130/80 x 17 vs. 4.60 x 17?

[cclitle]

Strange, my cluch cable broke this evening. Any history of this with other group members? Is this a symtom of a bigger problem? Thanks Broken Down

[Tengai Mark Van Horn]

At 2:56 AM +0000 8/27/08, cclitle wrote:

>Strange, my cluch cable broke this evening. Any history of this with >other group members? Is this a symtom of a bigger problem?

Problem??? Depends on whether or not your bike has 20 miles or 20K miles. The clutch cable, while generally reliable, is a regular wear item and you'll replace it a couple times over the lifespan of the bike. Always carry a spare; they're only $15. Mark

[Thor Lancelot Simon]

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 12:01:42AM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:

> > It looks like the front (90/90 x 21) will fit fine. But the 250 stock > rear is listed as a 4.60 x 17. The 650's 130/80 x 17 looks like it's > an inch size of 5.0 whereas a 4.60 x 17 would be more like a 120/90 or > 110/90 metric size.

So, according to the parts diagrams, the front rim is the same as on the 650 but the rear rim is narrower. What's funny is that both Mefo and Kenda list most of their rear tires as manufactured in the 120/90 size, but nobody seems to stock them. Mail sent to Fred... hope he can order something reasonable. There do seem to be a lot of options in cheap street tires (and even not so cheap) if I wanted to go the total supermoto route! Maybe for a train station commute bike that'd be a fun thing to do. I figure my old 130/80 should get me home anyway and I can figure out what to use long-term while I fix the rest of the broken stuff on the bike (plenty). Thor