Shinko tires?

NewTo700V said:
I wouldn't use that. Pilot street 2 is primarily for scooter usage and light bikes, not mid weight sports-tourers.

The pilot street 2 140 rear is rated at 66S. That doesn't meet the NT's 69W for the rear. These numbers are found in the owners manual, at the end where you find specs.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that.
 
NewTo700V said:
I wouldn't use that. Pilot street 2 is primarily for scooter usage and light bikes, not mid weight sports-tourers.

The pilot street 2 140 rear is rated at 66S. That doesn't meet the NT's 69W for the rear. These numbers are found in the owners manual, at the end where you find specs.
Click to expand...
The StreetPilot 2 I'm looking at has an 84W rating.Clipboard_02-02-2026_01.jpg
 
NewTo700V said:
???

Vendor I looked at and Michelin's own site for Pilot Street 2 list the 140 rear at 66S. Sure you aren't looking at something else?
Click to expand...
I also checked with Michelin and they do rate it at 66S. The tire with that stamp is listed as Steet Pilot 2. I will look at it closer. The more I look, the more I am inclined to stay with stock size Conti-Motion.
 
NewTo700V said:
???

Vendor I looked at and Michelin's own site for Pilot Street 2 list the 140 rear at 66S. Sure you aren't looking at something else?
Click to expand...
Here's another pic on that tire, showing it as Street Pilot 2. In the details of the product, he has load rating of 66. Clipboard_02-02-2026_01.jpg
 
I'm not sure what's going on, but there's no way a Pilot Street 2 is rated at 84. That's an incredibly high load rating.

Maybe partial photo cutoff stamp of internal part #?

For reference, a H.D reinforced bias Shinko rear I pulled off a Goldwing was rated 81.
 
Last edited:
Riddle me this - why would a bike that weighs less than 600 lbs specify a rear tire with load capacity of 716 lbs (69)?
 
Because official GVWR of the NT is around 1000lbs and 2 'Muricans with gear could easily surpass that. Honda's tire load rating is an engineer'd CYA factor.
 
Woodaddict said:
About 20 yrs ago ( HondaPC800), i HAD to put a Shinko when my preferred tire was out of stock. This is my only 1 time experience with this brand, but it wore out the fastest of any tire. Get what you pay for.

This is why I only install premium tires. They cost more, I've been doing my own tire changes since 2011, so haven't been knowing what dealership charges now. But the better grip and long mile longevity pays for the time or cost involved for the change.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. If a Shinko tire has the proper load and speed rating for a bike and someone wants to use it, that is fine with me. If I am on a 2,000 plus mile trip, I dont want to have to worry about a tire getting too close to the unsafe side. I also dont change my own tires...I removed the wheels and take them and new tires in. Probably $50 a tire and the recycling fee. Mellow proved to me just how fast a tire wears as it gets to the end of its life....If I needed a tire right now the Michelin Road 6, GT version for heavy bikes, 180/55 17 in is $305. The Shinko 003 single soft compound is $161. You pays your money and takes your choice.
 
Coyote Chris said:
I agree with you. If a Shinko tire has the proper load and speed rating for a bike and someone wants to use it, that is fine with me. If I am on a 2,000 plus mile trip, I dont want to have to worry about a tire getting too close to the unsafe side. I also dont change my own tires...I removed the wheels and take them and new tires in. Probably $50 a tire and the recycling fee. Mellow proved to me just how fast a tire wears as it gets to the end of its life....If I needed a tire right now the Michelin Road 6, GT version for heavy bikes, 180/55 17 in is $305. The Shinko 003 single soft compound is $161. You pays your money and takes your choice.
Click to expand...
Gotcha. So me plus 50 pounds of camping gear and my riding gear would be about 225 pounds. I don't take passengers. Gross weight around 800 pounds. I got 8 - 10 thousand miles on Shinko rear tires on my Sabre 700 - a wee bit lighter than the NT. I have around 9,300 on the Conti-Motion rear, which I can get from around $135.
 
Coyote Chris said:
I agree with you. If a Shinko tire has the proper load and speed rating for a bike and someone wants to use it, that is fine with me. If I am on a 2,000 plus mile trip, I dont want to have to worry about a tire getting too close to the unsafe side. I also dont change my own tires...I removed the wheels and take them and new tires in. Probably $50 a tire and the recycling fee. Mellow proved to me just how fast a tire wears as it gets to the end of its life....If I needed a tire right now the Michelin Road 6, GT version for heavy bikes, 180/55 17 in is $305. The Shinko 003 single soft compound is $161. You pays your money and takes your choice.
Click to expand...
If 2/3rds of the weight is on the rear tire, an 825 lb gross weight would have 562 lbs on the rear tire. A load capacity 66 would serve that with more than a hundred pounds to spare.
 
Manfred said:
If 2/3rds of the weight is on the rear tire, an 825 lb gross weight would have 562 lbs on the rear tire. A load capacity 66 would serve that with more than a hundred pounds to spare.
Click to expand...
An interesting thought. So what does a rear tire see in its frame of reference? OK, it sees the pressure on it from the axle of course. And the tire pressure. And the rotational component....and of course the big one, the force needed to turn it to make the bike go say 80 mph, Then there is the heat build up...on a 32 degree day....on a 100 degree day...or even a rainy day.....along with its flexing and unflexing every revoluttion. It has a pretty tough life....And lets not forget braking. And cornering forces. I am so old I remember changing tub tires on 1970s- 1980s tube type tires, which we had to do often. Not easy being a tire design team.
 
Coyote Chris said:
An interesting thought. So what does a rear tire see in its frame of reference? OK, it sees the pressure on it from the axle of course. And the tire pressure. And the rotational component....and of course the big one, the force needed to turn it to make the bike go say 80 mph, Then there is the heat build up...on a 32 degree day....on a 100 degree day...or even a rainy day.....along with its flexing and unflexing every revoluttion. It has a pretty tough life....And lets not forget braking. And cornering forces. I am so old I remember changing tub tires on 1970s- 1980s tube type tires, which we had to do often. Not easy being a tire design team.
Click to expand...

I had one catastrophic tube failure in the '70s that nearly killed me. I've never had a mid-displacement bike (700-800 cc) that ran a rea tire wider than 130 on my '87 Honda Sabre 700. Honda didn't even give load ratings for that bike.
 
140 is not the correct width for the NT and the motion 140 is rated for 66, just like Pilot Street 2.
NT is 150. There is no need to risk a 140. For literally a few dollars more you can get the conti-motion stock size for NT 150/70-17 and it's 69W.
 
NewTo700V said:
140 is not the correct width for the NT and the motion 140 is rated for 66, just like Pilot Street 2.
NT is 150. There is no need to risk a 140. For literally a few dollars more you can get the conti-motion stock size for NT 150/70-17 and it's 69W.
Click to expand...

It's not a risk. There's no change my bike will overload the 140 tire. If 2/3rds of the weight is on the rear tire, an 825 lb gross weight would have 562 lbs on the rear tire. A load capacity 66 would serve that with more than a hundred pounds to spare. Fact is, less the 2/3rds of the weight is on the rear tire.
 
What you are doing is not recommended. You are fitting a smaller width tire. Seating the bead will stretch the tire making the profile flatter. This will change handling, possibly making it feel twitchy with less confidence in corners. You are also putting the rim at more risk of damage.

I like saving money as much as the next guy. I've run darkside, I'll install Shinkos, I'll put in EBC pads and AllBalls fork seals. I would not fit a narrower tire with less load rating than stock.
 
NewTo700V said:
What you are doing is not recommended. You are fitting a smaller width tire. Seating the bead will stretch the tire making the profile flatter. This will change handling, possibly making it feel twitchy with less confidence in corners. You are also putting the rim at more risk of damage.

I like saving money as much as the next guy. I've run darkside, I'll install Shinkos, I'll put in EBC pads and AllBalls fork seals. I would not fit a narrower tire with less load rating than stock.
Click to expand...
I've done this on other bikes with no problem. Going one size smaller is not a fit problem on the rim. The load ratings are set to reduce risk and the highest gross weight possible for the bike.
 
NewTo700V said:
The price difference between the 140 and 150 is that of a Starbuck's Americano. :confused:
Click to expand...
There are improvements in handling with a slightly narrower rear tire. There is $20 difference between the two. I am not asking you to do this. Merely telling y'all what I've done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom