Tires--16". And the rear shock. And a contentious, carefully asked question!

[fintip]

So I am desperately in need of new rubber, and while I have been hoping to eventually buy an updated front end with a 17" rim, for the time being, I just need new rubber, and so I think I am going to hope that our friend in the Canary islands is onto something and just get an Avon AV45. I will then buy the adapter plate to eventually fit my R6 bluespots/pee-cup-MC that I have in waiting. And then I'll get Randy's cartridge emulators. And then the brace. And then, at some point, that in-house rear shock (I really do love Randy).

(And in the near future, hopefully, disable the antidive while I'm waiting.)

So yes, I will have the disadvantage of a slightly narrower tire and a heavier rim (anyone know the exact weight difference, by chance?), and the slight weight gain of the adapter plates (which some people consider unsightly), and pretty much only one good tire option (mind you a very well rated one; I say one because I can't imagine choosing a non-radial over a radial, from what I've read), but... It should still be a huge improvement, and I just take what I can get.

I imagine that one day after all of that, maybe I'll have some money and find a set of lowers off a later year-model bike and then a rim with rotors and just pop off the adapters and finish the update properly.

So what's my question? Well... Anyone know where I can find a good deal on an Avon AV45 front--or, if there's a combo of the front and rear for less than 200? The cheapest I can find the front for (with shipping) is $112.88, and that's a lot for me. Most places seem to have them for $125 (+shipping or free shipping), so that's not a huge improvement. My rear tire is squared pretty good, but it has plenty of tread, so that's not as urgent, but if I found them together for less than $200, I'd probably do them as a set.

-----

Making a slight jump:

Is there a chance my rear shock is still fine? My bike was stored indoors almost the entirety of its 27 year life, and I'm a bantamweight at 155. At 5"10, just my toes are touching, and I don't flatfoot the ground unless I have a lot of luggage or a substantial passenger on the back. Rebound seems (as far as I can tell), ok... And Mr. Bean seemed to think it seemed fine when I was there in Portland and saw him.

Is it possible that I don't really need the rear shock upgrade? This might be a question for Randy... Would it be an update regardless?

-----

Now, caution here...

Not wanting to start an argument! 

So glad we have that emoticon. But seriously, I have talked front ends multiple times here, so if you feel like this: 

about it, please, do this instead: 

And just walk away shaking your head at me, the foolish kid who can't just let well enough die.

So, that being said!

Though agreeing that I am almost certainly choosing a slightly suboptimal route... it is easier, requires no 'lump sum' purchase of a complete later-year front end, can be done in stages, is ultimately cheaper, and...

...Well, I guess I'm purely curious--exactly how much suboptimal do you think this setup will ultimately be? How much difference does a heavier rim actually make? I know the subjective answer from some will be 'all the difference in the world', though I know Monkey, at least, made more than one upgrade at the same time (switched to RPM emulators at the same time he switched to a 17" later front end, if I remember right). and wasn't there some discussion where it came out that David--with all due respect, if I ever know half as much as he does I'll be happy--had never used some certain tire that Alf insisted was THE 16" [was it the Avon?], and so Alf end up saying that was probably the reason they could never agree on this issue?

Which doesn't invalidate their responses, but it does leave me curious, given Alf's feelings on the matter and my own (laymen's, ignorant amateur) reading. So...

Almost purely for the sake of doing the experiment, I kind of want to build a front end that has every improvement EXCEPT for the 16" to 17" conversion, just to have one of you guys ride it and be able to compare that difference alone, in isolation from all the others, and get some feedback. And besides, I've been different my whole life, why not continue the trend and be the only guy at a rally with my unorthodox setup?  (sidenote: give that the WCR is in May this year, I won't be able to make it--it would have had to have been at the end of summer for it to work for me, I'm stilling trying to get my life stable here at the moment. Still hoping for next year though.

As some have noted, the 16" (mind you a lighter, modern, probably wider 16" rim) has made a small comeback in motogp around 2007, and the current standard since the monotire rule is 16.5, and so I'm not convinced that it's all bad--especially when I do a layman's reading of rake angle and and weight distribution, and feel like it's probably not such a bad idea. I have found my thoughts echoed by this guy in this thread, and am left wondering if 17" is a modern fad just like 16" is now considered to be an outdated fad. Michelin wrote about developing 16" tires very favorably in 2007 here, but various changes happened over the next couple of years that caused the company to lose the upper hand, and then motogp switched to only allowing bridgestone to manufacture tires... And Bridgestone has all of their technology invested in the 16.5, so everyone is sticking with 16.5 for the time being.

I guess I'm wondering if anyone knows a source for some other math insights on the issue? Or some kind of conclusive testing, or magazine review on tire sizes that's relevant? Or any speculation? This is an open conversation on the topic with some more data.

And, I feel like no one's ever asked this question but... Anyone have a hunch on maybe some lighter 16" rims that might be compatible? Just throwing the question out there, not seriously pursuing it.

Lastly, one last peace offering if anyone is annoyed, I realize that with all that being said, having a heavier, narrower rim likely defeats most of the possible benefits of a 16. I'm just too ignorant to be sure, and it's an interesting topic when I look into it.

[ribbert]

Keep it simple. There is a truckload of choice in 17" and there's not in 16".
I think the change was more evolution than fad.
Choice, volume and competition keep prices keen.
I have only ever had the 17" but the widespread consensus here from those that have upgraded seems to be that the bike handles better.

A standard shock (assuming there is no actual failure) can be adjusted so as not to be dangerous (wallowing) at speed but at the expense of any comfort.
Yes, it is probably serviceable for general use but the bike would be greatly improved with a new one.

I got to 100,000 km's on the original but I know it's crap.

I for one will be elbowing my way to the head of the queue for an RPM shock.

Noel

[Arnie]

I've ridden quite a number of FJs.  Some of them identical other than the license plate and choice of tires.
EVERY one of them felt different.
Everyone here who has modified their FJ's wheels and suspension, originally thought it was (great, good, or good enough) when they bought it.
A box stock FJ (even the early ones with 16" front wheels) has good handling (for a bike of this size and weight). 
The basics for a good handling bike are there since manufacture in the frame and dimensions.
However, time has passed and there are now tires and wheels and suspension designs that are better but were either not available or too expensive when the bike was built.
If you need new tires today, but don't have the ready cash to make the wheel and suspension mods now, then BUY the tires you need NOW.  When you've worn through them in 6-12,000 miles (probably a year or more) you will hopefully be in a better financial place and can them make the changes you want.
The wheel and suspension changes do make a difference, but a better rider will still run away and hide on a stock bike.  And, all the changes to wheels, forks, brakes, and tires will still not make the FJ handle like an RGV250 or even an R6 or GSXR600.

Arnie
     

[fintip]

For the record, I've put about 10k miles on the FJ since I got it last November. It's my daily rider, and living in Texas, I cover a lot of distances.

Noel, I've experienced the weave/wallow on my friend's '84 R100/RS that I interpreted as being due to completely ruined suspension, making that bike horrendous to ride. But I've never felt a weave on the FJ (I very well may not have pushed it hard enough, given that I've never even had a good front tire on it). Should I interpret that as a sign that my shock is good?

And while this bike will never handle like an R6, I'd like to think that someday it could have handling comparable to some generation of a stock R1. I wonder how the XJR handles...

And the point about cheaper tires for 17" because of greater supply is another disadvantage I forgot to mention--though the cost of the upgrade would make it a few years before that paid itself off, likely.

[Arnie]

But I've never felt a weave on the FJ (I very well may not have pushed it hard enough, given that I've never even had a good front tire on it). Should I interpret that as a sign that my shock is good?

No, but you can interpret that as a sign that it isn't horrible. Arnie

And while this bike will never handle like an R6, I'd like to think that someday it could have handling comparable to some generation of a stock R1.

Never happen.  The FJ is 160 lbs heavier (at least), way different angles, etc, etc, etc.  You can certainly make it handle better, but it will never handle like an R1.  However, it is way more comfortable and on public roads you'll be able to walk to the pub after a full day's ride, instead of crawling over to the chiropractor 

Arnie

[fintip]

And that's a compromise I'll take. 

Seriously, it was a huge factor in my picking the FJ. I tell people I rode this bike 1600+ miles in 35 hours, woke up the next day, and wanted some more. That just doesn't happen on a crotch rocket. (I also have a great Corbin, which helps, but no Corbin in the world will save an R1 rider.)

[yamaha fj rider]

Never happen.  The FJ is 160 lbs heavier (at least), way different angles, etc, etc, etc.  You can certainly make it handle better, but it will never handle like an R1.  However, it is way more comfortable and on public roads you'll be able to walk to the pub after a full day's ride, instead of crawling over to the chiropractor 

Arnie

+1 I used to ride with a group guys on fzr, yzf, gsxr, cbr and ? after three hundred miles they just wanted to go home. Many times I kept going, A couple of times I was called a lair, that I waited a little bit then went home, so they checked my mileage then again the next morning at work. Odometer does not lie.

Kurt   

[movenon]

Ok... here you go http://www.fjowners.com/index.php?topic=8910.msg83738;topicseen#msg83738 don't over think it.

A comment I get quiet often is "gee I wish my seat was like yours".
George