The Spares Company
Club Shop/Regalia
Parent Website
Contact Officials
Machine Registrar
Club Secretary
Membership Secretaries
MPH Editor and Forum Administrator.
Section Newsletters
Technical Databases
Photos
Home
What's new
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Information
Bike Modifications
Machine Data Services
Manufacturers Manuals
Spare Parts Listings
Technical Diagrams
Whitakerpedia (Vincent Wiki)
The Club
MPH Material Archive
Flogger's Corner
Obituaries
VOC Sections
Local Sections
Local Section Newsletters
Miscellaneous
Club Assets
Club History
Club Rules
Machine Data Services
Meeting Documents
Miscellaneous
Essential Reading
Magazine/Newspaper Articles/Letters
Adverts and Sales Brochures
The Mighty Garage Videos
Bikes For Sale (Spares Company)
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Forums: Public Access
Tech. Advice: Series 'B' / 'C' 500cc/1000cc Bikes
Tyres
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="davidd" data-source="post: 90172" data-attributes="member: 1177"><p>I don't understand new tire sizes at all. I have never found two conversion charts that agree, including Steve's. I am not arguing, I just thought the metric designations followed a mathmatical model utilizing a ratio of width and height and they do not. The numbers seem to be assigned arbitrarily, but loosely based on size.</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]18966[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]18967[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]18969[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>I usually purchase by brand and diameter for the size rims. The front sizes above seem to be consistent, but the rears seem to be inconsistent. I also did not realize that the metric system listed front and rears as the same ratios, but were different sizes. It also seems like there is a new metric system and an old metric system as it is mentioned on the last chart. I did not know that either. I won't mention the Alpha system. I am just calling the tire guy.</p><p></p><p>David</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="davidd, post: 90172, member: 1177"] I don't understand new tire sizes at all. I have never found two conversion charts that agree, including Steve's. I am not arguing, I just thought the metric designations followed a mathmatical model utilizing a ratio of width and height and they do not. The numbers seem to be assigned arbitrarily, but loosely based on size. [ATTACH=full]18966[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]18967[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]18969[/ATTACH] I usually purchase by brand and diameter for the size rims. The front sizes above seem to be consistent, but the rears seem to be inconsistent. I also did not realize that the metric system listed front and rears as the same ratios, but were different sizes. It also seems like there is a new metric system and an old metric system as it is mentioned on the last chart. I did not know that either. I won't mention the Alpha system. I am just calling the tire guy. David [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What was Mr Vincent's Christian Name?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Forums: Public Access
Tech. Advice: Series 'B' / 'C' 500cc/1000cc Bikes
Tyres
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top