GL1800Riders Forums banner

How did you decide which Non Runflat Tire to try

  • The Tread Pattern

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Sidewall thickness

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Everyone else was using it

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Someone recommended it to me

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • It was all they had at the tire store

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • It looked round

    Votes: 0 0.0%
1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
393 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
What method do you use to pick which tire to run?

I base mine heavily on sidewall thickness. Weight, tread pattern, and other features like low rolling resistance factor in also, but I think sidewall thickness matters a lot with a Non-runflat on a bike.

In my opinion there are many better options for a Non-runflat tire than tires like the Falken. Go to a big tire store and feel the sidewall thickness and stiffness of all the different brands in your size. You will be amazed by the difference. Falkens are entry level imported tires, on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being the thickest sidewalls I would give the Falkens a 2-3 maybe. That is why everyone has to run 44 PSI in them. If you run a Non-runflat that scores in the 7-10 range you only need 32-36 PSI and you have a tire that runs smoother and wears longer. It is not just Falken tires that have thin sidewalls, many other brands do too, I just picked that example because so many people use them on this forum.

So, what is important to you in deciding on your next or current non-runflat tire?

:popcorn:

If you use runflat tires this post does not apply to you because in my opinion the sidewalls are too thick anyway, but if you are willing to do anything, including riding on a round rock instead of a tire, to reduce the chance of a blowout then runflat tires are for you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
973 Posts
None of the above. I selected my tire (205/60 Michelin Primacy MXV4) because it was a Grand touring, all season, 205-60 that rated highly in a test done by Tire Rack and didn't cost $180+.

It is my fourth CT and all of them have been different. Not sure what I install next.
MM
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
393 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
None of the above. I selected my tire (205/60 Michelin Primacy MXV4) because it was a Grand touring, all season, 205-60 that rated highly in a test done by Tire Rack and didn't cost $180+.

It is my fourth CT and all of them have been different. Not sure what I install next.
MM
I should have added research to the poll but I had my doubts that it would come up. I am glad it did.

Yep, they are all different is right! I haven't used the same one twice yet either.
My Current Bridgestone was only $98 and is working so well that I may get another one next time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,183 Posts
The reason I would select is not listed. However, it would be interesting to know, for those that select sidewall thickness, how thick their sidewalls are or how thick they think they should be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
154 Posts
I spent weeks reading posts on this forum, and created a spreadsheet using information I gathered from here. My spreadsheet included price, shipping, size, and tire pressure, among other things. Cheapest was not necessarily the most important criteria. I chose a non-run flat mostly because I wanted to run a tire at 40 psi, because my TPMS (09 Wing) would still be funtional. Lastly, I looked at pictures of the tread pattern. My final choice was a Hankook.

I have over 4000 miles on it right now, one long trip which included mountains and a blinding rainstorm, and at this point have insignificant tire wear. I'm as happy as a pig in slop, and am deeply indebted to all who posted on this forum for all the input.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,341 Posts
Well, a question and a comment to come. LOL
I am looking very hard at the Dunlop SP 5000 NRF It comes in a size that interests me, It has gotten very good reviews and the main reason, it calls to me. I know that isn't much of a reason, but good enough for me.

Question. Why do so many seem to have an adversion to putting air in ther tires? The tires can make some difference in ride, no argument there, but they are not shocks. If you long for a smooth ride there are several choices that IMHO are much better than running a low tire especially on a motorcycle. A laundry list of reasons not to run it underinflated exists so no since in going there.

Comment, my current RF isn't a rock, and yes I run a bit higher pressures than the "norm" seems to be. I don't worry about getting a couple extra thousand out of it. If the center wears, so be it. I am already on the positive side of my normal tire life expectancy, and still going. FWIW

I thought darkside was to have better traction and more rubber on the ground, less chance of delamination, better load ratings, and if a RF is the choice of the day, the offerings they give. The longer tire life, if you get it was a bonus.

Cheers
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
31,981 Posts
If I had to pick one it would be, I guess ,because somebody referd it to me. BUT I have tried others which nobody has ran also. For me tread pattern has nothing to do with it. Along with wear data. I want a light tire on bike PERIOD. I like a high performance tire for it's stickiness. I have not ran anything else but them and need to soon to see if they are sticky enough for me. Which I am sure they are close enough for a bike and my skill set. I also feel rim protection is important as to thicker area of rubber will increase sidewalls stiffness. Now bear in mind I also run run flats (2 mounted right now ) it's all good I can run a steel Amish rim under the big girl and still have fun :lol: it's just a tire not an earth changing, must have, life sustaining item. Gonna take wife out for a nice long ride today now. I got to decide which tire to throw on after getting last nights layer of bugs off pretty white bike :cool:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,164 Posts
Yes you should of had research an weight added on this poll. I do a lot of on line research to find the information. Europe, China, are a couple places I have had to go to look up tires that I am interested in. Right now another forum member and myself are looking in Canada, at a run flat because we found an interesting we like there! It is not offered here in the states, at least at this time. I personally don't care about price, or how many thousands of miles one can get out of a tire. It's what works for me that matters!:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
 

·
Arkansas Ridgerunner
Joined
·
3,878 Posts
I have some interest in the tire you are running. The main reason I run a 205 Falken is to keep from running so much air (less air makes the ride some much smoother). I'm now running 38 psi ....

My question ... Do you have any comparison information on the sidewall thickness of your bridgestone to that of one of the more popular run flats ... like the Kumho?



Thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,164 Posts
sidewall thickness

I mount tires all day and the difference in sidewall thickness is amazing on non-runflats.

jwolffie, above is something you told us a while back. With what you do for a living, and you mentioning the 1-10 scale on the Falken, would it be possible for you to rate the sidewall thickness on the different tires we run? I am asking this as a fellow Darksider wanting to have as much information at his disposal. I may have been able to save $100 on that thin walled G-Max I bought. I normally buy my tires on line and like the General G-Max none of our local tire dealers had it in stock. Thanks for any added information you can give!:thumbup:
 

·
Arkansas Ridgerunner
Joined
·
3,878 Posts
I mount tires all day and the difference in sidewall thickness is amazing on non-runflats.

jwolffie, above is something you told us a while back. With what you do for a living, and you mentioning the 1-10 scale on the Falken, would it be possible for you to rate the sidewall thickness on the different tires we run? I am asking this as a fellow Darksider wanting to have as much information at his disposal. I may have been able to save $100 on that thin walled G-Max I bought. I normally buy my tires on line and like the General G-Max none of our local tire dealers had it in stock. Thanks for any added information you can give!:thumbup:
:agree: Sure would be helpful information ....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
why was the load rating not added to the poll... i have been lerking as to be a darksider and the one thing i look at while im searching as to what tire i will go darkside with is the load rating these are haevy bikes!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,164 Posts
Bluenutz, I don't remember any C/T with less than 1200lb + or - a pound or two. So that far surpasses the OEM tire. But you do rise a valid point! That's what we do is give information, argue, have fun, and ride what suits us best:thumbup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,043 Posts
Bluenutz, I don't remember any C/T with less than 1200lb + or - a pound or two. So that far surpasses the OEM tire. But you do rise a valid point! That's what we do is give information, argue, have fun, and ride what suits us best:thumbup:
Actually according to Tire Rack specs the Dunlop ROF in the 175/60-16 has a side wall rating of 1047 lbs still better than a E3. The funny thing is, it's sidewall feels very stiff compared to the Toyo NRF I tried with a side wall rating of 1201 lbs!? I wonder who rates this spec for tires?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
393 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Actually according to Tire Rack specs the Dunlop ROF in the 175/60-16 has a side wall rating of 1047 lbs still better than a E3. The funny thing is, it's sidewall feels very stiff compared to the Toyo NRF I tried with a side wall rating of 1201 lbs!? I wonder who rates this spec for tires?
Smaller sizes have lower weight ratings than larger sizes, every size up has a higher load capacity than the size below it. That is why the 175 has a lower weight capacity and a 205 has the highest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
393 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
I mount tires all day and the difference in sidewall thickness is amazing on non-runflats.

jwolffie, above is something you told us a while back. With what you do for a living, and you mentioning the 1-10 scale on the Falken, would it be possible for you to rate the sidewall thickness on the different tires we run? I am asking this as a fellow Darksider wanting to have as much information at his disposal. I may have been able to save $100 on that thin walled G-Max I bought. I normally buy my tires on line and like the General G-Max none of our local tire dealers had it in stock. Thanks for any added information you can give!:thumbup:
We are a small independent tire shop so we don't stock very many tires but we do sell a lot of tires. It just depends on what someone wants us to order but I try to check out every tire we get in a Goldwing size. MOST of the Bridgestone and Dunlop tires in that size have some thick sidewalls, but not all of them. The no name Chinese tires are mostly junk but you could get lucky or you could die, you just never know if they made the tire from the proper materiel. Name brand Chinese tires are OK, way better quality control with a reputation to protect. Most of the entry level Asian tires are hit or miss as a lot of you have discovered.

From now on I will try to post a photo of the tire and tread and a description of the possible pros and cons of the tires that I come across.

If you are in the San Diego area I can get you almost any tire for about $10 over our cost, if you want us to install it on your rim you have to bring in your rim off the bike, mount and balance is about $20 but if you don't want tape weights you would need to bring some clip on weights from a bike shop.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
393 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
I have some interest in the tire you are running. The main reason I run a 205 Falken is to keep from running so much air (less air makes the ride some much smoother). I'm now running 38 psi ....

My question ... Do you have any comparison information on the sidewall thickness of your bridgestone to that of one of the more popular run flats ... like the Kumho?



Thanks
About than half the thickness of a run flat, but thick enough that I only need about 34 psi. The less air pressure you have the softer the ride and the more tread you have on the ground at all times, especially in turns, but if you go too low in pressure the sidewalls get too soft and squirm too much. The tires wear longer too because they don't wear out in just the middle. The thicker the sidewall the lower the pressure you can run, right up to zero with a run flat.
 

·
Arkansas Ridgerunner
Joined
·
3,878 Posts
About than half the thickness of a run flat, but thick enough that I only need about 34 psi. The less air pressure you have the softer the ride and the more tread you have on the ground at all times, especially in turns, but if you go too low in pressure the sidewalls get too soft and squirm too much. The tires wear longer too because they don't wear out in just the middle. The thicker the sidewall the lower the pressure you can run, right up to zero with a run flat.

Thanks for the info ... sounds like what I've been looking for. I may have to give it a try. :thumbup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
454 Posts
I chose the 195/60-16 SP Sport 5000 Symmetrical for tread design (very quiet), lots of siping (superior grip), rounded corners (no break-over feeling when rolling into turns), "ultra-high performance all-season" rating (great confidence in all conditions - including gravel), Japanese-made (high standards in materials and performance), (light weight (20 lbs) for low unsprung weight, and good speedometer correction (now only about 1% off). Reasonably priced, too. I was blown away by the amazingly-quick handling and ride comfort. It likes 32-34 psi, runs twisties with ease and I believe it will last 25,000+ miles. Couldn't ask for better performance in a NRF...
 

Attachments

1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Top