Hi all my bikes a 59 plate and I use it a lot off road and I'm looking at the mitas e09 Dakar to replace the c02 and I always thought it looked a bit skinny being a 130 80 17 so I was thinking how fat can I go?

a lot offroad!...
130 is to big...
I use a 120...
fat tyres sit on the top of a lose surface... the grip is
found on the hard stuff below... thats where a narrow tyre
can cut though to where the grip is...
no one has ever made a tyre of any size that grips to
lose gravel etc... they grip to the hard stuff the gravel is sitting on..

if yer ride sand or mud alot then a wider tyre will help...

take a look at rally cars... more gravel on the road the narrower the
tryes they run... why no one wants to go first... the fast guys are the ones
running on the swept surface...



..

__________________
Harley Davidson..
The easyest way to turn gasoline into noise with out the side efect of horse power...

Petenz is right, but I use mine in mud a lot at low pressure,I use a 140 Mitas eo9 Dakar the heavy sidewalls help with the low pressure. But I also use an 18 inch wheel with a narrower profile..

Have 140/80-17 mitas e-07 and next one thinking to put 150/70-17.
Dont know yet if this will fit but anyway I will try.
I know all the loose gravel and grip thing but I like to slide

A 150/70 will physically fit inside the swingarm but is far too wide for the stock 2.75" rim. If you try to fit one, the rim will pull the beads in significantly, making the tyre egg-shaped in cross-section. It will make the handling terrible, the contact patch tiny and square-off so quickly you'll end up throwing it away after a few hundred miles.

A 140/80 is the biggest a 2.75" rim will safely take, and even then in my experience it still gets slightly pulled out of shape and negatively affects the road handling and squares-off quicker than a 130 of the same brand and speed rating. As Pete mentions, narrower is better off road in the vast majority of conditions. I also found with a 140/80 the traction off-road (on grass, mud and loose gravel) slightly worse than a 130. IMHO a 120 is the ideal for off-piste in all but sand, where a 140 has marginal advantages.

Unless you are desperate to aspire to the more macho look of a wider tyre, I'd personally (IMHO) stick to a 130/80. It is the best compromise. Perhaps not surprising then that it's the OE tyre size!

__________________

I have a list as long as my arm of tyres I would like to try!..

That�s good to know Pleiades. I will keep this in mind choosing next tire.

If you really must have the fat tyre look, you can always fit an X rear wheel and then it is possible too put a 170mm tyre in, it will just about go in the swingarm. ;-) this is the set up i use for towing. (only because the wheel and tyre came super cheap)

Be ****e offroad though.

__________________
To boldly go where no Tenere has gone before.

I'm running a 140 rear because. . A..I prefer the look and B..it's an Avon Distanzia and most (at least 80%) of my riding is on the road...albeit tiny narrow lanes around the South Downs. However. ...the previous comments are right. ..on the original rim a 130 is probably better off road as the tyre will 'dig' in more. An example of this is once a month there is a 4x4 off road event at some disused sandpits near here....one of the marshals drives an early Series Landy with the skinniest tyres and NEVER gets stuck...in fact he frequently tows out fat tyred shiny 4x4's!. Jo75's is different. ..he is running an 18 inch rear and a fairly aggressive tyre and is a frequent off roader. Steve

I have had a 150 x17 on the rear a few times.
cruises at 150km / hr easily.
You loose alot of talk in low reves.
But clears well in the swingarm.

__________________