will the 180 rear tire fit on a 696?

i'm looking at a 180/55/17

its only .1" taller than stock (i've seen a few tires that are exactly the same height as the 160 were running) and only .75" wider

and all the tire websites like maxxis, bridgestone etc. says a 180 tires is recommended to fit on a 5.5" rim

i don't see why it wouldn't work...

 "work" is the key word here. It will fit surely but as far as working, the cross section/profile won't be correct and will affect the handling in a negative way. If you prefer your bikes look with a wider tire over its handling then a 180 is the way to go.

i found out a 696 has a 4.5" wide rear rim. and that IS to small of a rim for a 180. for some reason i thought the 696 rear rim was 5.5" wide.

guess i'll settle for a 170 which is recommended for a 4.5" rim.

it is basically the same size as the 160 only .4" wider...

JUST had a conversation about this yesterday with devout track kid.....he kept shaking his head about how "skinny" my rear tire is (stock).....kept saying I should look into at LEAST 180, preferably 190. My SO laughed at this saying WHY? replace with 'fatter", so it's harder to TURN??? 

Curious tho, what general concensus is on handling and moreso about SLICKNESS? of stock versus going "fatter".  I DO hope to do some track days this next year-but for MOST part, run as many errands as possible on bike or weekend twisties rides (hopefully more of latter tho) 

LUV to hear thoughts on this, ALL good, bad and ugly and what suggestions for replacements when time comes. Tks

Your SO is correct, a fatter tire will slow down your handling.  All it will add on your 696 is bling factor and maybe a performance gain from the lighter wallet.  More powerful bikes need the larger tire for traction.

Quote from: howie on November 02, 2008, 05:18:45 PM
Your SO is correct, a fatter tire will slow down your handling.  All it will add on your 696 is bling factor and maybe a performance gain from the lighter wallet.  More powerful bikes need the larger tire for traction.

  I've actually wondered how much better my 1999 900s would handle with a 160 rear.  My Monster and my SV have exactly the same hp, so it's plainly obvious that I don't need the fatty rear on the Monster.  [shrug]