• Can't post after logging to the forum for the first time... Try Again - If you can't post in the forum, sign out of both the membership site and the forum and log in again. Make sure your COG membership is active and your browser allow cookies. If you still can't post, contact the COG IT guy at IT@Concours.org.
  • IF YOU GET 404 ERROR: This may be due to using a link in a post from prior to the web migration. Content was brought over from the old forum as is, but the links may be in error. If the link contains "cog-online.org" it is an old link and will not work.

Rear PR3 toast - 5,300 miles

Fred H.

Fred H.

Member
Member
I thought everyone said these tires lasted a lot longer. Not for me. I just put these on new in June before leaving for the National. I dunno if it's the higher speeds, roads, heat, or what, but I've just about got cord showing on my rear and I'm way past the tread bar indicators. Probably should have been replaced 500 miles or more ago, but I was on a trip. Was worried if the tire would even get me home. The left side of the tire is worn much more than the right. Normally my tires wear pretty even, but not this one. I pushed it pretty hard in Colorado this last week, and the edges of the tread blocks are scalloped, but I expected that.

I guess I'm just a little surprised. I got this many miles out of the Pirellis. I was hoping for better. Oh well, time to order some new ones.
 
Last a lot longer than what?

I have used four different tires on a C-14, the OEM Bridgestones (021's), Michelin PR2s, Michelin PR3s and Pirelli Angel GTs. Of that list, the PR2 rear tires lasted the longest. PR3s are softer and wear faster than PR2s. Pirellis also wear faster than PR2s but I did not accumulate enough miles on the Pirellis to really compare them to PR3's regarding wear; the fastest wearing rear tire of the bunch was the Bridgestone.

As far as front tires, it seems that everything works well and lasts a long time on that end of the bike with the single exception of the Bridgestone; the lifespan was not awful but the wear pattern was as the tire wore in a series of flats and the bike was always 'hunting' in a lean either trying to force a deeper or shallower angle due to the flats.

I do not think any soft, sport touring tire will last a 'long time' on a C-14 due to the bike's weight and power output. Let's face it, this bike takes the same size tires as true sport bikes in the liter and even 6XX cc range and those bikes are much kinder to the same tire, at least if they are ridden in any kind of similar fashion, simply due to their far lower weight.

I need a new set of sneakers myself and just cannot decide which ones to get but will probably end up with another set of PR3s. I might even mount a set of 1/2 used Pirellis that are laying around for the winter and early spring (they are a fantastic cold weather tire IMO) if I can grind enough of the ridges out of the rear tire to stop it from resisting tip- in so hard. Next spring the bike will almost certainly get a new pair of PR3s for the ride to Idaho and back- it is 2,500 miles for me each way and even more if I get to Idaho via the Pacific. My last two long trips were over 7K each and one set of PR3s will easily make that and more although the great majority of those trips was droning along on the highway.

Brian

Fred_Harmon_TX said:
I thought everyone said these tires lasted a lot longer. Not for me. I just put these on new in June before leaving for the National. I dunno if it's the higher speeds, roads, heat, or what, but I've just about got cord showing on my rear and I'm way past the tread bar indicators. Probably should have been replaced 500 miles or more ago, but I was on a trip. Was worried if the tire would even get me home. The left side of the tire is worn much more than the right. Normally my tires wear pretty even, but not this one. I pushed it pretty hard in Colorado this last week, and the edges of the tread blocks are scalloped, but I expected that.

I guess I'm just a little surprised. I got this many miles out of the Pirellis. I was hoping for better. Oh well, time to order some new ones.
Click to expand...
 
Well, I guess I had been lead to believe that the PR3's lasted longer than the PR2's, but that hasn't been the case for me. I at least got 6K out of the PR2's.
 
Not my experience after going through 5 PR2s and now 3 PR3s- the -2s are harder, ride harsher and last longer. On top of that they are considerably less expensive than PR3s and probably the best value in a premium tire, at least amongst the ones I have personally used.

I would love to try on a set of Continental Road Attacks but am wary simply because the other three mentioned (PR2, PR3 and Angel GTs) are such excellent tires it is hard to believe the Conti's would really compete. And the PR2s have always performed well for me including in the rain 'cause I ride like Mary Jane Tinklepants in the rain anyway and so never have really asked much from a tire other than not hydroplaning at high speed, and neither the PR2s or PR3s have ever shown me any tendency to do that.

Great Fred, now you have me thinking about buying a PR2 rear tire instead of a PR3! <grin> I do like the PR3 front tire better but would not avoid a PR2 rear tire.

Decisions, decisions.

Brian



Fred_Harmon_TX said:
Well, I guess I had been lead to believe that the PR3's lasted longer than the PR2's, but that hasn't been the case for me. I at least got 6K out of the PR2's.
Click to expand...
 
I agree on the 5K - 6K milage number pretty much regardless of the 4 tires BDF mentioned.  Personally, I vote for the PR3 as best of breed.  And I always change both tires at the same time (barring changes for flats).  I believe a more sane rider would probably get higher milage, like someone who rides an ST, for instance. :great:
 
Funny, my PR3's have about 7k on them and look fine,  plenty of tread left although they are starting to scallop a bit from all the slab I burn...

I want to at least get them through the end of the season...then I can look for a set of new Rubber :)
 
Now that right there is amazing Bruce for two reasons: you and I live about what, 30 miles apart? And we have ridden together and I don't remember our riding styles / speeds being significantly different. Oh yeah, there is a third reason- I often ride 2-up while you never do, at least on the C-14 I believe. Considering that, I can easily get 15K miles out of a set of PR2's and have done so at least 3 times! It is easy enough to write off the difference in tire wear between individuals, different areas of riding, etc. but between you and me I would not have expected such a difference.

There is only one thing that has come to mind when I read these mileage topics- I wonder how much compression braking different people use? I use virtually none and I wonder of those that do use it tear more tread off the rear tire in doing so? If that were the case my brake pads would (should?) show more wear than some others who use more compression braking.

Maybe it depends on which pocket you put your fob in....?  ;D

Brian

BJ_CT said:
I agree on the 5K - 6K milage number pretty much regardless of the 4 tires BDF mentioned.  Personally, I vote for the PR3 as best of breed.  And I always change both tires at the same time (barring changes for flats).  I believe a more sane rider would probably get higher milage, like someone who rides an ST, for instance. :great:
Click to expand...
 
I was getting around 4800 from PR2's & now running PR3's which are getting about 5500. I just keep a set on the shelf.

Cliff  :beerchug:
 
I am riding a new '12 C14 w/ the Bridgestone B021's.  I presently have 3500 miles on them and they still look like new, in spite of being taken to the chicken line countless times.  I have also done the straight slab a lot, and surprisingly, they still look fresh.
 
Just Cliff said:
I was getting around 4800 from PR2's & now running PR3's which are getting about 5500. I just keep a set on the shelf.

Cliff  :beerchug:
Click to expand...

Sounds like we are getting about the same mileage out of tires. It seems like every couple of weeks I'm having to put new tires on one bike or the other. I guess I need to invest in stock in a rubber company. Or maybe I need to make friends with someone who works at a tire company.
 
The left side of the tire is worn much more than the right. Normally my tires wear pretty even, but not this one ???
Maybe the roads you were riding on were more agressively sloped to the right to help expedite rain removal from the roadway than the roads you normally ride?  I notice that on my tires here in ATL area...just sayin :great:
 
I only got 5500 out of the first rear tire PR3, but just returned from the Rockies and the rear has 6400 on it now, so I guess its which batch of rubber they use as this rear tire had a trip to the Smokies on it also.
 
PR 3 .....I got 11k out of a rear and the front is still going at almost 14 though I have a set of fresh PR3's that I got sitting in the barn. I have noted that the front is not leaning in as readily and will probably trade it out next week and keep the current rear with 4 K and not much wear in place.
 
Just did a 1500 mile trip 2 weeks ago with brand new PR3's.  When I got home the rear was down to the wear bars.  :)

Spending 5 days leaned over and on the gas will tend to do that.
 
cablebandit said:
Just did a 1500 mile trip 2 weeks ago with brand new PR3's.  When I got home the rear was down to the wear bars.  :)

Spending 5 days leaned over and on the gas will tend to do that.
Click to expand...

:great:

I burned up a rear Angel in one weekend.  That tire ended up only having 2800 miles on it when the new one went on.  Arkansas has some pretty abrasive roads. :-X
 
I was just looking at BikeBandit, and I notice all the PR3's are W speed rated tires, not Z rated like the PR2's were.  I already tossed my rear, but the front I have is a Z rated tire. So now I'm wondering if maybe I had a W rated tire on the rear. I guess I'll have to start paying closer attention, I didn't realize they were selling them in W rated tires.
 
Just went back and reviewed my order history, and it looks like Bike Bandit did indeed send me a W rated rear tire. I really had to look to find the speed rating of it, as it wasn't even mentioned in the order, you have to really drill down into the details to see it. None of the other sites I've looked at are selling these in W rated tires.

I guess I've learned my lesson. I'll by my next set from Murph, where I won't get the bait and switch routine.
 
Z  > 149 mph
W = 168mph

W rating is a more recent introduction in speed rating. Z used to be the highest number and was rated for "over 149mph". But technically, W is actually a high speed rating than Z.

I'm not sure what the difference in construction between the two tires is, possibly a change in the carcass and number of belts and/or a softer compound, but other sites are selling the PR3's as Z rated.  I suspect the Z rated tires will outlast the W rated ones.


 
ZG said:
I just got a new PR3 rear today, where is the W or Z rating listed?  :017:
Click to expand...

It should be incorporated into the size number printed on the side. You should see either a 190/50 ZR 17 or a 190/50 WR 17
 
Fred_Harmon_TX said:
ZG said:
I just got a new PR3 rear today, where is the W or Z rating listed?  :017:
Click to expand...

It should be incorporated into the size number printed on the side. You should see either a 190/50 ZR 17 or a 190/50 WR 17
Click to expand...

Thanks Fred, I just looked and the one I got mounted today is a Z, although I'm not sure if that is a good or bad thing??  ???
 
ZG said:
Fred_Harmon_TX said:
ZG said:
I just got a new PR3 rear today, where is the W or Z rating listed?  :017:
Click to expand...

It should be incorporated into the size number printed on the side. You should see either a 190/50 ZR 17 or a 190/50 WR 17
Click to expand...

Thanks Fred, I just looked and the one I got mounted today is a Z, although I'm not sure if that is a good or bad thing??  ???
Click to expand...

I'd stick with the Z rated tires myself. I just pulled off a rear W rated tire and it wore badly, and fast. I won't be buying another one.
 
- wouldn't a tyre with a higher speed rating be better ?

- they're always more expensive , esp on cars !!

.
 
dog said:
- wouldn't a tyre with a higher speed rating be better ?

- they're always more expensive , esp on cars !!

.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Typically, the higher the speed rating, the softer the compound used, and if the tire is made with a softer compound, it will wear out faster. So if you run a speed rating higher than what you really need, you just end up wearing your tires out faster.

I'm not sure just yet what's going on with the W rated tires that BikeBandit is selling, and if they really are W rated, since I already tossed the tire out. I may go back and try to locate it and double check the sidewall letters. But personally, I'd steer clear of any W rated PR3's until I can learn whats going on with them. I'll try to call Michelin on Monday and see what they have to say about them.
 
Fred, we're on about the schedule. Put PR3's on week after the nationals, got back from MO. today front has 2/32's & rear is beyond worn out. Left side/center completely slick, right side some tread & they have 5396 mi. on them. Will have to check those ratings tomorrow. Changing tires is getting old!

Cliff  :beerchug:
 
Just Cliff said:
Fred, we're on about the schedule. Put PR3's on week after the nationals, got back from MO. today front has 2/32's & rear is beyond worn out. Left side/center completely slick, right side some tread & they have 5396 mi. on them. Will have to check those ratings tomorrow. Changing tires is getting old!

Cliff  :beerchug:
Click to expand...

The left side on my rear also wore down slick. Normally my rear tires wear pretty evenly from left to right. This is the worst one I've seen.
 
The left sides have always work out first on every tires I've run on the C14.

I think Z is just an old rating.  The new W and Y actually have "speed limits" instead of the old Z which was basically as fast as you can go.


Every PR3 I've gotten (i think 5 so far) has had identical markings. 
 
I now have 5,400 miles on my PR3s, same ones which went to 2012 National in Arkansas and bombed around there, then went bombing around in WV and just this past weekend, Hudson Valley NY.

Off subject a moment, as I rode with my mc over State 9 from Newburgh to West Point it opened up a lost segment of memory, and I remembered riding that many times on a Kawasaki H1 Mach III 2-stroke triple (500cc) 41 years ago, when it was the fastest production motorcycle on the planet. I was amazed how stable and neutral the Connie is, as I remembered that H1's flexible flyer frame twitching on 9's curves. But I was young and fearless then, and figured full leathers and a Bell helmet would keep me safe. Apparently, it did, since I'm here now to remember it.

So PR3s are also lightyears better than we had even 10 years ago.

Anyway, my current pair still have plenty of tread on them, and I will no doubt winterize with them still on, and replace in the Spring. Though I might buy over the winter when everyone sells them cheap and has combo deals.

Unless PR4s come out, I'll be on 3's next year again, I love every aspect of them, and they are lasting me quite well, especially considering how heavy I am and then combining that with most of my riding miles come from trips with loaded luggage.
 
Fred_Harmon_TX said:
I thought everyone said these tires lasted a lot longer. Not for me. I just put these on new in June before leaving for the National. I dunno if it's the higher speeds, roads, heat, or what, but I've just about got cord showing on my rear and I'm way past the tread bar indicators. Probably should have been replaced 500 miles or more ago, but I was on a trip. Was worried if the tire would even get me home. The left side of the tire is worn much more than the right. Normally my tires wear pretty even, but not this one. I pushed it pretty hard in Colorado this last week, and the edges of the tread blocks are scalloped, but I expected that.

I guess I'm just a little surprised. I got this many miles out of the Pirellis. I was hoping for better. Oh well, time to order some new ones.
Click to expand...

I currently have 8,500 miles on my PR3 rear & front tires. Although I could probably get a few more miles (another 1,000 on the rear, more than 1,000 on the front) on these PR3s, I just contacted my Kawasaki Dealer to order new PR3 tires for my C14. My Michelin PR3s have offered the best grip and long term mileage than any other tires.
 
Tire Pressures....any recommends from those getting the higher mileage out of their Connie tires?  My OEM's have 5k and although the rear has plenty of life and is wearing even, the front is bumpy down the elevated center but has plenty of rubber remaining. I just bumped the pressures up to 40 but took my trip up to Canada last month running them at 35 psi...
 
Also meant to ask if most are running the stock rear 50's or are there many Connie owners bumping up to the 55's.  Thanks!
 
Mine are Z rated, first pair worn even 6k+ and 2 track days, the last leaving the rear toast. Current pair tracking ok, rear is the 55 now...will be interested to see if I can notice a difference on the track. But since I'm no expert I'll only notice the fun I'll have.

Oh and I noticed my current set are made in Spain. There was a lot of talk of PR2 etc coming out of Asia....thought I'd mention it.
 
  I was wondering if anyone has played around with changing the tire profiles of either /or both front and rear on the C-14 model. I am curious if anyone has found any noticeable handling improvements defined.
  I have played around with the various suspension adjustments, which has improved vastly the funky handling characteristics of this otherwise great performing bike.
  Seems like everything was so much simpler with my old C-10. I had Michelin then finished with Pirelli and were happy with both, until I finally sold it for this bike upgrade.
 
Some one brought out the issue on manufacturing consistency regarding the PR3. It could be that the reason why folks are getting such variance on tire wear performance may have to do with manufacturing quality controls...which if true, that would be sad.

Is it possible to put a wider rear tire on the Connie...
 
Jerry said:
Also meant to ask if most are running the stock rear 50's or are there many Connie owners bumping up to the 55's.  Thanks!
Click to expand...

I really can't think of a reason to run 55s in the rear, most of the assumed improvements aren't actually real, and it does change the way the bike handles, and personally I think Kawasaki probably got it right to start with considering all the engineering and testing they put into the C14.
 
I have just over 5K on my rear PR3, and it's done.  Like others here, it wore more on the left side than the right.  Still the replacement will be another PR3.  I really like the way it feels on the bike, and I will gladly give up mileage for good handling.  :)
 
JR said:
Jerry said:
Also meant to ask if most are running the stock rear 50's or are there many Connie owners bumping up to the 55's.  Thanks!
Click to expand...

I really can't think of a reason to run 55s in the rear, most of the assumed improvements aren't actually real, and it does change the way the bike handles, and personally I think Kawasaki probably got it right to start with considering all the engineering and testing they put into the C14.
Click to expand...

I run a 55 on the rear, love it. Yes, it changes the way the bike handles, in my opinion for the better. I find it difficult to believe that improvements can't be made on the bike based on the amount of engineering and testing done by Kawasaki. If that was the case we'd all be running the same oil, tires and exhaust the thing came with. Bet that's not happening to much.

The sides of my PR3's are toast at just under the 5K mark, the center has another 1K or so.
 
And here is a good lead for lowered C14...with a 55 and lowered link, would the center stand work normally
 
Sarge Mac,
How does that 55 fit in the wheel well? Do you have lower link? is your bike lowered?

Do the 55 rear make the bike higher?




I run a 55 on the rear, love it. Yes, it changes the way the bike handles, in my opinion for the better. I find it difficult to believe that improvements can't be made on the bike based on the amount of engineering and testing done by Kawasaki. If that was the case we'd all be running the same oil, tires and exhaust the thing came with. Bet that's not happening to much.

The sides of my PR3's are toast at just under the 5K mark, the center has another 1K or so.
[/quote]
 
No issues with fitment and I haven't noticed any height difference. My bike is not lowered and I'm not sure of any difference in the overall diameter of the two sizes. Just my opinion but I've run both 50 and 55's on every sport bike I've ever owned in both 180 and 190 sizes, I like the 55 for the way I ride, just works better for me. YMMV.
 
I had posted earlier about 5500 miles on the rear tire (7k on front)on my first set of PR3's and have installed another set with 7k now on the rear and probably another k till done. So this batch seem to be better than the first set. They are the same rated as I checked my "sticker pile". The first set did have several NC mountain trips which does cut down on milage due to road make up as well as G's. The current set did have long range travel as they went 4700 mile trip from NC to Colorado Rockies trip, so alot of straight up road miles.

Mike
 
Wow. Never thought I would see this many people getting such low milage out of a set of high $$$ Mich's...
That really sucks. Just poking fun back at you guys.  :beerchug:
 
Maybe, but I think the saying 'your mileage may vary..' is correct. Way too many variables for a true comparison.

How long they last is not my concern, how evenly they wear is.
 
...and how many of you think Michelin and others cannot make a motto tire that lasts 20-30K?

...why should they, if we keep on buying them after 5k,  since we have no other option...therein is the conundrum that cost us money and makes profit for the Corpomonsters.

If you took a car tire and shaped it like a motto tire and perhaps tweaked the carcass a little to comply with motto usage, you could have a better tire than current models. You just ask any dark-sider how many miles do they get running car-tires on motorcycles.

I am not suggesting darksiding--cause I done it and don't like it; but the fact that folks get bucko miles on a horrifically designed tire (car tire) for motorcycling usage make me suspicious of tire-manufacturer intentions with motto tires..."I am tire of this bool$$$heetta, and I am not going to take it anymore"

Well, heck I been watching Hardball...pardon me, getting a little excited here...!
 
nando said:
... motto tire ..... Corpomonsters ... motto tire ... motto usage ... bucko miles ... horrifically ... motto tires .. tire of this bool$$$heetta .....
Click to expand...

- sorry , but my limited vocab has totally failed me.

;D

- you're trying to say why we have to pay so much for so little tyre , ya ?

- apparently (brace for an opinion here) its got something to do with a motorcycle tyre having to work at all sorts of crazy angles , still stick and not send you into the bushes.

.
 
When I was a bit younger and before my joints and joint nerves started to get really bad, I used to hang off a ZX10R in the mountains surrounding western Maryland, and slide that bad boy exiting turns. Not to mention getting skittery under heavy breaking setting up for turns.

I was lucky to make street legal tires last 3,000 miles. Heck, sometimes I burnt a rear in under 2,000 miles. I usually put Michelin rain slicks on it, since DOT approved them despite having little more than a few xacto knive cuts on them to divert water. Those tires cost $190 for the fronts and $200 for the rears a decade ago.

So if my Pilot Road 3 tires last me 6,000 miles on my much heavier Concours 14, I don't think they owe me much. Mine are at 5,800 now, will go to about 6,500 before the end of the season (counting the NE Fall Foliage Rally, which looks like it will have great weather as of today). I doubt they will be "done" even then, but come spring I'll use my tire changer and put a new set on.

And won't feel like they let me down, because I put some kind of beat down on the current set in Arkansas, and the Hudson Valley, and Canaan, and so forth.

Next year, I may get even better wear. Now that my bike is lowered, I have to dial back my cornering speed quite a bit. Riding with the rocketship kids for 6 hours at Canaan, I couldn't keep up because I was seriously beveling my foot pegs. So I just backed up and rode my own pace as the day wore on. So next year I should get better wear, because I will won't be pushing the rubber so hard.
 
Fred, pretty much all PR3s are W rated, at least all those in our sizes.
These days the Z part just means it can go over 149Mph.
There is then an additional letter after the usual eg 190/50-ZR17 M/C 73W
http://www.michelin.co.uk/motorcycles/tyre-reader/
The 190/55 tyre has a slightly higher load rating (75 vs 73 for the 190/50) so I dunno if that would make a difference.

Personally I think y'all just hammer your tyres too hard for them to last any.  :rotflmao: :motonoises:
I get about 8k miles from a rear but maybe 60% of that is on superslabs at 85Mph.
If ya spend more time on the sides of the tyre then you'll kill it faster as the sides are softer.
That and the crushed razorblades y'all seem to make yer roads out of over there.  :)
 
dog said:
nando said:
... motto tire ..... Corpomonsters ... motto tire ... motto usage ... bucko miles ... horrifically ... motto tires .. tire of this bool$$$heetta .....
Click to expand...

- sorry , but my limited vocab has totally failed me.

;D

- you're trying to say why we have to pay so much for so little tyre , ya ?

- apparently (brace for an opinion here) its got something to do with a motorcycle tyre having to work at all sorts of crazy angles , still stick and not send you into the bushes.

.
Click to expand...

Not that difficult Dog,

Motto: motorcycle
Copomonster: The corporation that stick it in you every time you buy a tire that could have lasted you 20k instead
Motto tire: since you put it twice I 'll explain it twice...motorcycle and the word "tire" but I think you got this last one ah?
bucko: its a slang meaning "lots"
Usage: Per dictionary...you know, perhaps you should save this link so you can check on the semantics of future posts.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/usage?s=t
us·age   [yoo-sij, -zij]  Show IPA
noun
1.a customary way of doing something; a custom or practice: the usages of the last 50 years.
2.the customary manner in which a language or a form of a language is spoken or written: English usage; a grammar based on usage rather than on arbitrary notions of correctness.
3.a particular instance of this: a usage borrowed from French.
4.any manner of doing or handling something; treatment: rough usage.
5.habitual or customary use;  long-continued practice: immemorial usage.
Motto tire again: ok, read the above definition
boolshetta is a way to disguise a 'bad word'... unbecoming of the stature of eloquent folks like yourself
 
As of this writing, I have 6,638 miles with my 2008 stock tires. It would probably go another 1,000 miles before I changed them. Purchased a set of Michelin Pilot Power 2CT on a Labor Day sale at $244.25 for both.
 
I've gone through 4 sets in the past 12 months, that comes to $100.00 a month for tires only. I mount them myself. I'm afraid to figure in other maintenance cost.
Good thing I don't commute, I couldn't afford it.

Cliff  :beerchug:
 
Jigo said:
As of this writing, I have 6,638 miles with my 2008 stock tires. It would probably go another 1,000 miles before I changed them. Purchased a set of Michelin Pilot Power 2CT on a Labor Day sale at $244.25 for both.
Click to expand...

If you get 3,000 miles out of both those tires I would be very surprised.  I would have a set of those trashed in one weekend of riding down in Arkansas.  Just the weight alone of the C14 will be very abusive on those tires.  I have met a C14 owner that runs a Pilot Power on the front of his C14 so that he can change the front and rear (Pilot Road 2) at the same time (about 4,000 miles).
 
Just the weight alone of the C14 will be very abusive on those tires.  I have met a C14 owner that runs a Pilot Power on the front of his C14 so that he can change the front and rear (Pilot Road 2) at the same time (about 4,000 miles).
[/quote]

It ain't the weight of the C14 that is overbearing on the tires we buy...it is that the tires we buy are purposely made to perform inadequately to the weight of the bike...guess why?
 
nando said:
It ain't the weight of the C14 that is overbearing on the tires we buy...it is that the tires we buy are purposely made to perform inadequately to the weight of the bike...guess why?
Click to expand...

A conspiracy? You have my attention...
 
Sgt Mac said:
nando said:
It ain't the weight of the C14 that is overbearing on the tires we buy...it is that the tires we buy are purposely made to perform inadequately to the weight of the bike...guess why?
Click to expand...
A conspiracy? You have my attention...
Click to expand...

Sarge,
It ain't a conspiracy, its blatant out-in-the-open marketing robbery. Motorcycle tires are poorly designed in durability in order to maintain the constant sales turn-over that we suckers succumb to--cause we love riding and have no other choice.

One would be naive in not believing that tire companies could very well design a 20-30k motto tire, and with excellent grip. But why should they?

Even if it cost a lot more money (as some argue in favor of the Corp) the consumer still would come ahead. An average 20,000 mileage a year user, wearing sneakers at 5k, assuming a $400.00 a set price, you will spend 1600 bucks a year on tire. Even if you made a set of tire cost 1400 that would last 20k, it would spare you 200 bucks a year and the pain in the @@$$$ of having to stop for tires on a trip, pay someone to change them, or having to do it yourself....and consider, these round figures are very conservative. Most touring monsters ride a lot more than that, and some change tire even more frequently, and tires cost more than 400 bucks.

I ll repeat my point of reference:
If you took a car tire and shaped it like a motorcycle tire and perhaps tweaked the carcass a little to comply with leaning forces, you could have a better tire than current tire models in the market. You just ask any dark-sider how many miles do they get running car-tires on motorcycles...a lot more than with motorcycle tires...in the 20+ range if they are not twisties players.  This in spite of the fact that a car tire is an ill-designed roller for motorcycling functionality. At the same time, car tire offer a great grip on the road for big-n-heavy bikes like the Goldwing...You would have to experience riding a huge bike like a Goldwing on a car tire. The functionality is of this set-up is amazingly good.

I am not advocating Dark-Siding here...I have done it extensively and eventually grew tire of the "feel"...but the efficacy of the car tires on a Goldwing cannot be denied.

BTW: my favorite tire is the Mich PR3...I choose tires by the "the less slippage" ruler; and the PR3 have the best grip of any tire I ever use. Since these rollers hang my life on the line, I guess, I too will continue to buy them cause they are the best and I don't care how long they last.

On these OEM Stones I have slipped in small gravel, rain and dry manholes...in my style of riding, that never happens on PR3s...I can't wait until these tires wear out..
 
I agree completely. If it has anything to do with a motorcycle, it's going to cost more, no matter what it is.
 
- a motorcycle has a pair of rubber contact patches , each of which are about the size of half a postcard. They also need to work at a myraid of angles of deflection.

- cars sit of four contact patches , each of which are about the size of a postcard. They don't need to work at any angles and actually resist deflection to allow a constant contact surface.

- as such , the demands put on motorcycle tyres are significantly higher than that placed on car tyres.

- am sure that if you explored tyre options based only on longevity (the durometric number) there are probably longer wearing tyres out there , but maybe which sacrifice grip.

- the conspiracy theorists : the modern market being what it is nowadays, seems unlikely since you can't really gang up and exploit a niche market for any significant period of time before you're found out and someone else will come along and undercut you.

.
 
The point of discussion here has nothing to do with comparing car tire with motorcycles tires Sir.

Conspiracy supporters: You make a good point. That is a good argument. The issue of why manufacturers don't venture into a more efficacious motorcycle tires...particularly for touring purposes...maybe  related to marketing, economics and volume. Marketing and economics may closely relate to jumping trends into producing tires that cost way over 400 dollars in an effort to meet higher usability standard; including grip and durability. This could scared the ****ens out of consumers and make the production investment into the product a flop.

Volume, or demand if you will, may be related to the lack of manufacturing motivation to design a viable product that does not have the sales volume of say, car tire sales.

I understand your point and it may very well play an important factor in present and perhaps future manufacturing. But I am not sure there is anything to "undercut" since the market is not large enough to promote competitive designs; and the present clientele is gullible (I include myself) enough to continue purchasing this inadequate product. You sir, are one of the many who do not only succumb to the 'conspiracy' (as you call it) but you are also an apparent supporter of it.

It may take a Maverick company to design an advanced technologically developed motto (this means motorcycle)  tire to force the Corp giants into loosing the goose around our tire-consumer necks...thus hopefully, bringing into play the "undercutting" solution you so gracefully doubt.  :truce:  Don't we all want better tires?
 
well, taking it easy on the set of pr3, i have 4500 on the front, 3500 on the rear, getting very close to the bars. well at least i tried them, they felt good, but thats terrible for not pushing it.  :eek:
thinking I'm going back to the GT 023 stones.
 
I'm either going back to the PR2 on the rear or the Pirelli Angels. The mileage I got out of the PR3 rear is just rotten. If I had changed it when I hit the wear bars, it would have only had about 4,500 miles on it. By 5,300 I was nearly down to the cord. Mine were stamped "Made in Thailand". Not sure if this had anything to do with it though, as the last set of my PR2's were also Made in Thailand and they still lasted longer.

I need a rear tire I can at least get 6,500 miles out of.
 
I just ordered a new set of PR3's as mine now have 7k on them and when I looked this weekend some of the tread was down to the wear bars...,  I liked them enough to use them again.  even though the 2 may last longer I had enough bad expirences with them that I am hesitant to use them again.

 
I get about ~5K on PR3's.

Mostly 2 up and baggage with top box. I do roll some slab miles so it is just something I live with.

It is a sport tourer, I bought it to eat miles and twisties. Part of the equation for a tire as good as the PR3.

That's the way it is so it is in the budget. Nothing else to see here folks......move along. C:)

Wish we had the icon with the waving PR24 and grinning PoPo! ;D

Craig
 
I'm with Fred. I would like to get 6500-7000 mi. out of a tire.  I think that's reasonable amount of mileage to ask of a set of tires. 4 sets this year at a total cost of $1200.00, that's  alot of money for a 12 month supply of tires. I may go back to Avon's or try the Roadsmart 2. As I've said before theres no way I could afford to be a commuter!
When I go out west every year for 2 weeks & 5,000-6,000 mi. of riding that's 1 set of tires. Think about it.

Cliff  :beerchug:
 
Just Cliff said:
I think that's reasonable amount of mileage to ask of a set of tires. 4 sets this year at a total cost of $1200.00, that's  alot of money for a 12 month supply of tires..... Think about it.

Cliff  :beerchug:
Click to expand...

I don't want to start an argument or demean anyone's point of view...I just thing that 5k is not a reasonable deal in regards to tire price/durability. I am convinced that tire Corp could design a better touring tire for big/heavy bikes. Though, I dont have any answers for getting out of this consumer black-hole we are all in...the 'event horizon' being our pockets.

Has anyone tried using Dunlops for this bike? Do they even make a Dunlop for the Connie? My understanding and experience with Dunnies has been that they are less grippy but last much longer than other brands. We used to call them Dunflops in the Winger forums because they would slip all over the place...but if you drove like a decent person, they would last you forever.

I find these OEM on my Connie drift on hard turns sometimes. It could be road conditions, maybe the grain in the asphalt; but it has happened more than a couple of times and I have lost my faith in these tires. I don't push them anymore. Maybe if I used lower PSI...I might just try that.



 
Cops use Roadsmarts on their RT in my ne k of the woods...cops like these tires from what I hear  from them
 
I wonder if tires  if tires  have gotten softer as the years have passed to give better traction and better designed to handle higher speeds? 25 years ago tires lasted much longer but bikes were not as fast and the wet and dry traction was lousy. I will take the lower millage any day over the old tires. I got 11000 miles on the front and 8000 on the rear with PR2's on my C-14. Fred, I hear that reprogramming will cause high tire wear and if BDF used  engine braking along with shifting with out the clutch he could make many trips across our fine country with out changing tires.
 
Interesting comment using engine braking to extend tire life and make it cross country w/o changing tires. According to some engine braking transfers traction used to slow the bike to be solely on the rear tire. It means less wear on brake pads, as it transfers the force used to slow the bike from the brakes to the engine. But that force is also all on the rear tire. The front tire is just along for the ride. -- Seems most people get far worse mileage from the rear. I think because the rear has to provide traction not just for for steering, but acceleration and engine braking, etc.  I am wondering if maybe a person trying to maximize rear tire life to make a long trip could transfer some of that braking traction from the rear to the front, by pulling in the clutch and using the front brake for deceleration even in just normal, typical slow downs. This would transfer some of that traction/wear to the front, lowering the front mileage but raising the rear mileage , and giving a longer period of time between visits to dealers while on the trip.
 
Switch to Dunlops then, you great slips and maximun durability...though it looks like you are getting good wear compared to others...
 
Updating. The rear PR3 I replaced with another PR3 at 11K which included a ton of US and State Highway miles in Ohio nad Indiana.

Replaced the front at 16k in Lancaster Ohio with another PR3. Not sure what was going on with prices to change, called one shop there that wanted 75 plus 3 bucks to dispose another that said "we don't change tires not bought here for liability bud" and the guys up the road who took it off the bike and changed it out for 25 bucks though I felt compelled to throw in a couple of White Castle sausage egg and cheese. Indy area was 65 to 90. Odd that the Indy guys were at 40 apeice this spring when I put the PR3's on.

Both these tires were wearing but had some life left.

I like the PR3 despite the Kawi dealer trying to get me to go to the 023. Riding in rain and usually a tad/scooch/shade  over the posted limits I want tires that I trust. FWIW I run Avon Storms on my Meanie.
 
Replaced my PR3 rear yesterday with 11,047 miles on it, it still had some life left, if I were going to be riding local.
 
My current PR3’s have 8650 miles, but the end is near.  The front could probably go another 2000 miles (if you like cupping), but the rear is just about to the wear bars.  There is a huge difference in tread depth when I look over at the new ones sitting on the bench.
 
I've been through 7 sets of pr3's and I average about 7500 on the rear.I don't baby them and there are no chicken strips on them.I ride only solo and frequently over the "ton" when I can get away with it. I'm very happy with them and have no intention on changing brands. I only wear them to the wear bars, never beyond.. :)
 
I came back from a 24 year spell from riding, sort of lost interest (That's another story)

The Photo below is me riding home from work with my dog back in 1987, yes I had a Honda back then and it served me well, I rode a lot as the bike was my primary form of transport back then, Rain or shine.

Bike-1.jpg


From what I remember back then if you wanted Mileage you used a harder compound tire, the trade off was less grip and if You wanted grip you used a softer compound tire, the trade off was less mileage, I always tried to choose something in the middle, reasonable grip and reasonable mileage.

There is so much choice now, so many brands and different compounds and multi-compound tires too.

Anyway,

I bought my GTR new in 2011 and promptly set about wearing out the OEM tires, in the forums most people hated the OEM tires, I had been out of the game for awhile and to me they seemed OK, while I was wearing out the OEM tires I was doing the research on what to put on next and decided on the  PR3 as the replacement, from what I had read the handling and grip wet or dry was considerably better than the OEM tires, and the reports were that they wore better too, they did cost more and now that I have worn out a set of PR3's I can say that it is true and I feel they were worth the extra cost and will put them on again.

I am not a hard rider and the tread left on the side of the tires is evident to that, I do ride single but go away a lot and am loaded up when on a long trip, I probably do a 70/30 mix of straight and twisty roads there about's depending where I am heading.

In the USA, you guys wear your tires harder on the left side, here in OZ its the right side for us, for obvious reasons.

With regards to mileage one thing I do know is that if you are a hard rider (acceleration and cornering) then your tires will give you less, a conservative rider (easier acceleration and cornering) then general you get more, everything comes with a price.

One thing I did do is take some photos and keep some details on my tires since I bought the GTR.

OEM BT21 Tires
Changed at 11500kms or 7145 miles  Old new comparison

Tyres.jpg


PR3 Tires
at 12500kms or 7767 Miles

Front Tire
Front.jpg


Rear Tire
Rear.jpg


Same PR3 Tires
at 17200Kms or 10687 Miles

Front tire:

PA270018.jpg


Rear Tyre:

PA270019.jpg


PA270021.jpg


PA270020.jpg


I went on a long trip, with my swag, gear and extra fuel I had a bit of a load on, The PR3's were starting to get a bit long in the tooth but I thought they would do the distance, they did, I think they did pretty good, the back tire is stuffed though.

I hit two Kangaroos on the way home and rode the last 1300Km with my head lights and a lot of plastic missing on the right side, The GTR is booked into the dealers for repairs, Just waiting for all the bits to come in then in it goes, the tires will get me the last 90Kms, new PR3's will be fitted then.

P9300135.jpg


Cheers

Paul
 
Highett said:
I hit two Kangaroos on the way home and rode the last 1300Km with my head lights and a lot of plastic missing on the right side, The GTR is booked into the dealers for repairs, Just waiting for all the bits to come in then in it goes, the tires will get me the last 90Kms, new PR3's will be fitted then.

P9300135.jpg


Cheers

Paul
Click to expand...


:-\
 
ZG said:
Highett said:
I hit two Kangaroos on the way home and rode the last 1300Km with my head lights and a lot of plastic missing on the right side, The GTR is booked into the dealers for repairs, Just waiting for all the bits to come in then in it goes, the tires will get me the last 90Kms, new PR3's will be fitted then.

P9300135.jpg


Cheers

Paul
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Hey Paul, this is the pic when you were moving to another apartment ain't it? You never told us that story...
 
Well I'm running Michelin 2ct's front and back. Front one scalloping on the edges and has the whine when leaning.The rear is wearing evenly for the most part and just turned over 6K miles on it. I think it will go at least another 1000 miles. I like them personally and find them good in the rain as well. Has any one else been running this brand? I'd like to try the PR3's that everyone seems to rave about. Summer 2013 I guess....monsoon weather and cold as the devil here right now :(
 
Mark,
PR-3! simply the best in market as of now. Very seldom you get this much consensus on a motto part.
Mind you, I have not used them on the C14 yet, but I don't know anyone on an RT that prefers any other tire.
I will PR-3 myself soon...probably well before the OEM are worn cause I can't stand these Stones.

The cops use RoadSmart, but I think that is related to durability as these guy tear the hell out of them...and their bikes
 
This is how my PR3 looked after 5396 miles, just a little past the wear bars. Think I'm switching to something else.

Cliff  :beerchug:
 

Attachments

  • pumps 004.JPG
    pumps 004.JPG
    138.7 KB · Views: 119
tried the shinko verge frt and rear.  rear was totally gone in 2700, with lots off wear on left side of rear.  shinko was great and sent me a free rear and asked i monitor the wear. i upped the psi to around 44 and the tire wore evenly and now just broke 4,000 miles.  it should be replaced but i will go another 300 miles or so, in the dry. the shinkos are superb tires for someone who likes to jump into a group of liter bikes and work your way to the front. i think the c-14 needs to run in the 44/45 range to get an extra 1000 miles per tire.  i had run 40/41 as my roads are crap and the connie is definitely a harsh riding bike.  if you live in the south, you won't understand what i am talking about. my 2 liter bikes are more compliant.  anyway, if mileage is disappointing, try 2 more pounds in each tire.
 
Interesting thread with anything from inductive reasoning to conspiracy theories. Just as is the case with motor oil, air filters, and brake fluids, the sheer number of variables involved makes most of these conclusions highly inductive at best. Every C-14 rider has a more or less unique riding style, with different throttle and brake application, weight, road conditions, tire pressures, climatic conditions, etc. Not to mention the variation in the tire products themselves, just as in any other product of reasonable complexity. Based on the anecdotal data that have been presented here and in other outlets, the only valid conclusion is the fact that the tire longevity varies among different riders.

Another point that I find intriguing is the fact that riders of any kind are forever longing for longevity. The fact that this factor is a direct trade-off with the traction supplied by the softness of the carcass always seems to receive comparatively little attention, while everyone is obsessed with maximizing pure longevity. Personally, I prefer a tire that is bit more skewed toward traction than longevity, since I need to have the confidence that the tire will provide me with maximum traction when a situation requires it. I'm more than okay with a tire that lasts 5-7k miles, if the traction that it provides is accordingly high. Hell, 5-7k miles longevity would being spoiled on certain other bikes. The cost of riding a sporty 1.4L engine in a sometimes spirited fashion is that the longevity is reduced when compared to a run-of-the-mill cruiser-type bike. Moreover, tire companies invest a ton of resources into R&D, and the products have improved dramatically over the past couple of decades. There are street tires available now that would outperform race tires from just a few years ago. Besides, competition in the tire market is fierce (to say the least), and it is a bit hard to believe that these hard competitors all got together to manipulate the market by providing inferior products with a shorter longevity. Not to mention, there is no evidence whatsoever to support that claim, other than that we all wish that motorcycle tires had the longevity of car tires.

Just some food for thought.
 
TGE said:
Interesting thread with anything from inductive reasoning to conspiracy theories. Just as is the case with motor oil, air filters, and brake fluids, the sheer number of variables involved makes most of these conclusions highly inductive at best. Every C-14 rider has a more or less unique riding style, with different throttle and brake application, weight, road conditions, tire pressures, climatic conditions, etc. Not to mention the variation in the tire products themselves, just as in any other product of reasonable complexity. Based on the anecdotal data that have been presented here and in other outlets, the only valid conclusion is the fact that the tire longevity varies among different riders.

Another point that I find intriguing is the fact that riders of any kind are forever longing for longevity. The fact that this factor is a direct trade-off with the traction supplied by the softness of the carcass always seems to receive comparatively little attention, while everyone is obsessed with maximizing pure longevity. Personally, I prefer a tire that is bit more skewed toward traction than longevity, since I need to have the confidence that the tire will provide me with maximum traction when a situation requires it. I'm more than okay with a tire that lasts 5-7k miles, if the traction that it provides is accordingly high. Hell, 5-7k miles longevity would being spoiled on certain other bikes. The cost of riding a sporty 1.4L engine in a sometimes spirited fashion is that the longevity is reduced when compared to a run-of-the-mill cruiser-type bike. Moreover, tire companies invest a ton of resources into R&D, and the products have improved dramatically over the past couple of decades. There are street tires available now that would outperform race tires from just a few years ago. Besides, competition in the tire market is fierce (to say the least), and it is a bit hard to believe that these hard competitors all got together to manipulate the market by providing inferior products with a shorter longevity. Not to mention, there is no evidence whatsoever to support that claim, other than that we all wish that motorcycle tires had the longevity of car tires.

Just some food for thought.
Click to expand...

i am guessing about 25/30 years ago i called metzler and got a tire engineer.  i asked about the trade off of the comp k, which was the tire for the fast guys versus the marathon, which they still have, for the "touring" guys.  much to my surprise, he said the rubber compound was exactly the same, except that the tread depth was much deeper on the marathon.  so when the marathon was new, it would squirm under hard cornering, but would stick like a comp k.  besides my c-14 i ride 2 liter bikes, one is a bmw s1000rr.  i only get 2500 miles front and rear, with the wear completely to the edges, so its not burnouts and 150mph sustained speeds. no track days. i do want max traction on those bikes, so i will pay the price.  it you check the tread depth on a supersport tire versus the popular "sport touring" tires, you will not see more then 1 mm of depth, between them.  that makes no sense to me.  i'll take a little squirm for the first 1,000 miles or so.  a friend of mine has consistently bought cheap tires over many years.  he very fast and never had a low or high side, or a tire defect. granted he was not ont top line sport bikes but they all stuck like glue and wore much longer than my tires.  the reason guys "long" for mileage is that you can't take a long trip, unless you leave the day after you put new rubber on the connie.  my perspective is they sell more tires, the mags give good tire reviews, as far as how the tire sticks and handles, and maybe they get input from their legal department.  call that a conspiracy theory  if you want, but its ridiculous what we pay for motorcycles tires, in this day and age of great technology.
 
Serious question here.  I'm really confused on when to replace my PR3s after reading this thread.  I get it when a tire has gone completely bald or completely burned through wear bars.  I've attached a couple pics of my rear PR3 and wonder if it's got another 1,000 miles in it?
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1246.jpg
    IMG_1246.jpg
    11.5 KB · Views: 159
...I am with Slider up there...

We should find a way as consumers, to demand more of tire manufacturer because they certainly do have the technology to make better tires than what they are giving up...at least, for the touring populace.
 
Well my current PR3 has a grand total of 3105 miles on it, tread depth is a little less than 2/32 side to side. 2/32 being the recommended minimum tread depth, so if I run it slick I might get 3600-3700 miles out of it. No more Michelin's for me!  :mad:

Cliff  :beerchug:
 
Just Cliff said:
Well my current PR3 has a grand total of 3105 miles on it, tread depth is a little less than 2/32 side to side. 2/32 being the recommended minimum tread depth, so if I run it slick I might get 3600-3700 miles out of it. No more Michelin's for me!  :mad:

Cliff  :beerchug:
Click to expand...

let us know what you try next and it works out....yuo are not working for the circus riding inside that  ball upside tber , are you?...  Man, you are eating those tires up...what kind of riding you do? road types?....maybe you got the lemon pair from the  batch
 
nando, I have 2 sets of Storm 2's waiting for me. Remember me from the other post? I've run them before & they hold up better than the PR3's (at least for me). The grip is not quite as good as the 3's, but still comfortable with touching a peg now & then. My riding is 95% Arkansas twisties unless I'm traveling. With the riding I'm hoping to do next year, I'll be looking at 5 set's of tires. That's why I catch them on sale & put them up for future use.

Cliff  :beerchug:
 
Just Cliff said:
nando, I have 2 sets of Storm 2's waiting for me. Remember me from the other post? I've run them before & they hold up better than the PR3's (at least for me). The grip is not quite as good as the 3's, but still comfortable with touching a peg now & then. My riding is 95% Arkansas twisties unless I'm traveling. With the riding I'm hoping to do next year, I'll be looking at 5 set's of tires. That's why I catch them on sale & put them up for future use.

Cliff  :beerchug:
Click to expand...

Mercy,
Five sets...lets see...even at 400 a set...ain't that 2 grand?...

My rant: Even if tire manufactures produced a set of 800 bucks a pair, twice what you are paying now, but the dog-gone things lasted 25,000, you might come ahead as a consumer. Its robbery without a gun: 5k for a set of motto tires its like an invisible arm taking your wallet. I would take them to court for mal-practice but I am afraid they might puncture my tires while my bike is in the parking lot...

You sound like a candidate for Darksiding...tis the reason guys do that, you know: the cost of touring with current motto tires. I knew a guy who does touring in the snow up in Alaska. I mean, icicles hanging from your mustash winter riding. These guys use knobi front tires and snow car tires on the rear of a Wing...animals!!! Just the pics alone give me the chills...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top