Not your normal car tire question

It would probably be a good thing if both sides of the car tire debate sat this one out. That question has been debated ad nauseum, and this thread is not about that. Thank you for your restraint.

Ok, at 18,415 I installed a Goodyear Triple Tred car tire on my N. In those 18,415, I had gone through 3 bike tires. One stock Dunny (which admittedly is a POS and probably shouldn't be counted). One 200/60 Metz, and one 180/70 Metz. That's an average of 6,000 miles per tire. I kept 38 in the Dunny, and 41 in the two Metz so pressure isn't a factor. Stock Dunnys were balanced by weights. All other tires have been balanced by Dyna Beads. I do ride 2 up 99% of the time and we are not small folks. The bike is close to the 395# weight capacity of the 1800 N. My mileage now is 23,617 so that GYTT has 5,202 miles on it. It has 5/16 tread left on it. That's the same as 10/32. THE GYTT COMES WITH 11/32. I've used only 1/32 at almost my average tire life. This is not any kind of scientific study, and I'm not trying to tell you it is. To measure tread depth I used a key, a fine point Sharpie and a tape measure. But even if I'm off by 25%, that's still an incredible difference. It has to be a weight thing. The Metz on the front was installed at 12,328. It has over 11,000 miles on it, and probably has 2,000 left on it. Ok, with all that in mind.....


1. Why does a CT run so many more miles that a MT?

2. Why can't MT makers manufacture a MT that will run a decent number of miles?

I beleive they could if they wanted to. On most specialty items of which a Motorcycle is one the real profit is made on parts and upkeep ,not on the origional sale.

Here is my take on it.
1) MC tires are way more pourous (air bubbles in the compound) and are a harder compound causing the tire to literally scrub off rubber as you ride. With the softer CT compound and denser makeup (way less air bubbles) the tire tries to stay together and the softer compound gives you much better grip.

2) think of all the money they would lose if they made a MC tire that would last. You have to remember that the average rider only puts about 3k on their bike in a year, so a tire every couple years is no big deal. For those of us that tend to go through 2,3 or 4 times that many tires in a year this is a big expense. Big expense in my pocket means more money in their pockets. Hence the tire manufacturers are milking it for all it's worth.
If I had a product that everyone wanted and I could sell it for 10 times what it is worth, I would be a greedy whore too.


this might just be all total bullshit but it is what makes sense to me, so take it for what it's worth and then pay me 10 times that amount

See you out there
Smokey

might also be an availability/competition thing too....

look how many brands of CT's there are, most of which with mileage warranties and tons of companies trying to outperform the other and be able to prove it to try and increase their share of the pie....

motorcycle tires have what 3 or 4 major brands? Dunflop, Bridgestone, Metz, Avon and Kendra are what comes off the top of my head... with the Kendras being the cheapest...

additionally IMO, many riders want to believe they are better than they are, push harder in the turns than almost anyone else, ect, ect, (add more testosterone here) and will admittedly buy the softer compound tire intentionally anticipating the needed extra grip they believe comes with it...

just a thought.... take it for what it's worth, about 2/3 of smokeys' idea!

I think the surface area in contact with the road has alot to do with the short life of mc tires. All the weight of the bike, and force of the engine is being applied to a very small patch of rubber with a bike tire, while the car tire is distributing the force much more evenly. It's just like putting a piece of steel to a bench grinder. A large flat piece of metal in contact with the grind wheel will slowly grind away, while the end of a bolt will rapidly disappear.

Y'all have covered what I think. Take Oldsmobility's post, add in a "manufacturers make lots of money of MTs" and you have why I think MTs have such a short life.

A good test of what Oldsmobility posted would be if there was someone who rode more turns then straight lines. Someone like that might be able to tell us if they get the same mileage on both types of tires. Sadly, here in NE Texas, I ride mostly straight lines.

Oldsmobility wrote:I think the surface area in contact with the road has alot to do with the short life of mc tires. All the weight of the bike, and force of the engine is being applied to a very small patch of rubber with a bike tire, while the car tire is distributing the force much more evenly. It's just like putting a piece of steel to a bench grinder. A large flat piece of metal in contact with the grind wheel will slowly grind away, while the end of a bolt will rapidly disappear.

this makes the most sense to me as well as the air bubbles in the mt.very good explanations.

darbre,
Just to add my 2 cents to the already excellent posts above. I do live in the mountains and a majority of my riding (90% 2-up) is on the twisties and back-rough roads. The center of my c/t (presently Kuhmo) always outlast the sides. The left side of the tire always wears out faster than the right side because of the longer left sweepers. My c/t's usually have about half the thread left in the center when they are trashed. I do pull a Bushtec trailer on some long line-hauls but the majority of the riding is twisted. But....the c/t has long outlasted any m/c tire and doesn't cup so badly as the m/c.
I believe the above posts did a great job as to why they last longer. Ditto. Semper-fi MIke

If the manufactures wanted to mke a longlasting tire they simply would add more carbon to thier tires. I thinks it's called planned obsolescance. The idea is design it to wear out real quick so you may buy another soon. American auto makers practiced this type of thinking for man years see where it got them in the long haul.
The other type of thinking is this. Most motorcyclistsride for fun and not to commute. Therefor thier bike are a hobby. And, mosts hobbists will spend more than they should on thier special interests. Therefore another $150 for thier hobby is just ok with them. I have a friend with a Harley he bought used from the dealer for $20 grand. $200 for tire is nothing to him. And he kinda looks forward to returning to the dealer. Not me. I paid $5000 for my bike and I wont spend anymore than I have to. I'd rather use that money to stay in an nice hotel and eat steak for dinner on a road trip.