i think it personal preference. i always ride with tyres that came off friends bikes that race and i never balance them. i never experienced any problemes. henk!!!
Rear should be balanced for the same reasons as the front. Out of balance may not be felt whilst riding, but will put undue stress on the wheel bearings etc. Not balancing the rear is simply because they've not got the kit to do it. The balance aid markings are a rough guide. I've fitted rears that have still took 30g plus...
I redo them even if removed for some reason, if I am in a rush I'd mark the tyre so can be remounted as it was but even then they can drift out. Racers can loose time over a tyre spinning on the rim and going out of balance. Sounds daft but I even mark up disc's if removing them as I have had problems with vibes and bal if remounted in a unknow position (could be the disc's ware in a way they are "matched").
those beads are interesting but how much of them do you need ,the circumference of a tyre is far greater than a small bottle , those beads probably coat the entire circumference of that bottle.
but how many miles difference are we talking abiut then,that shortens the lifetime off the bearings. i never had to change wheel bearings on had every time about 25000-30000km on my bikes. henk!!!
But is it not just the principle of it all? How about when I fit a new tyre I don't bother to check the valve stem, so it's cracked and could rapidly deflate at speed, so what, why bother it may last and last.. I think it's the point that it should be balanced and that's that...no? Its the little things that make the whole thing right IMO, tbh I would be happy to do what the customer asks, so if they don't want it balanced then that's up to them, I get to save 15 mins of my life and we are all happy.....lol
Always get them balanced whether track or road. You can only lose something if you dont, you can never gain
Don't you think the suspension has enough to do without having to steady an unbalanced wheel as well ? Davy
No, but it does become part of the rotating mass of the rear wheel when you actually want to go somewhere. :wink:
My 1200S 2013 came with rear balance weights. Both wheels should be balanced IMO. Mixed reviews on Dynabeads. Some report very bad wheel shake after hitting big bumps which redistribute the beads to the wrong places until it all settles down again. Static balancing with weights is best.
You can't balance a chain!! Apart from the fact that the difference in weights of links must be minute, due to different sprocket sizes the chain will be in a different position on the rear sprocket on each revolution! I always balance my rear wheel, and I fit the disc and sprocket carrier when I do it.
Logic would say that you would be better to balance the rear wheel than not, heck whats it even cost pennys You don't have to balance a crank or flywheel and theses are pretty well supported by solid bearings, the vibration this would cause can easily be noticed with every tooth in your head being shaken out and double vision I had an old KH125 2 stroke, the shop I bought it from removed lead weights from flywheel thinking it would rev up quicker which it did, they was very honest in saying how they had ballsed it up because there was no way you could have hidden the fact something was very wrong with that engine, it broke down many times with the woodruff key on the flywheel sheering, the thick foam grips made it tolerable Same apply's to a rear wheel, a rotating out of balance mass will cause vibration end off, how severe depends on how out of balance, less things out of balance less causes of vibration I just had my abba balance bar turn up today so I can do my rear wheel/tyre myself Unless you want to make a vibrator you would be better to balance than not
I agree that its necessary to balance both wheels, but the front is more important. I recently had to check the balance of my rear wheel following a puncture repair (Michelin PR2, done 6,500 miles on 750 monster). When originally fitted by my local, bike-only tyre guy, the wheel required 10g to balance it, apparently. I measured an imbalance which needed about 90g to correct after 6,500 miles use. This did not seem to correspond whatsoever with the position of the repair mushroom. I checked the bare wheel and found it to be within balance to about 10g, so most of the imbalance was caused by the tyre itself. Even by carefully aligning the heavy point of the bare wheel with the (measured) light point of the tyre I was unable to reduce the imbalance of the whole wheel to less than about 75g. I expected the balance to have changed a little over what is a relatively high mileage, but this seems to me like quite a big change in the tyre over its life. Does anyone have any similar experience of this kind of variation in a used tyre, or even of a new tyre which needed so much weight to balance it ? My theory is that, once a small imbalance develops, the resulting vibration and uneven tyre loading causes the imbalance to worsen over time. In the later stages the situation gets worse exponentially and thus a small initial imbalance can eventually lead to a rapidly accelerating uneven wear situation in a tyre that has done a high mileage. This would, if correct, also highlight the need to keep both wheels in good balance all of the time. Your comments on any/all of the above would be welcome.
A crank is a constant rotating mass, so balancing it makes sense and it works. But because you can't balance a chain (plus it's imperfections) and it arrives at the sprocket at different positions at different times, it makes sense to me not to waste time and effort needlessly balancing rear wheels that's all I'm saying.
