Next they'll be telling us the warranty is void if you ride the bike.
As far as telling them you were pulling a trailer, don't tell them. How would they know.
I have pulled my Kwik Camp and Bunkhouse campers over 100k miles with three different goldwings and never had a tire fail. They are MUCH heavier then the Unigo.

 

Next they'll be telling us the warranty is void if you ride the bike.
As far as telling them you were pulling a trailer, don't tell them. How would they know.
I have pulled my Kwik Camp and Bunkhouse campers over 100k miles with three different goldwings and never had a tire fail. They are MUCH heavier then the Unigo.

That is comforting to know. Thanks!

 

IMHO you are correct about it being the lawyers talking. Their reasoning would assume that the rear tire is severely overloaded because of the trailer, but you did your due diligence to make sure the weight is within allowable limits. You are not alone with your problems of tread separation.

If this turns into a Darkside thread we'll have to move it to the Darkside board. I hope not because there is good information to be gleaned and we'd like to keep it on the General motorcycle forum. Y'all play nice now!!

Glen

 

With a trailer in my future, it would be good to know if a MT is going to hold up?

 

That M/C tire is going to hold up just as well, or just as bad, whether you are pulling a trailer or not.....

 

I was pulling my Mini-Mate camper and had a flat on the front tire of my Wing. Got a plug put in it, and road to a near by Honda dealer outside of Dallas. I had the tire warranty that I get, when buying new tires. They replaced my tire free with no questions asked, other than, would I unhook my trailer, so they could put the Wing on the lift. I left back out on my journey, with a new tire and my trailer.
…and my Honda dealer told me that, as long as they put the hitch on my Wing, I was still covered under warranty.

 

Voiding a tire warranty because you tow a trailer .must be a new thing. (I hadn't heard of that one before?)

I wouldn't put a Metzler tire on my MIL's wheel barrow, if they were Free!!

Long history of DELAMINATING on many motorcycle forums.

 

The tire manufacturer does some testing before calling the tire fit for service under DOT and FMVSS specifications and the testing doesn't include pulling a trailer. If you choose to do so, that is fine but expecting the warranty to remain in place when the vehicle is operated outside of the DOT & FMVSS certification standards is unreasonable.

 

I see the logic of your final sentence, but it's a slippery slope, and it leaves manufacturers with a virually infinite number of ways to weasel out of honoring warranties. Taking that logic a bit further, would using a tire (or any other product) in any way for which it was not specifically tested justify voiding its warranty? How finely could that be parsed? If it was tested on one commonly-found road surface but not another? Say that I bought a toaster that was tested with rye bread that burns out while I am toasting wheat bread: Would the toaster's manufacturer be justified in denying a warranty claim? IMO, one should be able to use a tire (or, again, any other product) within its design parameters, even if that use wasn't tested for specifically; and denying a warranty claim because a manufacturer failed to--or arbitrarily decided not to--test a reasonable use of its product is IMO unreasonable. If there's a strain placed on an MT's plies by a light-weight trailer which strain isn't there when using the tire without the trailer, the burden of proof of that should be on the manufacturer.

 

And another reason I run a tire that shall not be mentioned in this thread else I draw the ire of my moderator friends... 😉

 

Next time, DON'T be so specific? Tire went bad and leave it at that...

How are they going to prove otherwise?

Just like insurance, did the DEER hit you or did YOU hit the deer? Makes BIG difference in how your claim is handled.

I NEVER give specifics on claims, giving manufacturers claims representatives reason to deny your claim.

I DON'T lie about it either, which filing a false claim and fraudulent claim.

I "just forgot" the details due to "trauma".

 

Yep! In other words, it's not just telling the truth, it's how the truth is told that is more important.

 

Bottom line: Motorcyclist pull trailers for hundreds of thousands of miles each year. Is it really safe to do so on any motorcycle tires? Thanks!

Your owner's manual clearly states DO NOT pull a trailer because the bike wasn't designed for it, so...

 

On this basis I agree. I could never understand the need or requirement to pull a trailer (with stuff) behind a motorcycle! Be that as it may, I am sure the engineers know something here.

 

I've been pulling a trailer behind my bike(s) [3 different M/Cycle's] .........since 2000.......... Grant you, I don't pull a trailer for 1000's of miles every day, JUST when I'm on a Bike vacation, once or twice a season....so I'm not an expert, in any manner, BUT luckily I've not had any problems..... and I'm not a cowboy, on a motorcycle either.. (I ride the speed limit(ish) ......

Ronnie

 

More reason to not buy Dunlop.....

As far as the "not designed to pull a trailer" goes..... Only big F150, K1500, and bigger full size pickup trucks besides big rigs were ever designed to "pull a trailer". Yet cars and smaller pickups pull them all the time. Dunlop is just trying to not replace your defective tire.

 

Duplicate post.

 

Should you decide to take this further and file a suit (or more correctly, a small claims case) against the tire manufacturer, I look forward to seeing you on Judge Judy. Just say the tire failure nearly caused you to injure a small dog and you'll win. Don't say it was a pitbull or you'll lose.

 

What is the true problem here? Someone pulls a trailer, damages the tire, expects the manufacturer to replace the tire? Why? The manufacturer or OEM motorcycle company said no towing (or words to that effect). Pretty clear to me. I am sure you would feel very different if you worked for Dunlop, Bridgestone, Metzler, etc... Otherwise they would be bankrupt with a flood of claims.

 

It's simply that for me it's not so cut and dried. I agree with you that a manufacturer has a legitimate reason to defend itself against and reject warranty claims when their products have been abused, but simply declaring as abuse using the product in arbitrarily-defined ways that don't actually stress the product smacks of avoiding accountability.

 

To answer the OP, the warranty is void because towing a trailer introduces far too many variables to be able to test and certify as within "operating limits". How big a trailer, what is the tongue weight, tongue length, rolling resistance, etc. They test the tire on the original bike with original equipment and an average rider, and warranty it within those constraints. They have no way of knowing if you will tow an empty Unigo or recover cars from the freeway like those Wings in Japan we see on YouTube.

 

That argument is true of any use of any product. In this case the tire manufacturers have no way of knowing whether someone regularly rides his motorcycle on their tires at 110mph in 110-degree weather. Your argument allows them an open-ended reason to void any tire warranty.

 

I believe this is the best reply and probably the real reason behind the tire manufacturers statements re warranty if towing a trailer behind a motorcycle. As per: Why do tire manufacturers say their warranty is void if...

 

I believe this is the best reply and probably the real reason behind the tire manufacturers statements re warranty if towing a trailer behind a motorcycle. As per: Why do tire manufacturers say their warranty is void if...

I have no objections to tire manufacturers voiding warranties if riders use Goldwings to tow cars (or houses or space-shuttle launch vehicles). I'm aware that trailers can weigh thousands or even tens of thousands of pounds and that hitch weight and the lateral forces generated by trailers on hitches can affect tires. Plus, commercial use of consumer products normally voids their warranties, and should. But this discussion is not about all trailers, it's specifically about lightweight motorcycle trailers and hitches that in normal use apply negligible additional weight and lateral forces to tires. Including purpose-built motorcycle tires that aren't impacted by lightweight trailers within blanket refusals to warranty any tires used to tow anything under any conditions is arbitrary, capricious (I really like that word), and self-serving.

 

Dunlop voids warranty if balance beads are used.

• "Tires injected with dry/liquid balancers or sealants, or in which anything other than air has been used as the supporting medium." Quote from Dunlop warranty page of what is not covered by warranty

Warranty Info | Dunlop Motorcycle Tires.

 

Dunlop voids warranty if balance beads are used.

• "Tires injected with dry/liquid balancers or sealants, or in which anything other than air has been used as the supporting medium." Quote from Dunlop warranty page of what is not covered by warranty

Warranty Info | Dunlop Motorcycle Tires.

Thanks for pointing that out. Tire warranties aren't worth much even when they are honored, but it's clear these giant, multi-national tire corporations like to offer warranties they won't actually have to honor.