NWS hugger and 190/55 rear tyre

Message

#16 Post by **mangocrazy** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 10:46 am

To be honest, I did consider a CF hugger, but decided on the GRP one as I wanted to have it painted and colour matched to the front mudguard/tank.

It does seem a waste to buy a CF hugger only to have it painted...

So - does anyone have experience of a Skidmarx hugger with a 190/55? I guess they're the only other option?

HisNibbs · #17 Post by **HisNibbs** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 7:31 pm

Gratuitouse 'rear end' shots for mango.

Remember as the wheel spins the tyre is going to grow a bit...but I don't think it is actualy making contact with the hugger. Oh and hugger matches the CF front mudguard, maybe treat myself one day to a cf belly pan.

Bye the bye the 190/55 does give a lot more lean angle before running off the edge of the tyre. The rear and front profiles just about match now. Feels good just need some dry roads and a little more confidence.

Aladinsaneuk · #18 Post by **Aladinsaneuk** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 8:49 pm

more confidence!!!!

sod all hope for the rest of us!

D-Rider · #19 Post by **D-Rider** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 10:03 pm

Nice lack of chicken strips. I've got rid of mine in the past but not done that this year (so far)

Aladinsaneuk · #20 Post by **Aladinsaneuk** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 10:07 pm

no sandpaper andy - am sure aldi will have some soon to help

D-Rider · #21 Post by **D-Rider** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 10:08 pm

Aladinsaneuk wrote:no sandpaper andy - am sure aldi will have some soon to help

Nah - if they don't go naturally then they don't go - no cheating here

#22 Post by **mangocrazy** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 10:26 pm

Cheers Keith - much appreciated. It's still fairly adjacent, but not as bad as my GRP hugger. I do wonder whether different tyre makes will have different clearence (or lack of it).

Agree about the 190/55 profile. It felt really good and confidence-inspiring. I wouldn't want to swap back to a 180/55, even after only having covered about 70 miles with the 190/55.

davebms · #23 Post by **davebms** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 10:07 am

mine does not have a hugger.. i think its called a shock guard ,fits to the plastic under the battery area and hangs down (poss part of a falco tail tidy kit ?) NOOG does a cover /boot thing for rear shocks poss that may be a short term fix

fatboy · #24 Post by **fatboy** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 6:41 pm

sorry if this is a diversion from the original topic, Im about to re launch my falco afterover 2 years of legal shit with DVLA'
I have no hugger fitted,will be fitting new hoops along with Sachs white spring shock and shiney stuff,so before I order my tyres Im guessing buy a 190 rear rather than 180 ? ?
Ordering new rubber on thurs, payday

#25 Post by **mangocrazy** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 6:59 pm

I emailed Skidmark and this was their reply:

Thanks for the mail.
No, our hugger won't fit with a 190/55 rear tyre I'm afraid, it was made to work with the original 180.

So that's that.

Bugger.

HisNibbs · #26 Post by **HisNibbs** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:08 pm

Standard fitment is 180/55 and there is not much wrong with it. It is undersize on the rims and probably has a flatter profile than a /55 should be because of that. The normal alternative option is a 190/50 which provides an even flatter profile.

The 190/55 we are talking about here is a more expensive tyre and not standard or manufacture recomended fitment. There may be a need to tell your insurance company etc. It is taller and wider and a very close fit but does provide more contact patch at high angles of lean. If you have any sign of chicken strips on the 180/55 or 190/50 there is no point fitting this size as the contact patch is probably smaller at the lean angles being used.

D-Rider · #27 Post by **D-Rider** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:16 pm

..... and may also have some impact on speedo accuracy (just worth being aware)

fatboy · #28 Post by **fatboy** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:38 pm

Thanks for that guys, Im not the fastest meanest falco rider you'lln ever meet so the std 180 fitment will mastch my 'longlife' chicken strips

blinkey501 · #29 Post by **blinkey501** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:54 pm

HisNibbs wrote:Standard fitment is 180/55 and there is not much wrong with it. It is undersize on the rims and probably has a flatter profile than a /55 should be because of that. The normal alternative option is a 190/50 which provides an even flatter profile.

The 190/55 we are talking about here is a more expensive tyre and not standard or manufacture recomended fitment. There may be a need to tell your insurance company etc. It is taller and wider and a very close fit but does provide more contact patch at high angles of lean. If you have any sign of chicken strips on the 180/55 or 190/50 there is no point fitting this size as the contact patch is probably smaller at the lean angles being used.

Good news for pete then

HisNibbs · #30 Post by **HisNibbs** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 8:00 pm

blinkey501 wrote:
HisNibbs wrote:Standard fitment is 180/55 and there is not much wrong with it. It is undersize on the rims and probably has a flatter profile than a /55 should be because of that. The normal alternative option is a 190/50 which provides an even flatter profile.

The 190/55 we are talking about here is a more expensive tyre and not standard or manufacture recomended fitment. There may be a need to tell your insurance company etc. It is taller and wider and a very close fit but does provide more contact patch at high angles of lean. If you have any sign of chicken strips on the 180/55 or 190/50 there is no point fitting this size as the contact patch is probably smaller at the lean angles being used.
Good news for pete then

Don't forget it is not standard fitment so maybe just for the sake of completeness......