If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by Magnulus on December 11, 2006, 3:44 am
Hmm... what do you think of old tires?
I just got to thinking, the Rebel 250's tires might not be so hot. I
went out and checked them earlier and there is still some tread on the
front tire, and alot on the rear (more than Lincoln's head on a penny).
But the front tires are worn a bit in a way that suggests that it saw
very little cornering (not surprising). Compared to the outer tread,
the center of the tire is about half worn and fails the Lincoln's head
test.
The rubber itself is fairly hard feeling, at least compared to my
scooter that is a 2006 model year and has new tires. The scooter tires
feel like rubber, they spring back if you dig your nail into the tread,
and they have alot of tread on them. The motorcycle's tires don't have
the same springyness.
I'm guessing the tires are ten years old, original from the factory
(they say Bridgestone on the side). The bike has only 4500 miles, but
the tires don't look great. OK, the tire is harder, probably not as
grippy. Sounds like a bad thing. What kind of dealer sells you a bike
and fails to tell you "oh, BTW, the tires are over 5 years old. Tire
manufacturers recommend not using tires that old". I know I'm stupid
for not doing "caveat emptor", I suppose.
|
|
Posted by Ted Mittelstaedt on December 11, 2006, 5:22 am
show/hide quoted text
> Hmm... what do you think of old tires?
> I just got to thinking, the Rebel 250's tires might not be so hot. I
> went out and checked them earlier and there is still some tread on the
> front tire, and alot on the rear (more than Lincoln's head on a penny).
> But the front tires are worn a bit in a way that suggests that it saw
> very little cornering (not surprising). Compared to the outer tread,
> the center of the tire is about half worn and fails the Lincoln's head
> test.
Then it's worn out. Motorcycle tires all wear that way, unless you were to
ride in a constant circle that is. The front tires always wear faster since
your front brake has more stopping power.
Since it's your first bike you gotta keep in mind that your probably going
to
have missed stuff like this. It's no big deal. Tire condition generally
isn't a
factor for most used bike buyers, if the bike is regularly ridden you can
almost
see the tread on the things melt away in front of your eyes, they wear out
so
fast.
Ted
|
|
Posted by Scott on December 11, 2006, 11:04 am
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 02:22:38 -0800, in rec.motorcycles, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
show/hide quoted text
>Then it's worn out. Motorcycle tires all wear that way, unless you were to
>ride in a constant circle that is. The front tires always wear faster since
>your front brake has more stopping power.
Always? I wear out two rear tires for every front tire, and wear out the
front brake pads about twice as fast as the rear. FWIW.
-Scott
--
'73 CB450K
'82 CB900F (x2)
'04 FSC600 (SWMBO)
|
|
Posted by Bob Myers on December 11, 2006, 12:02 pm
show/hide quoted text
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 02:22:38 -0800, in rec.motorcycles, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
>>Then it's worn out. Motorcycle tires all wear that way, unless you were
>>to
>>ride in a constant circle that is. The front tires always wear faster
>>since
>>your front brake has more stopping power.
> Always? I wear out two rear tires for every front tire, and wear out the
> front brake pads about twice as fast as the rear. FWIW.
Ditto; the rear's good for maybe 4-5,000, the front about twice
that. Don't know why anyone would expect the relative "stopping
power" to have anything to do with it - my tires, at least, spend a
hell of a lot more time simply rolling down the road than they
do locked up and skidding, which is the only way I could see
that brakes would enter into the picture much. (Oh, I guess
you ARE putting more weight on the front during braking, but
come on...)
Bob M.
|
|
Posted by on December 11, 2006, 5:19 pm
Bob Myers wrote:
show/hide quoted text
> Ditto; the rear's good for maybe 4-5,000, the front about twice
> that. Don't know why anyone would expect the relative "stopping
> power" to have anything to do with it - my tires, at least, spend a
> hell of a lot more time simply rolling down the road than they
> do locked up and skidding, which is the only way I could see
> that brakes would enter into the picture much. (Oh, I guess
> you ARE putting more weight on the front during braking, but
> come on...)
> Bob M.
It's not an issue of weight. When you accelerate or brake your tire's
contact patch stretches and shears off rubber. You don't have to skid
to wear out your tires while braking.
Weight does increase tire wear but it affects both tires equally, since
most bikes (especially sportbikes) are pretty evenly balanced, about
50/50 front/back.
-Gniewko
|
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 > last >>
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Tires | November 4, 2007, 7:44 pm |
| Tires | November 27, 2007, 10:02 pm |
| Car tires, anyone? | August 25, 2008, 3:47 pm |
| Re: kickin Tires | October 1, 2007, 2:19 am |
| Re: kickin Tires | September 29, 2007, 6:19 pm |
| Re: kickin Tires | September 29, 2007, 6:11 pm |
| Re: kickin Tires | September 29, 2007, 5:35 pm |
| Re: kickin Tires | September 29, 2007, 5:21 pm |
| Oh great, twice as many tires to buy | October 8, 2007, 9:25 am |
| Avon Tires | October 10, 2007, 8:57 pm |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap
> I just got to thinking, the Rebel 250's tires might not be so hot. I
> went out and checked them earlier and there is still some tread on the
> front tire, and alot on the rear (more than Lincoln's head on a penny).
> But the front tires are worn a bit in a way that suggests that it saw
> very little cornering (not surprising). Compared to the outer tread,
> the center of the tire is about half worn and fails the Lincoln's head
> test.