way to personalize, tweak the bike to fit my riding style.

 

The width and aspect ratio thing is complicated by the rim width remaining same. The narrower the rim the more the tire is pinched which lifts the tread away from the contact patch quicker.

But then lower the aspect ratio to lessen the angle tread leaves the contact patch and does a 190/50 counter a 180/55? Can’t really say without actual experiment and measure. Is not automatically one way or the other.

 

If a 190 truly offered an advantage, making the FJR handle better, don’t you think Yamaha would’ve installed one as OEM? Any advantage over the competition would surely help. They certainly didn’t install a 180 over the 190 for cost, as the difference is negligible.

On past sportbikes with 6” rims, a 190/50 or 190/55 was the norm. But for an FJR with a 5.5” rim, the 180 is the better choice. Sure a 190 will fit, you may even be able to squeeze a 200 on there as well. But that doesn’t mean it’s the best choice for the bike.

For me, a former track-a-holic, I’m perfectly happy with the 180/55.

 

190/50 is shorter and flatter, 55 is a tic taller

 

What size rim is that on? The rim width will definitely make a difference on the profile. I think that's on a 6" rim. That illustration was in Sport Rider quite a while ago.

 

The 190/55 has a higher load rating. 57 more pounds if I recall correctly. Better when 2-up and you also violate Yamaha's rule of saddlebags OR trunk but not BOTH.

Yamaha would not necessarily put it on from the factory even if it was better simply because it's more expensive. I think it handles much better.

 

Yamaha would not necessarily put it on from the factory even if it was better simply because it's more expensive. I think it handles much better.

I respectfully disagree. As competitive as motorcycle sales are, if Yamaha could have a handling advantage over their competition for a few bucks (the cost difference between the 180/55 and 190/50 or 55 isn't that great), they'd do it in a heartbeat.

 

I have no idea what Yamaha's motivations were, most likely cost and carrying the same tire size since the FJR came out. Lookie at the Niken, a 190/55-17 rear with 15 inchers up front. Having that big a rear kinda surprised me.
Anyway, the 190/55 just feels overall better to me than the 180/55.

 

Having worked with the oe truck/Auto industry for many years, there is no doubt that it is probably a cost thing. I have seen them nix things over a proposed increased cost of only $.0005 , yes only 1/2 penny even for a better piece.

It would need to be a very clear marketing advantage first and then a good performance increase, which in the case of a 180-55 vs a 190-50 just isn’t that much of an advantage imho. Now i’ll add that if the 190 tire was less money or the same Yamaha would have it on in a heart beat. But being that they won’t spend any money to fix real issues like a poorly designed subframe or a really bad seat, a slightly bigger rear tire will never happen unless the marketing people can show a huge increase in sales because of it.

Like I said, i’ve seen manufacturers nix things for only a 1/4-1/2 a penny increase on higher production volumes, Yamaha ain’t any different.

 

In the ‘70’s I had a bunch of Yamaha 350’s..starting with an R5..I found that I preferred the handling when I fitted slightly wider tires front & rear. The stock front was 3.25x18, the stock rear was 3.50x18...I fitted 3.50x18 front and 4.00x18 rear. However - the RD’s were very light bikes and could really be thrown into the corner and the wider tires suited my riding/racing style. I’m too old, and too afraid to bend myself or the bike to ride like that anymore...

 

I've had my '05 for 5 yrs now and my current set of tires (PR4) has the 190/55 on the rear. I upped the size for the small increase in height which adds slightly to my already upgraded Final Drive gearing...(a bit taller). This, along with my Penske shock (also slightly longer than stock), helps reduce the foot peg dragging due to my lowering brackets. Handling difference? I really couldn't tell anything different and the slightly wider tire is barely noticable and looks normal. So, in short, I'll be sticking with the 190 moving forward...
Regards,
Mr. BR

 

Mr br, I say if it does no harm and it makes you smile then it’s a proper setup ! I do the same thing on my old Honda’s that originally had 100-90x19 I have running 110-90x19’s for years because I think they fill the fender better, do they make the bike handle better ? Dunno, don’t care, but in my mind it allows me to bend things over to the max,,,, or at least as far s my old non-healing azz is willing to push it....

Enjoy your setup ! Should be nice in your neck of the woods, I only seen 26f here in nw indiana, and really, really, really wana go for a ride. 🏍🏍🏍

 

People usually put fatter tyres on to make their bike look better - it rarely makes a bike handle better. Form over function.

 

I think some of you are way overthinking why Yamaha puts a 180 on it. You are forgetting that when the FJR was in final design around 2000 a 180 was a big tire. Heck, the ST1300 came out at the same time with a 170. There was just never a reason to change it over the years as the basic frame and engine are virtually identical to what the bike was introduced with all those years ago.

 

So true. And the 190/55 is something an owner can change to and feel like he has something better to brag about to his buddies because it's also true...:grin2:

 

On a US Series III, I think a 190 or 195 rear will just about zero out what little speedometer error the bike has.

 

So, i’m Going to ask a seemingly silly question, that being where does the speedo get it’s info/signal from ? I’m assuming it comes from the front or rear abs sensor wheels, but which one or maybe an average of the two. On the gen lll I see no speedo drive anywhere so I would assume it comes from the abs tone wheels. Anyone know for sure ?

If John is correct and going to a larger rear tire fix’s the speedo error then it has to be from the rear tone wheel, but i’ll add that when running the bike on the center stand I don’t remember seeing the speedo having a readout (might just be a memory thing though) , it did set a error though so it’s probably comparing the front and rear seeing the rear tone wheel inputs but nothing on the front. Anyone know for sure ?

My thoughts are in how the cpu would process inputs with different tire sizes if it is driven off the tone wheel(s) and how the cpu interprets the data inputs. Probably over thinking this, but could be a problem with simply changing tires size, and the gen 3.5 obd2 would be more sensitive to that, might set an error code that requires a trip back to the dealer to reset,,, maybe, depends on the allowable error the cpu see’s. Just some early Saturday morning coffee and thoughts.

 

Yes it's from the ABS sensors, but I am not sure if it's based on both wheels average, or not.
The overall diameter of a 190/55 tire is theoretically only 1.7% higher than a 180/55, so don't worry about error code from ECU.

 

B-in-B, guess it would depend on the programmed allowable error in the CPU, i’m sure that they would’ve taken tire changes in to account but you never know, particularly when they are surprised by someone actually wanting to add a topbox to their touring bike....