Talon my 32" tire opinion

[bjniceguy]

I just returned from 3 days riding out by lake mead. I had on 32" Tusk Terabites (kevlar version) on system 3 15" beadlock wheels. I think they took a lot of snap out of the car. I could climb just fine (especially in low range) but car just seemed lethargic. It would go 75 on flat at 3K feet so it is not total power issue, just the snap.

i am thinking may go back to 30" for fun factor

Also has anyone had any issue with the I-drive on sand wash chop? It seemed like the front end fought itself part of the time. Really drove better in 2 wheel drive. No issues climbing or on loose rocks, just that desert sand chop you get into when following.

 

[Admin]

 

[HUCK]

One of my friends went to 30s and he says when he's done with them he is going back to 28s for the same reason you mentioned .

 

[Montecresto]

One of my friends went to 30s and he says when he's done with them he is going back to 28s for the same reason you mentioned .

Hmmmm, I was thinking of 30’s when the stock 28’s wear out......I guess the Honda engineers have it right....

 

[Bradley-Thornton]

Or you could just add a IGR.

https://hondasxs.com/threads/little-tire-to-gear-math.12476/#post-567684

 

[HondaTech]

I just returned from 3 days riding out by lake mead. I had on 32" Tusk Terabites (kevlar version) on system 3 15" beadlock wheels. I think they took a lot of snap out of the car. I could climb just fine (especially in low range) but car just seemed lethargic. It would go 75 on flat at 3K feet so it is not total power issue, just the snap.

i am thinking may go back to 30" for fun factor

Also has anyone had any issue with the I-drive on sand wash chop? It seemed like the front end fought itself part of the time. Really drove better in 2 wheel drive. No issues climbing or on loose rocks, just that desert sand chop you get into when following.

My boss is having driveability issues when he races in the woods and we're suspecting it's the larger tires (32 pro armour) and the front/rear wheel difference on stock wheels.

Even on system3 6/1 and 4/3 wheels the rear is still narrower and causes turning issues and instability.

Currently looking at Alba wheels, but they dont make the appropriate offsets either.

 

[hondabob]

My buddy is getting the turbo and I think it can be tuned for 28, 30's, and 32's.

 

[bjniceguy]

it worked fine in a foot of snow, I only have seen issues with I-drive in the sand chop.

 

[HUCK]

My buddy is getting the turbo and I think it can be tuned for 28, 30's, and 32's.

WAIT ! I am your Buddy , I am not getting a turbo . You have another buddy ?
My Talon is so great (knock on wood) I wouldn't take a turbo for free .
Maybe those Rs are not fast enough as they are not as fast or nimble as the Xs but the R is enough for you guys who chose them .
The Xs are a little to much for the AVERAGE guy .

 

[jamesh]

Plenty of snap for me on trails with 32s. I kept the stock wheels and tires for track riding. Some of it is weight related, not just diameter. I went with the lightest beadlock wheel and tire combo I was willing to spend $$$ on. If you love the snap so much, toss some 24s on it and make it even snappier.

I may add a turbo next year to get more response at high speeds when dune riding. Trails are rarely fast enough to require high gear where I ride.

The vast majority are extremely happy with 32s while an occasional person doesn't like them. I really hemmed and hawed over it. Glad I went 32s. I have the X4 and every bit of clearance helps with that longer wheel base. The P500 community has mostly decided on 27s being the best for that machine and the Talon community on 32s. I heartily agree on both counts.

 

[PaulF]

Elevation is a huge factor. The OP (from Iowa where the elevation is probably around 1600 feet) indicated that the "Snap" was gone at around 3000 feet with 32's and that makes sense. Whenever I read anything concerning power, I must adjust for elevation. Most around sea level say 32's are fine, I translate that to 30's at 5,000-10,000 feet where I ride and I may put the stock 28's on if I am going to be above the 8000 mark for extended periods.

Same thing with my previous machine. It came with 25's and I read all over that 27's would work great. Not for me, I had 27's and went back to 25's and sold the 27's. It was at that point I realized the majority of the information I was reading was from owners below 1000 feet and that I needed to adjust for elevation.

If the poster's location is not known, I take anything they post in regards to power with a grain of salt until I determine elevation.

 

[jamesh]

Elevation is a huge factor. The OP (from Iowa where the elevation is probably around 1600 feet) indicated that the "Snap" was gone at around 3000 feet with 32's and that makes sense. Whenever I read anything concerning power, I must adjust for elevation. Most around sea level say 32's are fine, I translate that to 30's at 5,000-10,000 feet where I ride and I may put the stock 28's on if I am going to be above the 8000 mark for extended periods.

Same thing with my previous machine. It came with 25's and I read all over that 27's would work great. Not for me, I had 27's and went back to 25's and sold the 27's. It was at that point I realized the majority of the information I was reading was from owners below 1000 feet and that I needed to adjust for elevation.

If the poster's location is not known, I take anything they post in regards to power with a grain of salt until I determine elevation.

That's a good point. I'm sub 1,000 ft so I guess I'm blessed in respect to oxygen availability. I do plan on some trips to Colorado and Moab, but I think the bigger tires will still be better for those rides for me as well. I rarely use all the power I have as it is. There are many that post about using manual mode for hill climbing. I always went into manual mode in my P500 when taking a technical hill. In the Talon, I just make sure I'm in low at the bottom of a technical hill and pretty much have forgotten to use manual mode to see if it would work better. I've climbed some hairy stuff and watched others roll their machines following behind me. Was in low gear auto every time.

 

[bjniceguy]

it is not a thing about power as I can pull the tires even at elevation, it is more with about how quick the motor responds (snap). I road last summer with 31" ITP Ultracross at 12K' and it pulled it fine even on high side. It has more snap in low range, but then limited on speed without stopping and gearing back up. I had 30" Carnivores on 14" rims and that was best setup for me all around, but 14" got rock inside wheel and grooved rim, so I went up to 15" wheels. The 29.5" x 15" Carnivores seemed punney compared to the 30" x 14". Again JUST my opinion.

 

[Montecresto]

Elevation is a huge factor. The OP (from Iowa where the elevation is probably around 1600 feet) indicated that the "Snap" was gone at around 3000 feet with 32's and that makes sense. Whenever I read anything concerning power, I must adjust for elevation. Most around sea level say 32's are fine, I translate that to 30's at 5,000-10,000 feet where I ride and I may put the stock 28's on if I am going to be above the 8000 mark for extended periods.

Same thing with my previous machine. It came with 25's and I read all over that 27's would work great. Not for me, I had 27's and went back to 25's and sold the 27's. It was at that point I realized the majority of the information I was reading was from owners below 1000 feet and that I needed to adjust for elevation.

If the poster's location is not known, I take anything they post in regards to power with a grain of salt until I determine elevation.

Absolutely spot on. Sold my 700 straight out over it. My talon x4 will keep 28’s or maybe, possibly 30’s. But not before the 28’s wear out, so I’ve got ample time to see where people shake out on this. My Talon is at 7,500’ and all my riding is up hill from there.

 

[PaulF]

My Talon is at 7,500’ and all my riding is up hill from there.

What those at sea level don't normally experience is the elevation power loss. At 5000 feet, I lose about 15% in barometric pressure which in turn delivers less oxygen. I basically have a 4.5 psi NEGATIVE turbo up here and lose about 15 HP. You at 7500 feet are losing about 23 HP, UGH!!! Quickly turning the wheel faster (what bjniceguy refers to as "Snap") is more related to torque and that is directly related to the gear ratio difference with larger tires. You will have this effect regardless of the weight of the tires.

So for those at sea level, try running some tires that are 15% bigger (32" tires) and then you will know what my stock Talon feels like at 5000 feet. Not bad and completely acceptable. However, If I put 32's on mine, it will feel more like 36's for you at sea level and you probably won't like that too much. That I why I will not even try 32's at my altitude.

 

[jamesh]

What those at sea level don't normally experience is the elevation power loss. At 5000 feet, I lose about 15% in barometric pressure which in turn delivers less oxygen. I basically have a 4.5 psi NEGATIVE turbo up here and lose about 15 HP. You at 7500 feet are losing about 23 HP, UGH!!! Quickly turning the wheel faster (what bjniceguy refers to as "Snap") is more related to torque and that is directly related to the gear ratio difference with larger tires. You will have this effect regardless of the weight of the tires.

So for those at sea level, try running some tires that are 15% bigger (32" tires) and then you will know what my stock Talon feels like at 5000 feet. Not bad and completely acceptable. However, If I put 32's on mine, it will feel more like 36's for you at sea level and you probably won't like that too much. That I why I will not even try 32's at my altitude.

How does a higher HP turbo machine handle bigger tires at elevation? I understand the turbo needs to spool up...so does a turbo still feel laggardly at higher elevation with bigger tires?

 

[PaulF]

How does a higher HP turbo machine handle bigger tires at elevation? I understand the turbo needs to spool up...so does a turbo still feel laggardly at higher elevation with bigger tires?

Yes, somewhat. However, turbos have come a long way and they now use smaller turbos that spool up FAST and they have a lot less "turbo lag".

The Talon turbo kit include a tuner with tire size specific tuning for 28, 30 and 32. I assume that one of those adjustments will be clutch engagement RPM (I need to look at my tuner and see if that is one of the parameters). Add a couple hundred RPM and you alter the HP/Torque at clutch engagement by al lot and make up for the bigger tires at takeoff. In first gear, it winds up FAST and the turbo kicks in shortly after that and off you go. I don't think 32's on a turbo will be a problem at all, even at 5,000 or 10,000 feet.

The Talon will have around 165 HP at seal level with the Turbo (I think it was Jackson claiming 60% increase). If that is true, the turbo will have about 140 at 5000 feet.

Keep in mind, even the 200 HP Can AM suffers from the altitude difference and only has 170 HP at 5000 feet. The turbo (in stock format) does not compensate for that, it adds X PSI to the base atmospheric pressure. For instance, lets say if at sea level, you start at around 30 psi and add 15 with the turbo for a total of 45 psi. At 5000 feet, you only start with 25 PSI and end up at 40.

They could possibly allow the boost (if the turbo was big enough) to compensate for altitude and push 20 psi at 5000 feet and make the 200 HP even at this altitude but as far as I know, no one does that. Probably because they would need to oversize the turbo and then they would get more turbo lag and lose the excellent response. Pros and Cons involved here that make it impossible to please everyone, everywhere.

 

[Jefferson87]

Yes, somewhat. However, turbos have come a long way and they now use smaller turbos that spool up FAST and they have a lot less "turbo lag".

The Talon turbo kit include a tuner with tire size specific tuning for 28, 30 and 32. I assume that one of those adjustments will be clutch engagement RPM (I need to look at my tuner and see if that is one of the parameters). Add a couple hundred RPM and you alter the HP/Torque at clutch engagement by al lot and make up for the bigger tires at takeoff. In first gear, it winds up FAST and the turbo kicks in shortly after that and off you go. I don't think 32's on a turbo will be a problem at all, even at 5,000 or 10,000 feet.

The Talon will have around 165 HP at seal level with the Turbo (I think it was Jackson claiming 60% increase). If that is true, the turbo will have about 140 at 5000 feet.

Keep in mind, even the 200 HP Can AM suffers from the altitude difference and only has 170 HP at 5000 feet. The turbo (in stock format) does not compensate for that, it adds X PSI to the base atmospheric pressure. For instance, lets say if at sea level, you start at around 30 psi and add 15 with the turbo for a total of 45 psi. At 5000 feet, you only start with 25 PSI and end up at 40.

They could possibly allow the boost (if the turbo was big enough) to compensate for altitude and push 20 psi at 5000 feet and make the 200 HP even at this altitude but as far as I know, no one does that. Probably because they would need to oversize the turbo and then they would get more turbo lag and lose the excellent response. Pros and Cons involved here that make it impossible to please everyone, everywhere.

Not exactly.

The turbo will make up for altitude more than an n/a engine. 15 psi in the intake is 15 psi in the intake, weather it's at sea level or 10k feet. Turbos were first made popular in ww2 fighter air planes to make up for power loss at elevation. Of course it will loose power since the turbo has to work harder to make the same boost level, but nothing like an n/a engine.

 

[PaulF]

Not exactly.

The turbo will make up for altitude more than an n/a engine. 15 psi in the intake is 15 psi in the intake, weather it's at sea level or 10k feet. Turbos were first made popular in ww2 fighter air planes to make up for power loss at elevation. Of course it will loose power since the turbo has to work harder to make the same boost level, but nothing like an n/a engine.

Well, sort off. 15 psi boost on top of a lower atmospheric pressure at altitude at the intake is NOT 15 psi boost on top of a higher atmospheric pressure at sea level at the intake. And I mixed up inches of mercury and PSI so my math was a little off (getting old sucks, too much crap in my head). 15 PSI boost plus 14.7 psi atmosphere at sea level is 29.7 psi at the intake. 15 psi boost plus 12.5 psi atmosphere at 5000 feet is 27.5 psi at the intake or about a 7.5% loss. A turbo cannot make up for the lower atmospheric pressure, it just adds to it. It also has other factors that eat up efficiency, namey the exhaust is less dense at a given RPM which in turn spins the turbine slower which in turn creates less boost as the altitude increases.

Theoretically, at 15 psi boost, you would lose about half what an N/A motor does at altitude but adding in turbine efficiency, thermal efficiency, air density, loss of exhaust density/pressure, etc, the real loss at altitude for a turbo motor at 5000 feet is closer to 10 to 12%, not 15 like I stated earlier.

In any case, back to the point. Us up here have a harder time making power and bigger tires make a bigger impact on us than you guys at sea level, turbo or not. 32's just don't seem to work well on a Talon when you are above 2500 feet. 30's seem to work well from 2500 to probably around 7500 and above that you would probably be better with 28's. With a turbo, you can probably get away with 35's, 32's and 30's respectively.

 

[Sheetmetalfab]

Well, sort off. 15 psi boost on top of a lower atmospheric pressure at altitude at the intake is NOT 15 psi boost on top of a higher atmospheric pressure at sea level at the intake. And I mixed up inches of mercury and PSI so my math was a little off (getting old sucks, too much crap in my head). 15 PSI boost plus 14.7 psi atmosphere at sea level is 29.7 psi at the intake. 15 psi boost plus 12.5 psi atmosphere at 5000 feet is 27.5 psi at the intake or about a 7.5% loss. A turbo cannot make up for the lower atmospheric pressure, it just adds to it. It also has other factors that eat up efficiency, namey the exhaust is less dense at a given RPM which in turn spins the turbine slower which in turn creates less boost as the altitude increases.

Theoretically, at 15 psi boost, you would lose about half what an N/A motor does at altitude but adding in turbine efficiency, thermal efficiency, air density, loss of exhaust density/pressure, etc, the real loss at altitude for a turbo motor at 5000 feet is closer to 10 to 12%, not 15 like I stated earlier.

In any case, back to the point. Us up here have a harder time making power and bigger tires make a bigger impact on us than you guys at sea level, turbo or not. 32's just don't seem to work well on a Talon when you are above 2500 feet. 30's seem to work well from 2500 to probably around 7500 and above that you would probably be better with 28's. With a turbo, you can probably get away with 35's, 32's and 30's respectively.

i just turn up the boost with elevation.
On my sled........

 

[Alan_Vander]

your close but not quite exactly like that. if the bike pop off/limit is at 15 psi of boosts itll turn 15 psi no matter what altitude its at. 29.7 or 27.5 psi doesnt really matter. basically its starter numbers on an even bigger equation. the oxygen % in the air is the real equation. from 20.9% to what?. that % difference is what percentage the motor will differ after you input it into the 2.2% change in the full atmospheric pressure.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk