Tire wear

Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2004 5:45 am

How many miles do you guys get out of your tires and what kind of tires do you use?

My 900F came with fairly new Kenda (cheap?) tires and they didn't seem to last but maybe 4 or 5 thousand miles. The front is cupped around the tread and the rear is worn flat in the middle.

I don't road race or do hole shots or wheelies so it seems the tires should last longer than they have.

Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2004 1:02 pm

I never really plan for more than 10,000 KMS on a rear (usually less) and about double that for the front. It almost seems the more expensive the tire, the less milage you will get, but the better grip. Metz's are great, give reasonable mileage, and good stick, although a bit pricey, I've never been dissapointed with them (but $). I've tried Spitfires (Bridgestone), they also get reasonable mileage, good price, but in my opinion slightly less stick. Dunlop Gt 501's are currently on my CBX, they seem Ok, (the CBX runs out of clearance before it really starts pushing the tire) the rear is showing signs of weirdness, but it has given me about 6,000 kms or slightly more so it's OK, price was good.
Now for the kicker, I have recently put Maxxis Kevlar Sports on my 900.... They seem to stick well, (but I've never been caught in the rain and 8 degrees C yet either) and the price was good... don't know about how long they will last yet but the rear has about 4,000 kms on it and looks OK. Anyone else thied these tires?...
Also I once read that 90% of all tire problems (flats, whatever) happen in the last 10-15% of the life of the tire, so I tend to be on the side of replacing early rather than when the cords show...

Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2004 3:48 pm

Cupped front and flat rear are the typical wear patterns for motorcycle tires driven in a typical fashion, regardless of make and model.

More expensive tires don't wear faster, softer tires wear faster. The relationship is that for sportbikes the more aggressive tread compounds are on the more expensive tires.

Tread rubber doesn't wear off from contact with the road, it wears off from rubbing on the road (friction). Harder tread compounds have less squirm on the road surface and wear slower, but grip less (obviously).

My advice is to match your tire to the application. Don't get sport compound tires if you are not an aggressive rider. I'm running a set of Conti-Tours right now, which have outstanding ride quality and should provide a very long service life. The trade off is cornering traction (I haven't gotten even close to the tires capability yet, so no loss for me) and loss of road feel (the superb stability and comfort means almost no force transmitted from the road to the bars or butt feedback detectors).

Guder

Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 2:14 am

I put a set of inexpensive IRC Durotour RS310 out of DennisKirk on my daily rider this past April. I think the ones I took off were orignal equipment maybe, Bridgestone S11 F11 Spitfires. The bike had about 12000 miles at the time ( I think the mileage is accurate but cant be sure).

They seem to ride nice enough for me and I feel a bit more confident in the corners. The old read was pretty flat, like zero tread left. Was worried I'd start seeing the cords.

I understand the Bridgstone Spitfire is harder in the center for long life. Is that everyones experience?

Question: do the current Spitfires look like the old ones? I really don't like the look of the sidewalls of the ones I took off, and this made my mind up about going with something a little more modern looking.

Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 3:04 am

Sounds like the wear on my tires is typical.
Any thoughts/comments on Kenda tires? These seem to be one of the less expensive sport tires out there. If this is typical wear then I might just get another set of these since I like the ride and handling and they're cheap too! Very Happy

Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 3:12 am

Anyone posting replies might say what quality they find in whatever tires they use. The balance paint dot on my IRCs was ok on the front but was really not too accurate on the rear. Ended up putting on an ounce of lead (more than I've had to in the past) to get it balanced and not where I would usually expect it to go on the rim. I tried rotating the rubber on the rim to use less lead but to no avail.

Are higher priced brands better inthe quality control dept?

Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 3:41 am

You can count on a higher priced tire having higher standards for quality control.
I put a Battlax front tire on a 19" comstar that needed no wieghts. It balanced perfectly.
Maybe I was lucky but all my bikes have Battlaxe tires. None of them required alot of wieght to balance out

Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 12:12 pm

Can you still get a 19" Battlax for the front? I thought they discontinued them... Question

Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 3:17 pm

Here are some pics of the Kenda K671 Cruiser I had on my front. It had somewhere over 4k miles on it. It has about 2.3/32nds (0.09mm) left in the center channel. The lighting for the cupping is best toward the center of the pics. It is uniform across the tire.

At $48 I thought it was a very good value. Never had any compaints about the tire, except the wiggle in the bars if I took my hands off toward the end of it's wear.

More expensive tires tend to have better tolerances for each component, making a lighter and more uniform tire overall. Less control over each component requires 'overbuilding' to ensure minimum thickness, and produces more heat in the tire and can balance out poorly.

Again, however, I had no complaint with this tire at all.

Guder

Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2004 7:21 pm

That's exactly how my Kenda front tire cupped. Since this seems to be normal wear for these tires and I have had no problems with wobble or balance I guess I'll just get another set of these tires.
Thanks!

Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 12:52 am

Skid,

A similar thread was started about two months ago. Lots of good advice in that one. Matt from PSB in Montana and several other of the top posters here had interesting comments.

I use Michelin MacAdams and am very pleased with both the wear and the handling. They are about 100.00 for the rear and 80.00 for the front from the usual sources. I get about 8K miles out of the rear and more from the front, and they are replaced with some tread remaining for safety sake. I ride my 1100f moderately hard, but unfortunately, most time spent commuting or traveling on straight roads. I'd love to scuff the edges more!! Twisted Evil

Tyson

Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 4:09 pm

I read back through this thread today and noticed a glaring error.

Tread remaining was 2.3mm, which works out to around 3/32".

I think the tire started with about 7/32, which would give maybe another 2k miles of usable life remaining, provided the cupping didn't increase it's rate of progression more than would be expected.

Mea culpa.

Guder

Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2004 5:25 am

Buddy from work runs Pilots on his bike $1000.00 / Pair and
according to him they stick like glue But don't last at all ..
Twisted Evil

Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2004 4:15 pm

I think braking is what causes the cupping. Since normal tires spend most of their time rolling forward and stopping, the cupping becomes a normal trend.

Jose

Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2004 7:41 pm

how much for a new rear tire?

Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2004 4:08 am

I priced a new Kenda rear tire at the local bike shop...about $75 mounted and balanced if I do the R&R.

Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2004 2:40 pm

fasterspider wrote:

You can count on a higher priced tire having higher standards for quality control.
I put a Battlax front tire on a 19" comstar that needed no wieghts. It balanced perfectly.
Maybe I was lucky but all my bikes have Battlaxe tires. None of them required alot of wieght to balance out

But the next set of tires fasterspider is getting are Dunlops
170 & 120ZR/17's. I saw him order them. His pocket is drying up! Exclamation