Need tires.

[GoldOxide_imp]

I have been reading this thread with quite some interest, but it seems to beg the question : aren't there any professional tire tests for motorcycles ? May be I am not riding fast enough to ever "feel the difference in the twisties", and don't burn enough tire tread to buy 5 more pairs to remember and compare in a few years. I hear that there are more choices for the standard, than for the EX, but in any case, do you really "test" your tires ?
Don't get me wrong, don't say this thread is useless, I just can't imagine there ain't a better way than "liking" a tire.
Any objection, any other opinion I will read and consider with great care.

I noticed this in many threads, and gotta say I am quite amazed with your trust in OEM engineering, parts choices and recommendations. In reality tho, they are not perfect and very often after a certain amount of money has been spent by a company on development of a specific feature or characteristic the rest is an afterthought. And very often tires, switchgear, lighting, even suspension components are just pulled out of the box they have lying around. If every component of the every motorcycle, including the owners manual, would be critically engineered, motorcycles would be ridiculously expensive.
There is always a perspective that an OEM sets a machine for "optimal" performance, somewhere in the middle, with a specific type of rider in mind. And as we learn to get along with the bikes, we start riding them closer to the edge (or over the edge), that is when we upgrade the components to make the riding experience more suitable to the type of riding we do. And as I said before, tires and suspension components are usually the first ones to go, because someone rides more on the highway and requires a harder middle compound with higher longevity, someone rides in a wet climate and requires a tire with better water evaluation properties, someone rides only twisty mountain roads and wants a softer outer compound for better grip while leaned over. Suspension is the same, someone is of a lighter stature and perhaps finds suspension to hard and sitting in the top of the travel all the time, someone rides two up with luggage and requires a more firm setup in order not to bottom out on every road imperfection.
If you are perfectly happy with the bike as it came out of the showroom, then you are the lucky one, so just enjoy the ride

'14 CB1100 STD 5 speed

@tod,
I do entirely agree with the text now highlighted in Italics. But the beginning of your answer confuses me a little. I did not say, and did not mean to say ANYTHING about OEM vs. aftermarket. My point was entirely about tire tests, and who is able to provide useful results. What made you misunderstand and say "trust in OEM" and why ?

@tod,
I do entirely agree with the text now highlighted in Italics. But the beginning of your answer confuses me a little. I did not say, and did not mean to say ANYTHING about OEM vs. aftermarket. My point was entirely about tire tests, and who is able to provide useful results. What made you misunderstand and say "trust in OEM" and why ? Firstly I apologise if my statement came of as an insult, it was not meant as such, it was just an observation, and I am not known for my diplomatic skills, so please take that to notice.

Now, what I was implying on was that I have noticed across the threads that you tend to quote manuals and insist on things being critically engineered, but it isn't such. And I accept that I could be wrong, in which case I take my words back.
I refer to manufacturers in general as OEMs, and it wasn't talking about OEM vs aftermarket, so that's a misunderstanding which I am guilty of. I hope this clears things up and you accept my apology.

Anyways, if I can paraphrase myself (and this is a personal opinion), this is something I tell my students all the time, one cannot trust a single source, especially an original one. People who created something did test it, but the profound knowledge comes for the real life experience of users and troubleshooting of problems that the creators haven't anticipated. So it doesn't matter if it's the oil weight, or a battery size, or the handlebar size and position.
I am also accepting the fact that not everyone uses a product exactly as the manufacturer intended it to be used (anyone who had ever used a pair of pliers to hit a nail on the head can testify to that) and again it's those applications that lead us to learn new things and apply the new-found knowledge. OEM User Manual will still remain the same.

Coming back to tires, what the manufacturer recommended is unlikely the perfect scenario, and users have the freedom to experiment and find their perfect setup for their intended use of the motorcycle.

Hope this makes things more clear, and again I apologise for any misunderstanding

'14 CB1100 STD 5 speed

I would take that a step further in that although the manufacturers will specify the type, the choice they make for OEM is going to be guided by price as much as anything else. After all they are in the business of making money.

I would take that a step further in that although the manufacturers will specify the type, the choice they make for OEM is going to be guided by price as much as anything else. After all they are in the business of making money.
... and the fact that they know online forums will guide consumers to change them out to something preferable.

The power of having choice.

[the Ferret]

Tires like seats, windshields, helmets or any other consumer products are accepted and liked differently by each individual. Certain things on tires can be measured scientifically, but things like "confidence they instill" can not. If you follow a forum you will see that once the oem tires (a compromise tire between manufacturer of motorcycle and manufacturer of the tires determined by price..ie manufacturer says we want to buy 10,000 tires from you but are only willing to pay $50 a tire..and the tire manufacturer ssys Ok we can do that but we are going to have to use less rubber and make the tread a little shallower to accomplish that) generally are replaced by more premium tires as soon as the oem tires are worn out. Forum members try different tires and some say tire A handles well but doesn't last, others say tire B last but don't grip well in the wet and last about as long as the oem tires. Others say tire C has good grip wet and dry and last longer than the oem tire ...so generally a lot of people go with the C tires. On every forum I have been on there has been a preferred tire for that motorcycle.

That doesn't say that everyone is going to like that tire. Generally the road racer type guys will give up longevity for traction. The touring type guys will go for longevity over traction. All season riders worry about wet grip, and some guys are just worried about price.

In my experience Moto Journos can't really test tires because most are located in Southern Ca and are road racer types, and never venture out on long freeway trips or ride in the rain or snow or put enough miles on a tire to see just how long they will last. They ride them in the canyons on sunny days for maybe a couple hundred miles and declare how good a tire is. They have a deadline they have to meet. In order to really compare 5 different tires, IMO it would take the same motorcyclist, riding the same motorcycle, every day, in all types of weather on trips and in the canyons for 6-8000 miles per tire, or about 30,000-40,000 miles total for the 5 tires tested. Even for a really dedicated rider that would take a year and a half. Moto Journos can't do that. Even then you would only be getting one person's opinion about handling, grip, traction etc.

I recently read a "Long Term " motorcycle test. They "lived with the bike", commuting and pleasure riding for 2,500 miles. I had to laugh and shake my head. For me, long term doesn't begin to apply until at least 30,000 miles. But that's just me. A lot of the motorcycle tests you read are written after a 115 mile ride lead by the manufacturer's representative.

Almost all the tires on the market are "good enough" and probably better than most motorcyclists are at judging them. The majority generally aren't stressing their tires to begin with. Add in the fact that most motorcyclists only ride about 2,500 miles a year, in good weather conditions... above 60 degrees, sunny days, 100 miles a weekend, 25 weekends a year.

[j3gq_imp]

I am no expert, certainly not in tires. And of course, tires have a subjective side and an objective side, like any consumer product. But since my life may depend on tires, more than on windshields and RLETs, I would (innocently) claim that the subjective side should not (and in my case does not) matter. The same, most people agree is true for helmets.
Nobody needs to ride a tire in rain or shine for 40k miles in order to evaluate and compare it. Grip, braking action, abrasion - at different pressures, temps and on different surfaces - all of this is measured in a matter of hours. What cannot be measured in the lab is taken onto a standardized piece of tarmac, dry, wet, under water, with oil etc. - and measured. This process (I wouldn't call this science) is highly sophisticated, standardized, and reliable. All big tire manufacturers do it, the GP guys do it, automobile associations (here in Europe) do it. There is not a jota of subjectivity left - unless sb prefers to inject it afterwards.
But one point is taken, such information is not found in a bikers journal, and is not wanted by industry in a bike journal. What you see there is marketing twisted around journalism, where the cost of ads placed every month define the subjective results.
Many of the things said above are perfectly correct, please don't get my response wrong. Yet, when I asked "are there no dependable tire tests?", may be I should have better asked "shouldn't you care more about independent test data, and put more time into finding them, reading them and may be ... paying for them?"

[Cormanus]

What a curious notion, j3gq: that we should rely on non-subjective data to inform ourselves. We live in a world where truth is determined on an individual level; where the truth is what believe it to be. Science is to be sneered at and ignored when it confronts what we want to be reality.

I'd be interested to see the data and reports you refer to. Why do you not all them scientific? Are there consistent and agreed tests between different authorities and manufacturers? Are the differences between tyres significant? Will on brand of tyres perform consistently on different bikes?

As for helmets, I know of two sites that report the outcome of consistent tests on helmets. When I've bought a helmet I've looked at them and it has informed my choice, although they haven't tested every current model of every current brand so it can be difficult to find a recommended helmet. Then there's the intractable problem of whether it fits on my head ...

[j3gq_imp]

I am afraid, I am entertaining this curious, old-fashioned notion because I was trained this way, and yes, ... I agree with you, it must be called curious lately. Why not scientific ? there is a distinctive difference for me between science and engineering, with repetitive testing of a tire without the aim of further insight into its inner workings I would rather call engineering (product development).

A teacher of mine repeatedly said, partial information is always better than no information. He would however have refused to call fake news and opinions partial information, but would have called (incomplete) statistical information and random samples (here: tires and helmets) very useful.

Now back to the tires, for car tires as I know them better, there are without a doubt:
- significant differences, and prices
- consistent, long-term results showing some brands are better (regardless of marketing)
- that there are trade-offs, and how they work,
- I am not aware (for cars) that a good tire will be a bad performer on the wrong car (as long as we excluded GP etc.).

So can the situation be different, I mean really different for motorcycles. May be this forum can help, may be not. I thought it's worth asking the question. But I am afraid I do not have all the answers and never will

Appreciated your provocative questions, and I am happy that there are less as many rim shapes than head shapes (literally and otherwise).

[jtopiso_imp]

I am no expert, certainly not in tires. And of course, tires have a subjective side and an objective side, like any consumer product. But since my life may depend on tires, more than on windshields and RLETs, I would (innocently) claim that the subjective side should not (and in my case does not) matter. The same, most people agree is true for helmets.
Nobody needs to ride a tire in rain or shine for 40k miles in order to evaluate and compare it. Grip, braking action, abrasion - at different pressures, temps and on different surfaces - all of this is measured in a matter of hours. What cannot be measured in the lab is taken onto a standardized piece of tarmac, dry, wet, under water, with oil etc. - and measured. This process (I wouldn't call this science) is highly sophisticated, standardized, and reliable. All big tire manufacturers do it, the GP guys do it, automobile associations (here in Europe) do it. There is not a jota of subjectivity left - unless sb prefers to inject it afterwards.
But one point is taken, such information is not found in a bikers journal, and is not wanted by industry in a bike journal. What you see there is marketing twisted around journalism, where the cost of ads placed every month define the subjective results.
Many of the things said above are perfectly correct, please don't get my response wrong. Yet, when I asked "are there no dependable tire tests?", may be I should have better asked "shouldn't you care more about independent test data, and put more time into finding them, reading them and may be ... paying for them?"

On vehicle dynamics, there is always objective and subjective evaluation.

Example:
-braking distance, in controled conditions, would be an objective evaluation (and some are required to accomplish some regulations in some markets).
-confort, can be evaluated on a subjective manner

There are lots of metrics trying to make objective measures from subjective feels (e.g. ride frecuency is measurable, and directly related to confort), but there are always some subjective metrics.

Tyres can be evaluated by objective metrics (in europe we have standard categories for wet grip, dry grp, noise, durability...), but subjective evaluation is, for me, critical. The feel, handling, response from one tyre to another in the same category (and same objective class) can be astonishing.

[GoldOxide_imp]

I reckon a fair report ensures to point out the configuration, application and conditions of the test/experience. This is what I expect and hope to minimally read. Likewise, the reader should be aware that these are the parameters and context so that the report can be properly appreciated. Otherwise, it will be garbage in, garbage out.

[tod.branko_imp]

I am afraid, I am entertaining this curious, old-fashioned notion because I was trained this way, and yes, ... I agree with you, it must be called curious lately. Why not scientific ? there is a distinctive difference for me between science and engineering, with repetitive testing of a tire without the aim of further insight into its inner workings I would rather call engineering (product development).

A teacher of mine repeatedly said, partial information is always better than no information. He would however have refused to call fake news and opinions partial information, but would have called (incomplete) statistical information and random samples (here: tires and helmets) very useful.

Now back to the tires, for car tires as I know them better, there are without a doubt:
- significant differences, and prices
- consistent, long-term results showing some brands are better (regardless of marketing)
- that there are trade-offs, and how they work,
- I am not aware (for cars) that a good tire will be a bad performer on the wrong car (as long as we excluded GP etc.).

So can the situation be different, I mean really different for motorcycles. May be this forum can help, may be not. I thought it's worth asking the question. But I am afraid I do not have all the answers and never will

Appreciated your provocative questions, and I am happy that there are less as many rim shapes than head shapes (literally and otherwise).

Allow me to only reply to this little part of your comment because everything you said about car tires can be applied on motorcycle tires, even bicycle tires, skate wheels etc. Except for that last bit because surely a good tire can be a bad performer on the wrong car because all cars and all tires have their intended purposes, there are so many variables in riding condotions, car weight, loading weight, horsepower, types of drivers, and in the end it is a good tire, but a wrong tire. And can it happen that a manufacturer installs a "good wrong" tire on a car. Yes, most definitely for someone it will be a wrong tire. Good and bad can be judged objectively, but right and wrong is always subjective


'14 CB1100 STD 5 speed

[jtopiso_imp]

I am afraid, I am entertaining this curious, old-fashioned notion because I was trained this way, and yes, ... I agree with you, it must be called curious lately. Why not scientific ? there is a distinctive difference for me between science and engineering, with repetitive testing of a tire without the aim of further insight into its inner workings I would rather call engineering (product development).

A teacher of mine repeatedly said, partial information is always better than no information. He would however have refused to call fake news and opinions partial information, but would have called (incomplete) statistical information and random samples (here: tires and helmets) very useful.

Now back to the tires, for car tires as I know them better, there are without a doubt:
- significant differences, and prices
- consistent, long-term results showing some brands are better (regardless of marketing)
- that there are trade-offs, and how they work,
- I am not aware (for cars) that a good tire will be a bad performer on the wrong car (as long as we excluded GP etc.).

So can the situation be different, I mean really different for motorcycles. May be this forum can help, may be not. I thought it's worth asking the question. But I am afraid I do not have all the answers and never will

Appreciated your provocative questions, and I am happy that there are less as many rim shapes than head shapes (literally and otherwise).

That happens. Some cars are very sensitive to tyre carcass stiffness (or more prescisely, "cornering stiffness").

Try putting some "uniroyal rainsport" (or any other "soft" tyre) on a rear wheeldrive car, with a weight balance close to 50-50 (bmw 1 series, z3, or an old mazda miata) and you will see how the car behaves completely different compared to the same car running michelin or bridgestone. I'd say most "average drivers" would be able to tell the difference.

Simplifying, "yaw response" comes from the rear axle, and is usually faded by the feedback at the front (most weight is there, and forces go to the driver through the steering wheel). But when the weight at the rear is important (around 50%), tyre stiffness dominates the "response" of the vehicle.

(when feedback is mainly through the steering wheel, driver adpats his style with or without noticing, but when its coming from the rear axle, there is nothing you can do to the steering to anticipate or delay it's response, and if it's the "wrong" -unexpected- response, most drivers feel it).

And if you start mixing tyre brands among axles, then that's another can of worms.

[jimgl3_imp]

I'm just going to go ahead and post here too. for $150 for both tires, Shinko are the shizzle! they are proving to be really good tires too!