Can you put a 160 70 r17 instead of 150 70 r17?

[Tyre9374839]

Can you put a 160 70 r17 instead of 150 70 r17?
What are the consequences?
The tyres have slightly different beads, does that make a difference?
My 150 is showing metal wires on a patch on one side, can I still drive with that?
Can that be mended? Is there something to patch that up? Just so I can drive with the 150 again in future.
I have to drive it tomorrow.
Hence the questions about the 160

 

[STRider]

So this is a great tool I found on a Toyota Tacoma enthusiasts' website that allows you to compare different tire sizes and see the actual changes in real world dimensions.

https://www.tacomaworld.com/tirecalc?tires=150-70r17-160-70r17

The difference between the two tires you ask about is fairly small. The 160 is the width of the tire in millmeters - 10mm total or a little less than 1/2" or 5mm (<0.25") wider per side. The 70 is the tire height as a percentage of the width. Since that number is the same for both tires it will also be slightly taller too, by about 0.28" or 7mm.

Those are close enough to not matter much IMO.

 

[mortenk]

Yes, you can use the 160 tire with no major issues. If your old tire shows wires, I would be very careful, but without seeing a picture I can't really comment. I would be curious to understand what happened here...as far as speedometer impact goes, I cannot recall if the speed sensor is on the front or rear wheel on your model. If it's on the front, there will obviously not be any change in indicated vs. actual speed. If it's on the rear, you can see from the above post, that the impact is minor, and if anything, it's going to bring the speedometer closer to actual speed, as they always show too high readings from the factory.

 

[Slydynbye]

Can you put a 160 70 r17 instead of 150 70 r17?
What are the consequences?
The tyres have slightly different beads, does that make a difference?
My 150 is showing metal wires on a patch on one side, can I still drive with that?
Can that be mended? Is there something to patch that up? Just so I can drive with the 150 again in future.
I have to drive it tomorrow.
Hence the questions about the 160

First things first. What vehicle are you talking about?
It would be helpful if you would list it in your profile or mention the model and year in your post.

 

[dwalby]

First things first. What vehicle are you talking about?
It would be helpful if you would list it in your profile or mention the model and year in your post.

yeah, I'm assuming its an 1100 because neither of those sizes fit the 1300 AFAIK.

The 160/70-17 is the stock rear tire size for the 1100, so that should fit, whereas if you're currently running a 150/70-17 that wasn't the correct tire to begin with.

Also, those tire calculators usually need to be taken with a grain of salt because the tire 'size' is just a suggestion, not a hard spec. Many years ago I used to measure the circumference and width of each different tire I tried. The differences were rather surprising, as I recall no two tires IN THE SAME SIZE measured the same, they were all over the place. Unfortunately, I don't have the data today to share.

 

[STRider]

Also, those tire calculators usually need to be taken with a grain of salt because the tire 'size' is just a suggestion, not a hard spec. Many years ago I used to measure the circumference and width of each different tire I tried. The differences were rather surprising, as I recall no two tires IN THE SAME SIZE measured the same, they were all over the place. Unfortunately, I don't have the data today to share.

You're shaking my faith in corporate honesty.

But on a serious note, what else can any of us offer the OP? No slight intended, but I honestly wouldn't trust what any individual on this site reported for the physical dimension of any tire. The vagaries are just too numerous.

Use a mic to measure the thickness of a valve shim, maybe. A big rubber donut with a tape measure? Nahhh...

 

[dwalby]

But on a serious note, what else can any of us offer the OP? No slight intended, but I honestly wouldn't trust what any individual on this site reported for the physical dimension of any tire. The vagaries are just too numerous.

Use a mic to measure the thickness of a valve shim, maybe. A big rubber donut with a tape measure? Nahhh...

what we already offered the OP is the fact that the 150/70-17 is the wrong size tire for his bike, and 160/70-17 is the correct size.

FWIW, I measured the circumference by taking a piece of masking tape and running it around the perimeter of the tire with the wheel elevated in the air. Cut the tape to match end-to-end and then removed it and stuck it on a workbench. Measured the length of the masking tape with a tape measure to the nearest mm. That may not account for the weight of the bike deforming the tire slightly, but it was a consistent form of measurement for all the tires I tried.

Width is easy enough, a regular tape measure or ruler can be eyeballed close enough to get within 1mm or so. I seem to recall one of the 170/60-17 I installed on my FZR1000 actually measured 178mm across the width.

While on the topic of measurement, in Engineering 101 they taught us not to report measurements to more significant digits than the accuracy of the measurement can guarantee. The authors of that table apparently never took that class, as they're reporting the tire circumference values to 0.01mm resolution. That tells the story right there that they're working on theory and not on reality.

 

[STRider]

While on the topic of measurement, in Engineering 101 they taught us not to report measurements to more significant digits than the accuracy of the measurement can guarantee. The authors of that table apparently never took that class, as they're reporting the tire circumference values to 0.01mm resolution. That tells the story right there that they're working on theory and not on reality.

Oh, you're pushin' my buttons now! I live in the world of nanometers and angstroms (don't remind me that it's not an SI unit!) and my co-workers sprinkle meaningless extra figures into their data like they're seasoning a roast.

 

[dwalby]

Oh, you're pushin' my buttons now! I live in the world of nanometers and angstroms (don't remind me that it's not an SI unit!) and my co-workers sprinkle meaningless extra figures into their data like they're seasoning a roast.

I work in the world of nm also, but only indirectly. I work on the digital logic at the functional level, not the physical implementation of the device where those kinds of dimensions are commonly used. But I don't seem to recall Å being used in chip fabrication, they would just use tenths of a nm instead AFAIK. What work do you do that uses Å?