I've been searching the forum to learn how a large front tire effects the ride. How would something like a 48 handle and feel? I like the look and definitely am going to take test ride. But I'm not sure you'll get the whole idea from just a test drive.

By large I mean fat.

 

It depends, if you cannot reach the edge of the tire at the bikes maximum lean angle, i.e. you have chicken strips then there is no benefit to wider tire and potential downfalls. This is from a pure performance point of view adding rotating mass up front leads to slower turn in, you can compensate for some of that with a taller profile, wider fronts have a tendency to follow asphalt grooves more than thinner tires.

Now from a visual point of view I love the way that meaty 130/90-16 looks on the front of my wife's fat bob. It's bad to the bone. Just make sure your tire is designed for your bikes weight going with too stiff a tire can be just as bad as getting one that's too soft in the sidewall.

 

I don't think the fat front tire will make any difference for the average Sportster rider. What I'd be concerned about is the handling on gravel roads, and maybe the increased wear and tear on the steering head bearings. Fat front tires have a tendency to float rather than dig on loose surfaces.

 

My experience is that wider tires are less affected by grooves.

 

wider front tire was part of the reason I made the move from FX to FL.

loved the look of a 21" in a wide glide front end and room for dual brakes was nice too but I found the 16", wider tires to feel more stable throughout different terrains, weather conditions and... well, generally overall on pavement or over the dirt back roads (which I often find myself on, taking random turns on old country roads.) I also agree that I tend to track less in pavement grooves than the 21" ever did.

I even feel more stability in a tight corner and I really like the idea of matching front and rear profiles, when it comes to lean and keeping the bikes geometry more inline with the lean... vs. a skinny front or a fat rear.

I suppose it's all personal preference and depending largely on riding styles. I consider myself fairly aggressive, but I'm racing a lot less these days and I do pull a trailer behind every now and again.

 

Me too as well as virtually every comment I read.

 

Own two bikes one old school 51 FLstyle rigid rear wide glide front w/ 90x21 front and 150 16 rear does nice around most but find tracking on freeways following groves especially on asphalt concrete not as bad. Other one 04 custom sportster rigid rear w/Buell inverted frt suspension 120x17 frt and 200x17 rear has lot better rideand more sure and doesn't seem to follow groves on asphalt and more positive into through and exit corners. Mind you not as well as some other sport bikes but enough for me. Wild Bill. Ride Safe

 

In my opinion,, the following grooves in the road depends a lot on the tires.. The dunlop I had on my Wide Glide would follow the grooves a lot.. Put a Night Dragon on it and don't even notice grooves.. My GoldWing with a 130 on the front follows them more than the 90 on the WG does now.

 

Thanks' for the feedback. Like usual there's no simple answer. I plan on taking some test rides today to hopefully get a feel for myself. Rawhide Harley is serving hot wings today!
Based on how %#!& complicated everything is, I'm thinking the rake, Trail, wheelbase... all play a part in how the ride feels with the tires playing their part. The only real way to be sure is own more than one bike.

 

Wife has an 08 Low Rider, I have an 08 Fat Bob; essentially the same bike with different wheels/tires and a few trim bits. The Fat Bob definately feels more "planted"when you ride and is a little heavier in the corners, where the Low Rider has a bit quicker steering. We both like the feel of the Fat Bob, but she also likes the quicker response and lighter feel of the Low Rider.
We found tracking of the tire thru grooves etc is more a function of the actual tread; Dunlops are worst...