BMW Luxury Touring Community banner

1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
170 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
hi guys - is there a alternative to these crappy Metzlers - new tire on the front and okay on the rear - this bugger just about went down on me when i was cornering the new front (600 miles) gave out half way round - bugger just started to slide away and they are darn noisey- the back will not get traction when it's damp out. Has anyone put the PP4 michelins on ???? any recommendation would be appreciated as I ride 2 up with this behemoth. If I put her down or get caught in bad weather with the BOSS on the back - that will be the end of that, real fast

Thanks:crying:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,338 Posts
hi guys - is there a alternative to these crappy Metzlers - new tire on the front and okay on the rear - this bugger just about went down on me when i was cornering the new front (600 miles) gave out half way round - bugger just started to slide away and they are darn noisey- the back will not get traction when it's damp out. Has anyone put the PP4 michelins on ???? any recommendation would be appreciated as I ride 2 up with this behemoth. If I put her down or get caught in bad weather with the BOSS on the back - that will be the end of that, real fast

Thanks:crying:
Here are a couple threads discussing the limited options for the LT. I suggest you read them before you make any decision on tires. The TL rear requires a 79V rating with reinforced sidewalls. If you are 2up, I would certainly not play with a lesser rated tire.

Metzlers are also called Howlers. yes, they are noisy.


http://www.bmwlt.com/forums/k1200lt/127106-tire-review-shinko-777-h-d-rear-irc-rx-01-front.html


http://www.bmwlt.com/forums/k1200lt/74051-michelin-commander-ii-tire-suitable-lt.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvguy

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
812 Posts
hi guys - is there a alternative to these crappy Metzlers - new tire on the front and okay on the rear - this bugger just about went down on me when i was cornering the new front (600 miles) gave out half way round - bugger just started to slide away and they are darn noisey- the back will not get traction when it's damp out. Has anyone put the PP4 michelins on ???? any recommendation would be appreciated as I ride 2 up with this behemoth. If I put her down or get caught in bad weather with the BOSS on the back - that will be the end of that, real fast

Thanks:crying:
Are you SURE the road surface was w/o crude/sand/etc? I been over 300,000 miles using metz fronts and if it ever slipped on a curve it was the crude on the road and not the fault of the tire. They last 15,000 miles and I take 40 mph curves at 70 and 80 mph. Rears only go from 8,000 to 11,ooo miles. Depends on your right hand.

YES, they are noisey. I just turn up the tunes. :laugh:

As mentioned before. Make sure you use 58V on the front tire and 79V on the rear when 2up.

Just my opinion as tires are BIG on opinions here.:serious:
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvguy

·
Registered
Joined
·
170 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
dry with wet patches - no crap on the pavement - gave me a bit of a fright as I am still getting use to riding this massive bike
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
812 Posts
dry with wet patches - no crap on the pavement - gave me a bit of a fright as I am still getting use to riding this massive bike
Sorry I can't help you as I just don't run hard when wet patches are showing up. I always remember that at 60mph a tire isn't on the pavement if the wet spot has any depth to it.

Maybe someone using tires other than Metz will chime in. Lots of good folks on here.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,612 Posts
Sorry I can't help you as I just don't run hard when wet patches are showing up. I always remember that at 60mph a tire isn't on the pavement if the wet spot has any depth to it.

Maybe someone using tires other than Metz will chime in. Lots of good folks on here.
I am glad my tires don't know that as I often ride 65+ in heavy rain and my tires stay on the road just fine.
:grin:

Seriously, a motorcycle tire will withstand quite high speeds given its round profile, even if the tread is nearly gone. Add in decent tread and it would take some really deep water to get the tire completely off the pavement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
64 Posts
On my LT are dunlop roadsmart tyres, and I must say that I love them. 1200 miles in 3 days at highspeed and lots of cornering and also some in heavy rainy conditions without any problems. Not with the right loadindex, but still capable of doing 300km/h.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
170 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
well what a nightmare trying to find tires
decided i'm going to remove the Metzlers and find something much better
as I have lots of rides I'm not worrying about mileage just safety

seems there's lots out there size wise , but without the proper load rating
will keep digging
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,392 Posts
Bridgestone 79V rear, Metzler 58H front.... case closed (for an '05 - '09). :bmw:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
794 Posts
I try to stay away from tire threads mainly because my riding conditions are far superior to all of yours; I have better roads and usually much less traffic until you guys come to visit Iron Horse.
I also change more tires in a month than most of you will change in a decade. "I work on a lot of different people's bikes." I get to see first hand tire wear and rider habits.

I have been punishing the 888 rear and 880 front. And though my LT doesn't corner as well as my 2002 LT did, she still gets a good work out.
I do like (borderline Love) the Dunlop RoadSmart II. I have a set on my VFR800Fi, I don't think it would ever be a proper tire for the heavy LT. IF a VFR shreds the tire, I can only imagine what an LT can do to them. Probably destroy them like the crappy AVON Storm some genius decided to push on to the forum members to try. I did. That was a sh1t tire, gone in 900 miles.

I would like to see a Bridgestone T30 GT in the LT size. That tire would be marvelous.

My next attempt will be the Shinko. I am not a Shinko flag waver, but I do install a lot of them on big Harley's and GoldWings and their riders swear by them and they are getting decent milage.
The Shinko is 79H which covers the LT weight and speed up to 130. Let's face it, there is really no need to have a V rated tire on an LT. The bike can't do 120mph and it will never ever see 149mph.
The Shinko 777 HD at 100.00 is a really good price.
Unfortunately, they do not have a front to match the rear. At least not one which I can find from my supplier.
However, you can't get an 888 for the front of the LT either.

I am feeling that my next tire change would be OK with an 880 up front and a 777 HD on the rear.
At 250.00 for a set of tires, that is a price I can justify. The 350.00 for the Metzelers is just too much money for 4000 miles of enjoyment.

Now, I know some of you want 10,000 to 20,000 miles out of a set of tires. Sure you ride how you want to ride and I will ride my ride.
We can still share a meal at the end of the day when you finally get to the restaurant which we were going to stop at for lunch... :kiss:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,612 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
183 Posts
well what a nightmare trying to find tires
decided i'm going to remove the Metzlers and find something much better
as I have lots of rides I'm not worrying about mileage just safety

seems there's lots out there size wise , but without the proper load rating
will keep digging
Most like the Bridgestone/Metzler combo. I went with the Avon Storm 3D XM for the traction. I've been happy with the Avon performance so far, sticks to the road and rides smooth for me. IF I did more highway then I'd look at the combo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
170 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
how are the Avon"s in the wet??? VS Bridgestones
i live in the pac nor/west wet with scattered periods of wet


i've never like running 2 different tire s and the compounds and flexes are differentbeen pounding the inter-web for stats and tires that i can get in pairs


I sure like the Michelin for the rear but no fronts
i guess i kinda stuck with the Avon or Bridgestones
have supplier looking into the Dunlops
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
183 Posts
how are the Avon"s in the wet??? VS Bridgestones
i live in the pac nor/west wet with scattered periods of wet


i've never like running 2 different tire s and the compounds and flexes are differentbeen pounding the inter-web for stats and tires that i can get in pairs


I sure like the Michelin for the rear but no fronts
i guess i kinda stuck with the Avon or Bridgestones
have supplier looking into the Dunlops
Keep in mind the rear tire needs to be 79V rated or better due to the weight. That really limits you to the Metzler, Bridgestone, Avon and Shinko for the rear. If memory serves, the Metzler gives the longest mileage, Avon the best traction and Bridgestone is in the middle.
It's a typical Texas summer so we haven't had any rain while I was riding so I can't give you a personal report during heavily wet roads with the Avons. I have ran into some damp roads from a morning sprinkle and had no traction issues at all. I commute in the city with lots of oil build up on the roads and they have handled that very well. From others reports they handle heavy rain well. They are a soft tire so don't expect long life out of them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
794 Posts
If you guys are going to give tire advice start using the correct terms...

The BMW LT needs the 79 for the weight.
There is no reason the LT needs the V.
V= 149 mph. There are no old farts on this forum who is ever going to see 149MPH on an LT.
H= 130 mph. This would be a do-able speed for an LT with a strong wind at you back on a very steep downhill running wide open.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,612 Posts
If you guys are going to give tire advice start using the correct terms...

The BMW LT needs the 79 for the weight.
There is no reason the LT needs the V.
V= 149 mph. There are no old farts on this forum who is ever going to see 149MPH on an LT.
H= 130 mph. This would be a do-able speed for an LT with a strong wind at you back on a very steep downhill running wide open.
Has BMW ever approved a tire for the LT that had less than a V speed rating?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
794 Posts
BMW won't. They stopped thinking about the LT in 2005 and moved on to the designing the K1600.
Why would they even care? They sell new motorcycles and are not about to put time, money and research into a ten year old relic.
If they did then it would deprive a bunch of curmudgeons on a BMW forum hours and hours of topics.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,612 Posts
BMW won't. They stopped thinking about the LT in 2005 and moved on to the designing the K1600.
Why would they even care? They sell new motorcycles and are not about to put time, money and research into a ten year old relic.
If they did then it would deprive a bunch of curmudgeons on a BMW forum hours and hours of topics.

Or it could be that they specified a V rated tire for reasons other than speed. V rated tires can handle higher speed because they develop less heat and/or shed heat better. They also tend to have stronger belts and stiffer sidewalls.

Speed isn't the only reason a given vehicle may have a given tire rating specified. Running a tire with a lower rating than the manufacturer specified is a risky proposition. During my engineering career, I often had a reason to specify parts that seemingly were "over rated" for the application. Often it was because such parts had other desirable or necessary characteristics not understood by the casual observer.

BMW will never tell you this, but I suspect the same here. It could well be that a lower speed rated tire, even with proper load rating, might overheat due to things like nearby catalytic converter, lack of cooling airflow due to all the Tupperware, etc. BMW may have found this during testing and specified tires with greater heat tolerance.

I am speculating here, but it was situations like this where I often had to specify "over rated" parts to ensure system reliability and longevity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: St0rm1

·
Registered
Joined
·
81 Posts
Or it could be that they specified a V rated tire for reasons other than speed. V rated tires can handle higher speed because they develop less heat and/or shed heat better. They also tend to have stronger belts and stiffer sidewalls.

Speed isn't the only reason a given vehicle may have a given tire rating specified. Running a tire with a lower rating than the manufacturer specified is a risky proposition. During my engineering career, I often had a reason to specify parts that seemingly were "over rated" for the application. Often it was because such parts had other desirable or necessary characteristics not understood by the casual observer.

BMW will never tell you this, but I suspect the same here. It could well be that a lower speed rated tire, even with proper load rating, might overheat due to things like nearby catalytic converter, lack of cooling airflow due to all the Tupperware, etc. BMW may have found this during testing and specified tires with greater heat tolerance.

I am speculating here, but it was situations like this where I often had to specify "over rated" parts to ensure system reliability and longevity.
All valid points on why something is rated a certain way.... but also remember that we live now in a society where CYA (Cover Your Ass) trumps all when it comes to making or selling anything. BMW equipped a V rated tire, I am sure, for exactly the reason you mentioned above. Does that mean that a lower speed rated tire is a bad idea? Not always. I believe it was you (or someone did anyway) that mentioned in my tire thread about the speed rating being a surrogate for heat tolerance, and that can be true, however, in theory anyway, they are rated as 2 separate capabilities. The reality is that tires, again due to liability, are tested WELL beyond the rating they are given. They are then assigned a much lower rating to ensure that there was basically no way that the application where the ratings are specified can cause a tire failure. the 79H rating of the Shinko tire should mean, again, in theory, that the tire can withstand the highest weight capacity of the rating, up to the maximum speed of the rating for a sustained period of time under what would be considered normal use conditions.

All that said, I too suggest looking into the Shinko 777 HD as I am now on rear number 2. I got 9600 out of my first with several thousand still left on the tire but was heading out on another trip that would exceed my expectation of that tire. Given the wear, I would estimate 10-12K no problem with my specific conditions (which are far from ideal) of 115 degree Vegas summer days, with poorly maintained roads, running about 200lbs over recommended payload capacity 2-up and dragging pegs in corners and blazing 85+ down the slab. If you ride primarily solo or lighter than me in any place other than the scorching hot desert with a real heavy wrist, i suspect you can add another 3-4K onto my estimate. not bad for a $100 tire. I tend to beat tires to death pretty quickly.

Front I am still looking for a good option. I would like to stay Bias ply but am considering giving a radial a shot on the front for some testing purposes to see if that will work and what bad traits, if any, the bike may develop. I do understand the construction and physics differences in the tires and why one should not always mix bias/radial tires in that particular configuration, however, given the reinforced construction of the rear and the way the radial front would handle forces loaded to it, it may be just fine. I have heard of a few folks running mix R/B both ways with success, and storied of bad things happening but the majority of those are "well a guy I know" type stories. I am a see for myself kinda guy. That said, a specific combo that works on my bike with my riding style wont always work for everyone else so I wont recommend that per se, but I am going to give it a go and report back I think. I have a few different front take-offs with plenty of life in them to try out of various tread patterns and mfgs.

hopefully I made this as clear as mud for you. lol

- Justin
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,612 Posts
All valid points on why something is rated a certain way.... but also remember that we live now in a society where CYA (Cover Your Ass) trumps all when it comes to making or selling anything. BMW equipped a V rated tire, I am sure, for exactly the reason you mentioned above. Does that mean that a lower speed rated tire is a bad idea? Not always. I believe it was you (or someone did anyway) that mentioned in my tire thread about the speed rating being a surrogate for heat tolerance, and that can be true, however, in theory anyway, they are rated as 2 separate capabilities. The reality is that tires, again due to liability, are tested WELL beyond the rating they are given. They are then assigned a much lower rating to ensure that there was basically no way that the application where the ratings are specified can cause a tire failure. the 79H rating of the Shinko tire should mean, again, in theory, that the tire can withstand the highest weight capacity of the rating, up to the maximum speed of the rating for a sustained period of time under what would be considered normal use conditions.

All that said, I too suggest looking into the Shinko 777 HD as I am now on rear number 2. I got 9600 out of my first with several thousand still left on the tire but was heading out on another trip that would exceed my expectation of that tire. Given the wear, I would estimate 10-12K no problem with my specific conditions (which are far from ideal) of 115 degree Vegas summer days, with poorly maintained roads, running about 200lbs over recommended payload capacity 2-up and dragging pegs in corners and blazing 85+ down the slab. If you ride primarily solo or lighter than me in any place other than the scorching hot desert with a real heavy wrist, i suspect you can add another 3-4K onto my estimate. not bad for a $100 tire. I tend to beat tires to death pretty quickly.

Front I am still looking for a good option. I would like to stay Bias ply but am considering giving a radial a shot on the front for some testing purposes to see if that will work and what bad traits, if any, the bike may develop. I do understand the construction and physics differences in the tires and why one should not always mix bias/radial tires in that particular configuration, however, given the reinforced construction of the rear and the way the radial front would handle forces loaded to it, it may be just fine. I have heard of a few folks running mix R/B both ways with success, and storied of bad things happening but the majority of those are "well a guy I know" type stories. I am a see for myself kinda guy. That said, a specific combo that works on my bike with my riding style wont always work for everyone else so I wont recommend that per se, but I am going to give it a go and report back I think. I have a few different front take-offs with plenty of life in them to try out of various tread patterns and mfgs.

hopefully I made this as clear as mud for you. lol

- Justin
Clear, but clearly wrong. I don't know of any product that can meet all of its specifications simultaneously. And specifications are never independent in either theory or practice. I am most familiar with electrical and structural engineering, not tires, but I was quite sure the same principles apply there. However, to be sure, I did some cursory research and found one tire standard fairly quickly. Take a look and tell me if you think tires are tested simultaneously at maximum load, maximum speed and maximum temperature.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/571.119

If you want more evidence, look up ASCE 7 and read about load combinations. You will see that no structure is designed to withstand simultaneously the full rated loads for dead, live, wind, snow, ice, earthquake, flood, etc. Various combinations of 2-5 of these are considered at a time, but never are ALL considered at the same time. That just isn't sound engineering as products would cost a fortune it this were the practice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CheezNbeer
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Top