17" rear wheel?



16 replies to this topic
  • Guest_Guest_*

Posted December 27, 2000 - 11:17 AM

#1

I can barely touch the ground on my TTR250. I am picking up my new 426 soon. What, if any, problems or benifits will I get by running an 17 inch rear wheel? I am going to try all the other sugestions already discussed on TT to make it a little easier on my short legs. I often crash in tough places like steep rock climbs. I will miss my magic button, but thats about it.

thanks mike

  • Boit

Posted December 27, 2000 - 07:55 PM

#2

Is there a 17" wheel conversion available for the 426? How would you maintain the same frame geometry simply by dropping the height of the rear? This would increase rake(chopper effect) and slow the steering down. I'm not so sure that this would result in giving you the desired lower rear end. The 19" wheel is fitted with a lower profile tire that mimics closely an 18" wheel and tire setup. What you end up with is nearly the same overall diameter wheel/tire combo.

  • fershy

Posted December 27, 2000 - 09:24 PM

#3

I think you would be better off modifying the stroke length of the rear shock and forks. That would result in a bike customed to your height requirements without the evil handling attributable to a 17" chopper setup. Was it not Clarke that shortened his suspension?
fershy

  • MN_Kevin

Posted December 28, 2000 - 02:35 AM

#4

Hey Mike!!!

You could give Factory Connection a call. If you didn't know, they are in Rochester, NH.

I know you wanted to keep the expense down, but since you will only get shorter, it may be a sound investment...???

  • John_in_Long_Beach

Posted December 28, 2000 - 08:56 AM

#5

Maybe go with the 17" rear but also swap out the 21" front for a 20" front at the same time?

Kind of like a YZ80, big suspension, small tires.

Try to make both tires smaller by the same amount. Look at the overall tire size considering the aspect ratio. I think 20" fronts are taller for the same width, because they have a taller aspect ratio.

  • Guest_Guest_*

Posted December 28, 2000 - 11:15 AM

#6

Thanks for the help. I will pass on the 17" wheel. Sounds like a bad idea. I will have to do some more research on the issue.

Thanks again.

Kev..I am purchasing a leg stretcher to maintain my current height. I'll keep ya informed.

  • hart

Posted December 28, 2000 - 12:45 PM

#7

I just had a post on shortening the suspension for some of the same reasons you have. The advise from this forum and some of the suspension guys (fineline, scotts performance)was that if your doing moto-x, loosing the extra suspension will cost more in the woops than you will gain in the corners.. If your not doing moto-x maybe shortening the springs in suspension will work!! It's not all that expensive from scotts performance. A lot cheaper than 2 rims I think. If you find another way to get this tall beast closer to the ground, I'll be interested..

hart@ndak.net

  • MN_Kevin

Posted December 28, 2000 - 05:32 PM

#8

Mike,
After a ride, you can hang from my inversion bed. In theory, it does wonders. It gives me a headache though.

Visit the ThumperTalk Store for the lowest prices on motorcycle / ATV parts and accessories - Guaranteed
  • Brian_in_Long_Beach

Posted December 29, 2000 - 09:16 AM

#9

do a search for posts by Clark Mason - I think he lowered his WR a bit via the shock & fork mods.

Brian

  • Guest_Guest_*

Posted December 29, 2000 - 09:50 AM

#10

Nice try Kevin, but there is no way you can trick me into getting into bet with you.

To the rest of you..........
Thanks for the input. My dealer called me and the Wild Ride (WR) is in. I will begin to persue your ideas on lowering my ride.

Thanks and Happy New Year

  • Taffy

Posted December 29, 2000 - 12:29 PM

#11

Mike

if your prepared to spend some money why don't you consider lowering the subframe rails?

when i was roadracing i once used an aerosol foam that plummers use to lag pipes etc. i sprayed it under the roadrace seat & it allowed me to use helpers to bump start the bike. the next year the seats were strengthened. anyway as an aside the tyre used to rub against this foam & gave a clear indication of the gap twixt seat & rear tyre!

ideally you don't want to change a)your suspension or :) your geometry. so why not look at ways of lowering the subframe?

when i looked at it i thought that it was very feasable. tthe problem is it's an ORIGINAL idea & you'd be on your own!

Taffy

  • Guest_Guest_*

Posted December 30, 2000 - 04:27 AM

#12

Taffy
Oooh, sound scary....but I like it. being in Industrial Maintenance I can make anything. This will take some serious thought. I saw my new ride for the firs time yesterday. When I firs looked at it I was amazed how small it looked. Then I sat on it and both feet were 2" from touching the ground. Skinny!!! The bike is real thin. Thanks for the Idea and I will look into it seriously.

Mike

  • MN_Kevin

Posted December 30, 2000 - 04:31 AM

#13

Hey Mike,
It could be sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet! :)

In Thailand, the inversion bed sex is big bucks...unless you opt for a "Thai Sandwich:.

  • John_in_Long_Beach

Posted December 30, 2000 - 10:07 PM

#14

Mike,

It sounds like you are in serious need of some lowering.

Going with smaller rims could be one way to get lower. But the major problem will be getting the right tire sizes, since 17" tires seem hard to get, smaller in width and maybe not capable of handling the power.

It does work for the CR80 which can be purchased with either 17 front/14 rear or 19/ 16 rims.

But I don't think there are any small tire options for the bigger bore bikes.

So even if you wanted to go smaller there would not be tires capable of handling the power. If you know otherwise let me know.

The subframe will maybe only get you 1/2 inch (which is certainly a start) at most and none of this will be a the tank portion.

The good news is that you really don't need to put your feet down when you are flying.

  • GRC

Posted December 30, 2000 - 08:10 PM

#15

Mike 68,
Don't worry about not touching the ground all that much I'm 5'7", with a 27" inseam and ride a 2000 WR. I moto from time to time, but mainly race Desert and haven't really had that many problems. When you stop you will have to lean to one side but other than that all is well. Just think when your feet come off the pegs they won't hit anything, including the ground. Several riding buddies laugh at me trying to start it but once it is started that usually stops pretty quickly.

  • Boit

Posted January 01, 2001 - 12:41 AM

#16

If you move the subframe downward, do you need to make concessions for the airbox location? unless i'm missing something, it would seem to me, from looking at my 426, that lowering the subframe would either move the airbox down also, or, the bottom of the seat moves closer to the airbox opening, therefore, choking off air flow. I'm looking at constructing a type of ram-air duct for my airbox, not restrict further what is available.

  • Taffy

Posted January 02, 2001 - 02:12 AM

#17

my airbox goes down & onto the carb. i worked it out that to have a subframe made would still allow the airbox to fit on snugly. the seat base would be the other part that needs altering.

if you look at the discussion archives to the left of this screen, clark had his sussies lowered in one of those two!

to be honest i wouldn't mind jacking up the rear end & lowering the front o mine as much as possible. i would then need to lower the angle of the seat. i looked at it & thought mmmm! two rose joints (better than magic mushrooms!) in the bottom of the subframe legs & a little heat at the top/or same again with the rose joints to keep it all sweet.

Taffy

[This message has been edited by Taffy (edited 01-02-2001).]




 
x

Join Our Community!

Even if you don't want to post, registered members get access to tools that make finding & following the good stuff easier.

If you enjoyed reading about "" here in the ThumperTalk archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join ThumperTalk today!

The views and opinions expressed on this page are strictly those of the author, and have not been reviewed or approved by ThumperTalk.