Yeah a 200 will fit on a 4.5" rim, many have done it. But it will be ballooned as you mentioned. The rubber has to go somewhere when squeezed into a narrower rim. Thus why it is not really any wider just "taller".

 

Just because it can be made to fit, that doesn't make it right.

It's possible that a 200 could be made to fit where a 180 would normally go. Why not? HD has contracted tire manufacturers to build 180 tires that fit wheels normally designed to fit 160's. Check the tire specs and you will see.

Big differance between a 4-wheeled vehicle running on mud. And a 2-wheeled vehicle running on the street. What do you think is going to happen when you loose a bead on your bike?

 

I understand the desire to go bigger. Hell I like the look too. But I don't understand the complacency these folks have with simply throwing on a bigger set of rubber without any knoledge of what they are doing. "GUY'S". You only have ( 2 ) wheels between you and the pavement. Hope your skilled on using a unicycle?

 

I totally understand and agree with the point your making. Not condoning putting a 200 on a 4.5" rim. Thus why I haven't done that already and am planning the crossbones rim. I don't want a ballooned tire with the potential problems either. So hope your not lumping me in with the rest.

 

Hope you didn't take it that way. Guess it was a poor attempt to side with you.

 

No worries bro, guess i misunderstood.

 

More pics...

So what constitutes a 4.5" rim? Where does the bead sit? I realize this method of measuring is NOT scientific and at best a total estimation, but it definitely shows a lot more metal than 4.5".

Also.... the tire was already rounded or "ballooned" when I got it. It looked nothing like the Dunlop which was flatter and has a lower profile.

Again, when I asked the shop to put it on, the agreement was if it was not going to be safe, that it not be done. I've known them for almost 20 years, it wasn't like I walked in with a wad of cash and said... "Hi, I'm and idiot, do this no matter how much it costs".

Either way.. I'm done. It's on there, it feels right, it looks no tighter than the Dunlop, in fact, it looks like it fits better than the Dunlop, and I'm happy.

BTW... I also went with a 90 up front, instead of an 80 as stock... so if I go down, it won't be a unicycle...

 

From those pics it does not look like it is ballooning which is good my only guess is thats a very narrow 200?

 

Well, since your done, you probably will not see this. But for those that are still reading, it would be wise to take heed.

I'm no expert on this subject. And I have no intentions of telling someone else what they can / can't do with their own property. But the information is out there for anyone to make their own "wise" decisions. You only have to look.

Individual manufactures do supply the information / specifications to make wise decisions when pairing wheels / tires. And, believe it or not, there are certain "acceptible" criteria when pairing wheels and tires. Even though I have found it difficult to find some of the specifications on different tires / manufacturers. Never the less, it's still there, still applies. And probably available by request if necessary. This information should be considered when matching any tire/wheel. I find it hard to believe that any "reputable" technician would "knowingly" mismatch a tire/wheel package. And any establishment that would sell / install a mismatched package without first informing the owner that there may be a descrepancy is not a reputable business ( in my book ).

Guys, there's no magic to this. With exception to the ( +1 ) rule, the R&D guys at the tire manufacturing plants probably know a lot more about tire fitment than the average Joe. And if they say that it aint advisable, then who am I to say that it is.

PS: Jamron2, I still say it loogs good. And I still want one. But I'd be scared as hell to ride yours.

 

The Avon web site has easy to use info on suggested wheel width, measured at inside to inside, for their tires.