Tire wear

[taikin]

D404 Rear- 8,000 miles
Shinko Rear-9,000 miles
Pirelli MT66 Rear-7,000 miles with half tread left

Those are enough facts for me to not by dunlop.

[gdb069]

Originally Posted by adlowe

NO! There are many relevant facts. They are not all posted here..

Nice statement and then no relevant facts so why bother.

Originally Posted by adlowe

Bull. New Dunlops are better than old Dunlops and anyone here who has changed a tire knows that and will agree with it. THAT IS NOT WHY DUNLOP IS GETTING BASHED. Let me state that again with more emphasis: THAT IS NOT WHY DUNLOP IS GETTING BASHED..

My post said new tires are better than old: but some confuse "new" with "better".

Originally Posted by adlowe

The reason Dunlop gets bashed around here is that the tires Dunlop offers for Shadows are lousy tires. The D404s suck. They are cheap and they are junk. On their very best day, they aren't half as good as ME880s. Better tires come from China..

Thanks for the facts: "they suck", "they are lousy", "they are junk". I am so glad you have cleared that up.

Originally Posted by adlowe

Dunlop does make some excellent tires. Superbike racers run on Dunlops -- and they would not put their lives on the line with cheap junk. We can even put some good Dunlop tires on our bikes -- but not with the support of Dunlop. None of the good tires that would fit are bikes are paired with them in Dunlop's fitment guide..

So Dunlop is somehow saving the good rubber for sport riders and since they don't like the Honda contract they put inferior tires on all our cruisers. I get it.

Originally Posted by adlowe

And, btw, most OEMs select their stock tire with cost as the primary factor in the decision making process. Ride is secondary and handling tertiary. As cruiser riders, we will suffer with this list of priorities far more than anyone owning a sportbike.

Speculation. I have no idea why you would choose a Honda if you think they just regard cost as the primary factor in supply contracts. Do you believe that about brakes? gears? chains, electrics? No Just tires. It is all a conspiracy to provide a poor ride and bad handling. Ridiculous.

I guess my challenge is intact: I would like to see some factual evidence of brand superiority before just BS bashing.

G.

[Da Skipper]

The facts you are looking for are in the code on the sidewall of the tire itself. In the size code of the tire include a construction code. It is the letter after the speed code and are either:
no Letter or a - (bias)
Letter B (belted or bias belted)
Letter R (radial)

From the metzeler site:

TYRE CONSTRUCTION
The term "tyre construction" differs between the various structure assemblies:

Bias tyres
Bias tyres – also called "conventional tyres" are designated by a dash in the size designation,
e.g.: 3.50 - 19, 23/4 - 17, 3.25 - 21

Bias-belted construction
Bias tyres reinforced with a diagonal belt construction, also called bias-belted tyres, are designated by the letter "B" in their size designation,
e.g.: 140/80 VB 17, 150/80 VB 16 V250

Radial-belted construction
These tyres called "Radials" have code letter "R" in the tyre designation,
e.g.: 140/80 R 17 69 H. 160/60 ZR 18



The Dunlop D404 is a bias tire. 170/80H-15

The Metzeler ME880 is a bias-belted tire. 170/80HB-15



Tire construction has everything to do with the way a tire handles and wears.

[Earthling789]

Originally Posted by adlowe

And, btw, most OEMs select their stock tire with cost as the primary factor in the decision making process. Ride is secondary and handling tertiary. As cruiser riders, we will suffer with this list of priorities far more than anyone owning a sportbike.

This I have to agree with, at least the first part... vehicle manufacturers, be it car, truck, bike, tractor, etc.... ALL bid for their stock tires and normally will go with the lowest bidder to reduce costs. I've got family that has worked for Ford for many years, and I've asked them before... "why do some Ford's come from the factory with Michelins, some with Continentals, some with Brand-X tires?" Their answer... "Ford bids makers for volume discounts on a particular size and tire spec. The tire manufacturer that bids lowest, while still maintaining the OEM requirements (traction/wear/road noise/wall stiffness or give/handling/etc. for that particular vehicle) gets to put their tires on the vehicle as OEM approved"

That being said, I'm sure Honda gets huge discounts from Dunlop to allow them to be the OEM tire brand. Price is the primary factor, but Honda does have standards the tire must meet before they'll allow it on their bikes!

Dunlop's are not horrible tires, IMO, they are pretty good tires when new. I don't prefer the stock 404's because they just don't hold the road the way I expect them to when I ride, and they are not as good in wet weather as my Kendas. As far as wear goes... my Sabre had 12K on the clock when I bought her, and the stock Dunlops were still mounted... bald as can be! Now, do I expect Dunlops to still have 80% tread after 10K? No! But when replacing tires, I have my own standards (as you all have yours)... Price is my primary factor... I want the best handling and wearing tire for my money... that is why I put Kenda tires on both my cruisers. Tire change for tire change, I'll save money in the long run, without sacrificing the wear and handling I want to have.

Everyone has their favorite tire because that is what feels good under them... that's okay because we ride our own rides.

[gdb069]

Originally Posted by Earthling789

This I have to agree with, at least the first part... The tire manufacturer that bids lowest, while still maintaining the OEM requirements (traction/wear/road noise/wall stiffness or give/handling/etc. for that particular vehicle) gets to put their tires on the vehicle as OEM approved". That being said, I'm sure Honda gets huge discounts from Dunlop to allow them to be the OEM tire brand. Price is the primary factor, but Honda does have standards the tire must meet before they'll allow it on their bikes!

Adlowe stated cost is the primary factor while you are stating that the Honda Standards are the primary factors and likely consists of standards for "traction/wear/road noise/wall stiffness or give/handling/etc. for that particular vehicle" and only after meeting those criteria cost becomes a factor. So you are not agreeing with adlowe but I agree with you. I also agree Honda has likely negotiated a discount as they would with any other tire supplier.

I am still a bit surprised that, considering how critical tires are to a motorcycle, there is very little technical comparison information. I would have thought some of the MC mags would send the polular cruiser tires to a test lab for at least a lab comparison. Maybe someone has seen such?

G.

[justinmahn]

The rags won't put up a comparison, because they want advertising money from all of the manufacturers. They'd lose income if they chose a favorite.

[C.W.]

Same thing on my bike. Normal wear and tear. New tires will make you happy.

Check this out >>> Motorcycle Tire Wear

My actual front tire with 11,000 miles on it, only this is a Maxxis tire.

[gdb069]

Originally Posted by justinmahn

The rags won't put up a comparison, because they want advertising money from all of the manufacturers. They'd lose income if they chose a favorite.

Although the TV shows seem to like all bikes, I do see magazine/website comparisons and "shootouts" on full bikes and often come up with a "winner" so I don't know why tires would be different. For example here is a comparitive article on cruisers for women. Notice they include 10 subjective criteria and 10 objective criteria so an accurate opinion can be formed. PS By coincidence the Honda wins.

It seems to me they could find/buy 5 tires and also do a subjective and objective criteria test.

What I don't see is reviews that say this bike "sucks" or "is junk" as in adlowe's technical assesment of tires.

G.

[tflaim]

My guess to why there is no direct comparison is time. It would require 6 / 7 thousand miles of real road testing on comparable bikes, road conditions and the same riding style to get an accurate test. Not many organizations have time and budget for that.

[1996shadow]

Every time I read a post about tires, it seems that the same arguements come up. Both my bikes have Dunlops on them, and I am happy with them. I do have to say that I don't do any road-racing on my bikes.

I remember years ago when I was a police officer. The squad cars came with Good Year Eagles on them. When the tires were replaced, we got Firestones. I got a unit assigned to me that I drove home, so no one else drove it. I took it to be serviced one day and they changed my tires. That night, I got into a sharp curve at high speed and almost lost it. After things calmed down, I looked at the tires and went off. They had taken the tires that I could depend on and gave me garbage. Well, I found out that the Good Year tires were replaced becuase one of them had some serious wear on it. They knew that it would be a definate handling problem with a Firestone and the rest GoodYear, so they changed the set. The Firestones were a lot harder compound, so they lasted longer, and that was a big deal to the people buying them. They just never thought to ask the people that had to depend on them to hold in a hard curve. The guys that worked the other end of town that never got much above 45 MPH had no issues with the Firestones.

It all depends on what you expect out of your tires.