GL1800Riders Forums banner

Mileage?

2K views 41 replies 21 participants last post by  UNCLEJOHN 
#1 ·
I can't read every darn Posts on here, but I'm seeing a lot of examples of 10 to 12 to 16,000 miles on these Car Tires before replacement. I was under the impression that Bikes were going 20 to 40 thousand on these things.
I'm seriously rethinking the reason to run a C/T since I really enjoy the handling of a Valkyrie tire. And I can get 10 grand or so on it.
 
#27 ·
Mileage is not even a consideration for a CT. That is not the point. The point has always been, and always will be to run the safest tire you can run. That was the original reason, and still is the reason.

But as the CT popularity grows, you do get so many opinions, and so many Pelosi's and Weiners:roll: who play with their Weiner. :roll:

The 1800 is unique, it is perfectly suited for the use of a CT.
A ROF tire is a safe tire.
You will get more mileage out of a CT versus a MC tire , no matter who you are or what your riding style is, that is a simple fact.
If you are going to run two up, pull a trailer, beat it down the slab at 85 mph , run through large cities with muffler clamps and bits of truck tire wires lying everywhere, pretty simple, it is a safe tire.

Handling, well ya know, it is different, simple as that. Not unsafe, not better , not worse, just different. Some like it, some not.

A MC tire puts you the rider in control completely, you have to control the bike, the CT does a lot of it for you, it is a delayed action so to speak, you turn it into the curve and it will come out by itself .........kinda, not sure how to explain that.

Slow speed stuff, well it is better for most, more stable at stops, better handling in the parking lots most of the time, with the exception of uneven pavement or rocks in a off road parking lot. Those off road parking lots can be quite interesting sometimes.

Bottom line it never was about the mileage. It is about a safe tire that will not come apart on you, and a tire that will take you in to a town or to help with no problem if need be.

I like them both, depends, but cross country I will have a ROF on the bike, simply because it works. And I do not have to worry about a tire. I know I can get in the left fast lane in a big city and let it rip. I know if I run over some road hazard I will hear a little pop and the tire will get a little mushy, but I am not going to lose control of the bike.

That is the real reason. Mileage is a moot point, but overall no matter who you are you will as a side benefit gain more mileage from the CT.

Cheaper too..........My favorite MC tire the Avon.......will give you indigestion on how much it costs........and at about 8K it is worn to replacement time.

Mileage, non run flats, metal wheels, playing with your weiner, never has been the deal.

The old Goodyear Triple Tread and the modern ROF has always been about safety. Simple as that.

A safe tire that will take you anywhere, give you better traction and eliminate and possibility of the loss of control of the mc over a tire situation.
 
G
#28 ·
I was under the impression that Bikes were going 20 to 40 thousand on these things.
Absolutely - I am at 37k on mine right now and will easily go another 6-10K (one on the wing) the CT's on the trikes will go even further. (50k +)

There are a few logical reasons and tricks for this type of mileage but in general most are not doing much better than 16k. A good part of the problem is the type type and the other in the setup.

That is all I will say. :cool:
 
#29 ·
I have been getting around 20000 miles out of the CT's I've used. With the MT's I was getting between 16000 and 18000 miles, so the CT's have done a little better on longevity but there is no way the MT's have provided the same level of traction I have enjoyed with the CT's. More traction for acceleration, more traction for braking and more traction for cornering. Add in that CT's seem to be built tougher and provide a greater margin of safety due to having a higher load carrying capacity and are easier/safer to patch if necessary, why would anyone want to run a MT on the rear of their wing?
MM
 
#30 ·
That there is some big mileage, Pardner. :wrong:

I have yet to be on a CT until wear out, but with the average of 8 to 10K on the MC tires I hope to do better. Roads, riding style and so forth have a great deal to do with it.

One other note. A RF isn't even allowed to gaze upon the ball park that any high mileage tire plays in. Nature of the beast, they don't get great mileage. Folks use them for several reasons already stated here, but long life isn't a good reason to go DS.

I do hear of better mileage from the NRF variety.
 
#32 ·
Really not enough handling differance in the two to even mention.MT vs CT..Friend of mine exchanged bikes last weeken..He wanted to test a GW...After we traded back I asked him what he thought about the CT handling..He said if I had not said something he would never have known..
 
G
#33 ·
When you say Valkyrie tire I assume you mean bias ply. I had run Avon bias for a while and they did much better than the stock wing sportbike tires. But again longevity was in the 9-10k normal range for a moto tire.
ROF is basically the car version of the moto sportbike tire so mileage will be much less than a standard tire and there is little to no real advantage.
A lot of emphasis is place on the safety aspects of running a ROF however what are the odds? None of the normal MC tires are runflat and 99% of all car tire are non-rf so why is this even a concern?
I feel it is one of those unreasonable fears we sometimes face. Done properly a standard CT will defiantly exceed 40k and be as safe as a bias tire and safer than the average sportbike tire (bias and ct's don't delaminate or heat up as much as a sbt)

It certainly is a comforting thought to go on long long trips and not worry about changing tires or if the tire will make it on a 8-10k trip. Everyone has their theory and reasoning for running a CT and how they set it up. But you have to keep in mind there is no real testing no scientific explanations as to how or why. Every single piece of supporting documentation regarding CT's is feel or imagination. Some say it has more grip but this is just an opinion. Some say it handles better in the corners but this too is just a guess. Fact is it may or it may not do these things but without a proper test environment it is just guessing and feelings.
The only thing I can say is after running CTs since 1971 I have never had a flat nor have I ever had a crash with a CT. I can attest to the fact done right the mileage will be about four times greater than any MC tire, even the bias.
Other than that your guess is as good as mine - That's how I feel.
 
#34 ·
Mileage is not even a consideration for a CT. That is not the point. The point has always been, and always will be to run the safest tire you can run. That was the original reason, and still is the reason.

But as the CT popularity grows, you do get so many opinions, and so many Pelosi's and Weiners:roll: who play with their Weiner. :roll:

The 1800 is unique, it is perfectly suited for the use of a CT.
A ROF tire is a safe tire.
You will get more mileage out of a CT versus a MC tire , no matter who you are or what your riding style is, that is a simple fact.
If you are going to run two up, pull a trailer, beat it down the slab at 85 mph , run through large cities with muffler clamps and bits of truck tire wires lying everywhere, pretty simple, it is a safe tire.

Handling, well ya know, it is different, simple as that. Not unsafe, not better , not worse, just different. Some like it, some not.

A MC tire puts you the rider in control completely, you have to control the bike, the CT does a lot of it for you, it is a delayed action so to speak, you turn it into the curve and it will come out by itself .........kinda, not sure how to explain that.

Slow speed stuff, well it is better for most, more stable at stops, better handling in the parking lots most of the time, with the exception of uneven pavement or rocks in a off road parking lot. Those off road parking lots can be quite interesting sometimes.

Bottom line it never was about the mileage. It is about a safe tire that will not come apart on you, and a tire that will take you in to a town or to help with no problem if need be.

I like them both, depends, but cross country I will have a ROF on the bike, simply because it works. And I do not have to worry about a tire. I know I can get in the left fast lane in a big city and let it rip. I know if I run over some road hazard I will hear a little pop and the tire will get a little mushy, but I am not going to lose control of the bike.

That is the real reason. Mileage is a moot point, but overall no matter who you are you will as a side benefit gain more mileage from the CT.

Cheaper too..........My favorite MC tire the Avon.......will give you indigestion on how much it costs........and at about 8K it is worn to replacement time.

Mileage, non run flats, metal wheels, playing with your weiner, never has been the deal.

The old Goodyear Triple Tread and the modern ROF has always been about safety. Simple as that.

A safe tire that will take you anywhere, give you better traction and eliminate and possibility of the loss of control of the mc over a tire situation.

Couldn't have said it better. :agree:

I saw my cue, Richard, but let it go. ;)
 
#36 ·
It is 6/100ths of on inch shorter in overall diameter than the stock 180/60-16 OEM tire.
I guess OEM tire sizes vary by make and model...

According to data listed on Dunlop's website and the Tire Rack's website, The Kumho 195/55-RF16 Ecsta SPT XRP 195/55-RF16 has nearly the exact same overall diameter (24.4") as the Dunlop E3 rear tire size of 180/60-R16 (24.39"). :shrug:

I chose the CT for it's RunFlat capacity and for no other reason. The fact that it handles and grips as well or better, has a higher load capacity and will run longer that a MT is just a bonus.... :thumbup:
 
#37 ·
Good info

My brother ran a Valkyrie tire on his wing and he said the speedo was right with this tire. He only got 8000 out of it. The Valkyrie tire is 25.8 inch dia. 195/55-16 is 24.4, 195/60-16 is 25.2 and OEM Wing tire is 24.8.:coffee1:
Thanks for that info. I don't believe I had heard about the 195/60-16 as an option. My first thought; more likely to be rubbing issues in that size. I'm sure it depends on the tire brand. I've read about the 175/??-16 and heard that it was significantly smaller in Diameter. That's why I was hoping someone would put out an application for a 185/65(+/-)
I really have no complaint with handling as long as the Bike is rolling 7-8 mph.
But 3-4 mph and especially 2-up I can't always get the darn thing to go exactly on the line I want. But 180 turns at 5+ mph are no problem.
 
#38 ·
at slow speeds with a CT. I took an ERC course with a Conti Pro Contact 195/55/16 and had no problem.Even did figure 8's one handed and I'm a long way from real good in a parking lot.

I always kid the naysayers I ride with by telling them you don't have to put your feet down at a stop with a CT.
What do you mean by "Kid"???? I like to see if I can get home from work without ever putting my feet down while obeying all traffic signs and lights. Managed to do it just once so far, it's not easy to hit green lights all the way home. Coming to a full and legal stop at stop signs is the real challenge... :thumbup:
 
#39 ·
I guess OEM tire sizes vary by make and model...

According to data listed on Dunlop's website and the Tire Rack's website, The Kumho 195/55-RF16 Ecsta SPT XRP 195/55-RF16 has nearly the exact same overall diameter (24.4") as the Dunlop E3 rear tire size of 180/60-R16 (24.39"). :shrug:

I chose the CT for it's RunFlat capacity and for no other reason. The fact that it handles and grips as well or better, has a higher load capacity and will run longer that a MT is just a bonus.... :thumbup:
Paul, I just used the tire calculator on one of the websites to calculate between two sizes, but not actually mfg specs. I assume they all use the same general formula:
 
#40 ·
Got through two pages and no one said we only buy car tires because we're cheapskates. I'd pay more if they got less mileage but it's a bonus that I pay less and get more, safer miles. YMMV.
 
G
#41 ·
Got through two pages and no one said we only buy car tires because we're cheapskates. I'd pay more if they got less mileage but it's a bonus that I pay less and get more, safer miles. YMMV.
I only buy CT's because I am a cheapskate - just bought a good used Kumho for $40 and it's going on for the next 45k.
Safety is just an illusion that never materializes :cool:
 
#42 ·
I run dunnie 3000 rf $ 99 bucks got 14,600 on it with plenty to go however as stated above bought for safety not mileage it's a no brainer to me but thats just perfect me lol
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top