strange Pirelli slick question

[easter bunny]

I have a strange question and hoping someone can help. I just went to change my rear tire and noticed it's a 180, which came as a shock to me on a 1000. I looked at my other rear and it's the 200 it should be. I have no idea how I ended up with the 180 and wondered how I didn't even notice. Visually they look the same so I measured and sure enough my caliper says the cross section on both tires is the same. Shouldn't they be almost 1" different in width? Can someone else measure a 200/60 SC1 and tell me if I'm nuts? Both tires were bought at races last year.

 

[afm199]

I have a strange question and hoping someone can help. I just went to change my rear tire and noticed it's a 180, which came as a shock to me on a 1000. I looked at my other rear and it's the 200 it should be. I have no idea how I ended up with the 180 and wondered how I didn't even notice. Visually they look the same so I measured and sure enough my caliper says the cross section on both tires is the same. Shouldn't they be almost 1" different in width? Can someone else measure a 200/60 SC1 and tell me if I'm nuts? Both tires were bought at races last year.

No, the 180/60 is basically much wider than a 180/55 and is pretty much a 200 designed for a 5.5" rim, rather than a 6" rim.

 

[ILOAD2]

I have a strange question and hoping someone can help. I just went to change my rear tire and noticed it's a 180, which came as a shock to me on a 1000. I looked at my other rear and it's the 200 it should be. I have no idea how I ended up with the 180 and wondered how I didn't even notice. Visually they look the same so I measured and sure enough my caliper says the cross section on both tires is the same. Shouldn't they be almost 1" different in width? Can someone else measure a 200/60 SC1 and tell me if I'm nuts? Both tires were bought at races last year.

If you are referring to the "width" or the measurement across the usable tread-
180/60- 7.48 inches
200/60- 7.83 inches

 

[ILOAD2]

No, the 180/60 is basically much wider than a 180/55 and is pretty much a 200 designed for a 5.5" rim, rather than a 6" rim.

Yes.
the 180/55 is 7.12 Inches

 

[easter bunny]

Thanks guys. Tires are a 180/60 and a 200/60. My caliper says they're the same width but based on those measurements there should be a 9mm difference between the cross sections. I wasn't getting super accurate so I'll measure again.

The 180 comes out to a 190 and the 200 is true to size. Since my bike was stock at 190 maybe I should just run the 180 and save a few bucks lol. I honeslty couldn't tell the difference and it seemed to be hooking up pretty well.

 

[Junkie]

are they both on wheels?

 

[stangmx13]

If u are racing and it’s unused, I’d def try to exchange it. The vendor mounted the wrong tire after all.

Also, the numbers on the sidewall are not an actual measurement.

 

[easter bunny]

are they both on wheels?

Both mounted.

If u are racing and it’s unused, I’d def try to exchange it. The vendor mounted the wrong tire.

Both tires have been raced. I never thought to check the sidewalls because visually (and dimensionally) it appears the same. Noticed the difference swapping out after a track day.

Build date 4117 on the 180. I just measured it at several different points and got 7.8125 which is amazingly close to the 7.83 quoted for the 200. I have no explanation.

 

[stangmx13]

The measurement given by Pirelli is likely for that tire on a 5.5”, not a 6” wheel.

There are prob other small differences btw the tires. But if u didn’t notice, it’s no big deal.

 

[afm199]

Both mounted.

Both tires have been raced. I never thought to check the sidewalls because visually (and dimensionally) it appears the same. Noticed the difference swapping out after a track day.

Build date 4117 on the 180. I just measured it at several different points and got 7.8125 which is amazingly close to the 7.83 quoted for the 200. I have no explanation.

Diameter is different. The 200 will lift the rear significantly more than the 180.

 

[WeekEndWarrior]

The tread depth dot should been a clear give away.

 

[easter bunny]

Diameter is different. The 200 will lift the rear significantly more than the 180.

I would assume so too but both tires are pretty worn so I didn't think measuring the circumference would be accurate. Both are 60% height so if the cross section is the same then...

The tread depth dot should been a clear give away.

How so? Is there a different pattern?

 

[WeekEndWarrior]

I would assume so too but both tires are pretty worn so I didn't think measuring the circumference would be accurate. Both are 60% height so if the cross section is the same then...


How so? Is there a different pattern?

180 has 3 dots left side then further down 3 dots right side.

200 has the normal 2 center and 2 on the side.

 

[shouldnthave]

How has no one pointed this out yet? The 180 race tires are really 190s. They call them 180s to make an advantage over the other race tires that also happen to be 190s. Because everyone figured out that they can just call a 190 a 180 and get around race direction. The real number lies in the profile that works for you and your bike. That's it in a nutshell.

 

[Junkie]

I would assume so too but both tires are pretty worn so I didn't think measuring the circumference would be accurate. Both are 60% height so if the cross section is the same then...


How so? Is there a different pattern?

the 60 is as a % of width, so a 200/60 is taller than a 180/60 by 12mm/.5in per side (if they run true to size, which they don't)

 

[easter bunny]

the 60 is as a % of width, so a 200/60 is taller than a 180/60 by 12mm/.5in per side (if they run true to size, which they don't)

Yes, I understand that. So I'm saying if the cross section is actually the same then the height (and overall circumference) might be the same as well. I don't have 2 new tires to measure.

How has no one pointed this out yet? The 180 race tires are really 190s.

I did (based on the measurements someone provided):

The 180 comes out to a 190 and the 200 is true to size.

But I don't think the 180 is a 180 or a 190. I'm measuring it as identical to a 200.

180 has 3 dots left side then further down 3 dots right side.

200 has the normal 2 center and 2 on the side.

Thanks I never knew that. I'll look at them tonight.

 

[afm199]

the 60 is as a % of width, so a 200/60 is taller than a 180/60 by 12mm/.5in per side (if they run true to size, which they don't)

Yeah, I've measured all of them circumference wise, and it does work out. 180/55 < 180/60<200/60. I have all the numbers written down somewhere. :laughing

 

[easter bunny]

I just did the math and a 200/60 should be 3" larger in circumference than a 180/60. Even with wear I should be able to notice that much difference between the two. I'll bust out the cloth tape measure tonight and we'll see.

 

[afm199]

I just did the math and a 200/60 should be 3" larger in circumference than a 180/60. Even with wear I should be able to notice that much difference between the two. I'll bust out the cloth tape measure tonight and we'll see.

Sounds right.

 

[easter bunny]

I finally got into the garage and here's the tale of the tape:
180/60 measured 80 inches circumference with a mathematically expected 80. The 200/60 measured 82 inches of an expected 83 1/4. Both tires were well used but race tires so significantly more wear at the edges than the centers.

My take: the 180 is really a 190 with a 180 stamp on the side. It seems to have the same cross section as the 200 but a shallower profile. Do with that info what you will. My bike was originally a 190/55 so maybe I shouldn't be surprised that it hooked up well.