Rear tire size MU85-16 or MT90-16
#11
08-09-2011, 03:12 PM
Club Member
I don't know the sizes for Dunlop, but the stock size MT90 Avon Venom is 25.1" diameter, their MU90 is 25.6", so that will make the bike stand 1/4" taller at the rear when fitted. An MU85 will be midway between those two, so they are all fairly close.
#12
08-09-2011, 09:19 PM
Advanced
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Dyersville, IA
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#13
12-13-2013, 05:54 AM
Banned
In the old days, one used to just swop direction for front and rear fitment of the same tyre. Not sure how that works today but I cannot see using a rear tyre as a front tyre would be bad.
Helluva stiff sidewall, definitely one for the shop to fit ... no way to coax it on using the old zip tie method.
Last edited by Homeward Bound; 12-13-2013 at 05:56 AM.
#14
12-13-2013, 06:14 AM
Seasoned HDF Member
I ran several MU90 on my 07...Main thing for me is load rating...
#15
12-13-2013, 06:46 AM
Club Member
I started using the wider MU to get the higher load rating, following an exchange of emails with Avon Tyres. For older bikes that came with stock MT tyres both ends they expressed the view that the rear was marginal when the bike was ridden close to max weight and recommended using an MU or 140/90. I subsequently also used a 150/80, which has the same load rating as MU, but have recently squeezed in a 160/70x17, with a higher load rating of 79.
As for the front tyre, we only have to look at the later bikes, which have smaller section front tyres, with lower load ratings than MT. I don't believe there is any merit in using a larger section front than MT. Having ridden bikes since the 60s there was a period, way back, when tyres could indeed be used reversed, front relative to rear, but tyre design has moved on since then!
But hey, Harley owners will do their own thang.....
As for the front tyre, we only have to look at the later bikes, which have smaller section front tyres, with lower load ratings than MT. I don't believe there is any merit in using a larger section front than MT. Having ridden bikes since the 60s there was a period, way back, when tyres could indeed be used reversed, front relative to rear, but tyre design has moved on since then!
But hey, Harley owners will do their own thang.....
#16
12-13-2013, 07:50 AM
Seasoned HDF Member
I started using the wider MU to get the higher load rating, following an exchange of emails with Avon Tyres. For older bikes that came with stock MT tyres both ends they expressed the view that the rear was marginal when the bike was ridden close to max weight and recommended using an MU or 140/90. I subsequently also used a 150/80, which has the same load rating as MU, but have recently squeezed in a 160/70x17, with a higher load rating of 79.
As for the front tyre, we only have to look at the later bikes, which have smaller section front tyres, with lower load ratings than MT. I don't believe there is any merit in using a larger section front than MT. Having ridden bikes since the 60s there was a period, way back, when tyres could indeed be used reversed, front relative to rear, but tyre design has moved on since then!
But hey, Harley owners will do their own thang.....
As for the front tyre, we only have to look at the later bikes, which have smaller section front tyres, with lower load ratings than MT. I don't believe there is any merit in using a larger section front than MT. Having ridden bikes since the 60s there was a period, way back, when tyres could indeed be used reversed, front relative to rear, but tyre design has moved on since then!
But hey, Harley owners will do their own thang.....
#17
12-13-2013, 07:52 AM
Seasoned HDF Member
#18
12-13-2013, 07:57 AM
Club Member
#19
12-13-2013, 08:06 AM
Seasoned HDF Member
#20
12-13-2013, 08:09 AM
Club Member
