boranni rims

If its the same ad that the OP is looking at (its gotta be) the rims are for a Commando. One is already laced to a Commando front drum, both WM-2 19". I was thinking about them but I already have an NOS Akront sitting in my basement that I'm too lazy to lace up.

madass140 said:

so wider tires on the rear gives better handling?

Click to expand...

Handling is a subjective thing, unless one is doing timed runs on a track and making measured changes.

The change to new wide roadriders from older narrower supervenoms feels like a big improvement. The new tires feel much stickier and probably are. Whether they actually handle any better than new skinny tires is debatable.
The extra width means you must put a tiny bit more input into the changes, it did not take long to get accustomed.
My main reason for making the change was to get a tire on there with a load rating that actually comes close to the load I am carrying. Couldnt do it with the old WM2s and Avons or Bridgestones.
The bigger rear tire has already gone 6,000 miles and has about 2- 3,000 miles left in it. The old 100/90/19s only manged 6,000 at best.
Makes sense that a large safely loaded tire would last longer than a skinny overloaded tire.
If you are fairly light in weight and never carry much gear, or a passenger & gear as I do, then the WM2 rear and skinny tire will likely suffice.

Glen

never taken a passenger on a Commando, a light traveller and only weigh 155, also I've always been a fairly conservative rider on Commando's, yep the stock WM2's and K81's is ample for me.

Here is a correction of my earlier post where I mentioned fitting a 100/90/19 to a Wm2 rim as though it was acceptable. This was ok with the old Supervenoms but still came no where near my load requirement. With the Roadriders, even the relatively small 100/90/19 requires a wm 3 rim and recommended is wm4.
If the recommended sizes are followed, then none of their roadriders go with wm2. If minimum rim sizes are used, then there are a couple of choices in the very skinny tires, but it is slim pickings and weight numbers are quite low.

http://www.avon-tyres.co.uk/motorcycle/roadrider

Plus of 19 TT100 both ends is you can swap the tires as they
wear and get a bit more mileage out of them. Maybe not worth
the bother of changing for some though.
Rears wear pretty fast.

madass140 said:

never taken a passenger on a Commando, a light traveller and only weigh 155, also I've always been a fairly conservative rider on Commando's, yep the stock WM2's and K81's is ample for me.

Click to expand...

I have the original WM2 Dunlop rims on my '73 Roadster with fresh 4.10H-19 K81's front and rear. I have run the same combination on this bike for 40 years. I agree that they are fine tires. However, I wadded up my Interstate running that same combination when I lost the front end. When I rebuilt it I replaced them with 100/90-19 Avon RoadRiders. As I said the rims are too narrow and you have a very round profile. But the tires feel very stable. At some point I'll lace up a set of WM3 rims on this bike and see how that feels.

My café racer was originally built (years ago) with WM2-19 Akront on the front and a WM3-18 on the rear shod with 100/90-19 Dunlop 391 on the front and a 120/80-18 on the rear. It handled like crap. On this last rebuild I laced a WM3-19 on the front and shod it with a 90/90-19 Avon RoadRider front and a 100/90-18 rear. I don't have a lot of miles on it yet, but it steers much faster. Time will tell.

Moral of the story is I have put years of riding on K81's and they are a good tire, but modern designs and tread patterns give me more confidence to push in a corner (not that I push that hard) and a wide rear tire on a Commando makes it handle like a slug.

Dunlop GT 501 have worked well for me. 100/90-19 front, WM2-19 rim, 120/90-18 rear, WM4-18 rim. I'm no Kenny Roberts, so I can't say I've noticed a difference from the old Avon Super Venoms, 19 front and rear, that I used to run, outside of getting about twice the mileage from the Dunlops. I think rating tires for handling is, for the most part, rather subjective. I guess a few track days with the different combinations would provide some real conclusive data.

thanks for all the replys guys......Im thinking I am probably better off looking for a set of wm3 rims and hopefully can find a modern tire that wont cause clearance problems down the road ......I am still a long way off getting this 68 back on the road so there is no rush ......thought I better ask before I waste money
Sean

sean said:

thanks for all the replys guys......Im thinking I am probably better off looking for a set of wm3 rims and hopefully can find a modern tire that wont cause clearance problems down the road ......I am still a long way off getting this 68 back on the road so there is no rush ......thought I better ask before I waste money
Sean

Click to expand...

You might want to consider a WM-4 for the rear. Like Ron L said, you pretty much find the tires you want to run, then size the rims accordingly. Check out the tire manufactures rim size recommendations on their respective websites.

When I restored my 1972 Combat, an old school shop owner dissuaded me from anything but WM2-19, so I ordered WM2s from Buchanan. I eventually got tired of wearing out the rear prematurely and replaced the rear with a WM4-18. Much larger selection of tires for an 18" rim. Should have replaced the front with a WM3, as well. Just to add to the confusion, you'll see forum members here who swear by the WM2-19, front and rear.

It's like anything else, once you do something for the first time you realize you could do a better and less costly job if you were to do it again. Keeping in touch with this forum will save you from replacing things you already replaced. Of course, it will induce you to replace things you never realized you wanted to upgrade. It's kind of a double-edged sword. Save a hundred here, spend two hundred there.

JimC said:

sean said:

thanks for all the replys guys......Im thinking I am probably better off looking for a set of wm3 rims and hopefully can find a modern tire that wont cause clearance problems down the road ......I am still a long way off getting this 68 back on the road so there is no rush ......thought I better ask before I waste money
Sean

Click to expand...

You might want to consider a WM-4 for the rear. Like Ron L said, you pretty much find the tires you want to run, then size the rims accordingly. Check out the tire manufactures rim size recommendations on their respective websites.

When I restored my 1972 Combat, an old school shop owner dissuaded me from anything but WM2-19, so I ordered WM2s from Buchanan. I eventually got tired of wearing out the rear prematurely and replaced the rear with a WM4-18. Much larger selection of tires for an 18" rim. Should have replaced the front with a WM3, as well. Just to add to the confusion, you'll see forum members here who swear by the WM2-19, front and rear.

It's like anything else, once you do something for the first time you realize you could do a better and less costly job if you were to do it again. Keeping in touch with this forum will save you from replacing things you already replaced. Of course, it will induce you to replace things you never realized you wanted to upgrade. It's kind of a double-edged sword. Save a hundred here, spend two hundred there.

Click to expand...

Just thought I would ask before I bought anything as I don't want to run into problems later with either clearance or finding tires to fit the rims for the 68

The 3.25s are actually pretty big tires. I went to a 90/90-19 on the front on Windy's recommendation and it quickened up the steering nicely. It took a few rides to get used to but I love the quicker steering now. With a link rod head steady too - a must, I think the Norton handles great compared to horrible handling since new. My XR1200 feels like a true pig in comparison - it is a heavy pig... but has other attributes.

I'm running a WM-2 rim in the front and WM-3 x 18" in the back with 100/90 tire. Rims are the flanged Akronts. That was the current fashion when I did it years ago. I'd go WM-3 front and WM-4 rear if I was doing it over again now.

Russ

Think we may have a handling v tire wear thing here. Tire wear on
WM2 is serious. I run a stock 19" WM3 on my Trident and the best
Ive ever gotten mileage wise is 3500 miles! And the very center is down
past the tread at that point. Sure a triple is heavier but the rim is wider.
Just a thought, maybe "heavier" handling can be lessened by wider
bars. I use very narrow ones on all my rides and dont mind it at all.
Perhaps a lot of personal preference in all this.

One last question from a "newbie". What type of rims were stock on a 1972? Steel or did the factory offer alloy?

Thanks,
Paul (new owner of a 72)

marathonpaul said:

One last question from a "newbie". What type of rims were stock on a 1972? Steel or did the factory offer alloy?

Click to expand...

Chrome plated steel. There wasn't any alloy rim option for the standard road models as far as I know.

batrider said:

The 3.25s are actually pretty big tires. I went to a 90/90-19 on the front on Windy's recommendation and it quickened up the steering nicely. It took a few rides to get used to but I love the quicker steering now. With a link rod head steady too - a must, I think the Norton handles great compared to horrible handling since new. My XR1200 feels like a true pig in comparison - it is a heavy pig... but has other attributes.

I'm running a WM-2 rim in the front and WM-3 x 18" in the back with 100/90 tire. Rims are the flanged Akronts. That was the current fashion when I did it years ago. I'd go WM-3 front and WM-4 rear if I was doing it over again now.

Russ

Click to expand...

Thanks for the input. WM-2/19 x WM-3/18 is the same combo I have on mine, and it's in dire need of both tyres. I'm looking at shodding her with Avon's AM26 RoadRiders, based on what I've been able to garner from this forum. btw, who's head steady did you go with?

Nathan

I'm running the Avon Roadriders here also. I went with the Dave Taylor headsteady. Have had it on for about 4-5 years but I don't really rack up the miles anymore - maybe 6-7000 miles in that time. I oil the link when I have the tank off. A friend of mine's did not fare so well - The Heim joints developed play after very little use and he had to replace them. He used grease to lube. Also he found that his front iso rubbers had turned to black dust (so bad that it was clanking) so the headsteady may have gotten more wear. He replaced the entire link rod assembly for $60 but realized later that he could have just gotten new ends from McMaster-Carr. You can buy dust shields for the Heim joints from Aircraft Spruce as another possible solution. Next time (if there ever is a next time) I will think hard about the CNW headsteady which is a nice piece and sealed, however it costs $372.

Regarding head steadies using ball joints or tie rod ends or heim joints, I've always had my reservations about using these for head steady's, my concern has always been that these ball joints were not meant for this application ie: high frequency vibration unlubricated. In my opinion, great in theory but not practical in long term use.I know Buell uses a similar system but I'm sure they use a bigger size but not sure if they are lubed or how long the Buell ones last.
steel against steel with high frequency movement without lubrication must constitute wear.
Any long term high milers out there that have used these head steadies?????

Great point - high frequency vibrations and Heim joints.

Mine are still tight after about 5000 miles but I too lube them; I hit them with a shot of chain lube every time the tank is off. Compared to the stock rubber joints, I have to think that even loose/worn Heim joints are still going to be tighter.