I have read here that new 07 V-rods and the SE 06 V-rod with the 240 rear tire, will not handle as well as the V-rods with the smaller rear tire. I was just wondering why and how much the 240 will adversely effect the handling?
I had a 2002 that I changed from the 180 to a 200 first. The 200 looked nice and handled as well as the 180. Then I got greedy and changed from the 200 to a 260. The 260 looked great but the handling changed. The bike was more reluctant to start turning and once it leaned over, it wanted to fall over farther and it felt as if it was skidding through turns as the front and rear took different lines. At slow speeds you had to keep it upright and just turn the bars. Rolling stops were a breeze and it still rode well though. Bottom line is the 180 and 200 bikes will handle better if you like the curves but it your more about being seen around town and making people snap their heads for another look, go with the 240's and up.
A "V" or "Z" rated 240 will handle better than a "H" rated 240, due to the type of material and construction. It does handle differently than a 180 or 200. The VRSC 240 might handle "great", but it will still be more reluctant through corners than a 180. You have more mass to move.
The biggest problem with a 240 is that it actually reduces your Rear Wheel Horsepower by 3-5%, maybe more. You have move mass to move.
The 240s on the '07 VRSCs look great, but I think the overly wide rear fender kinda distracts from the image. A 240 on a '02-'06 looks much better in my opinion.
Looks are one thing, performance is another. Ever see a tire larger than a 200 stock on a crotch-rocket? Harley was trying to appease the "looks" crowd but took away from the "performance" crowd on their 2007 performance line of motorcycles.
What you must consider is the use of the 240 tire in the '07's and SC's made it necessary to lessen the rake of the fork.
This was to aid handling. I prefer the rake so the most I'll go is a 200.
180 vs 240 rear tire?
