[The CyberPoet]

Should I be weary of finding the tire so cheap?

Not at all. Remember these guys don't have the overhead that your local "stealer" does.

I find most internet based sellers are way cheaper than the local dealer.

+1

These guys are warehouse dealers, running cheap staff and cheap rent per square foot compared to your local dealer, and then selling low to make up for the profit by moving massive quantities.

Cheers,
=-= The CyberPoet

[gfm]

I am using Metzeller Z6, I am very happy with their performance.

[tilemann]

So, if you change the rear size from 150/70 to 160/60, should the front be changed to a 120/60 also (from stock 120/70)

[The CyberPoet]

So, if you change the rear size from 150/70 to 160/60, should the front be changed to a 120/60 also (from stock 120/70)

Not IMHO.
The change in the rear doesn't change the ride-height significantly (a couple millimeters). Dropping from a 120/70 to a 120/60 in the front will drop the front end of the bike by almost a half-inch, eliminating that as ground clearance, etc. Stick to a 120/70 unless you have a specific reason to want a 120/60 instead.

Cheers,
=-= The CyberPoet

[tilemann]

So I installed Metzeler Z6's on my 04 bike today. I went with stock front and 160/60 rear. What a difference from the stock tires. The bike actually wants to LEAAAAANNNN!! Should have done it the first day I bought the bike.

[The CyberPoet]

So I installed Metzeler Z6's on my 04 bike today. I went with stock front and 160/60 rear. What a difference from the stock tires. The bike actually wants to LEAAAAANNNN!! Should have done it the first day I bought the bike.

Wait until you swap to a 150/70ZR17 rear -- it'll be even more nimble.

Cheers,
=-= The CyberPoet

[02kat]

Wow what great information about the tire.....I have a squidy question has anyone used the tomahawk colored tires? I have the stock rim which tomahawk doesn't make the size for that however they make a 160/60. Any comments???

[The CyberPoet]

Every professional back-to-back tire review that I've seen for the Tomahawks have slammed them, rating them even lower than my most-hated candidate, the Cheng Shins. The MCN tire test was the killer, rating them at 38 out of 100 (38/100), while the Pirelli's & Metzelers came in within a few percentage points of perfect (97/100, 99/100).

Personally, I haven't been willing to find out in person based on that info.

Cheers,
=-= The CyberPoet

[StevieB]

Wow what great information about the tire.....I have a squidy question has anyone used the tomahawk colored tires? I have the stock rim which tomahawk doesn't make the size for that however they make a 160/60. Any comments???

I have a set of black Tomhawks on my Bandit 1200, rear is almost worn out, front is still fine, but has far fewer miles on it. I am a sport-tourer for sure, so super-grippy tires are not what I am looking for (Kudos to CyberPoet for his spot-on advice.) Still, I don't want my bike sliding out from under me on hard, dry payment anymore than the next guy.

I have been very happy with the 'hawks. Wear has been great, grip has always been as much as I needed, and the cost was great, too. Perhaps I am not agressive enough, or knowledgable enough, to truly evaluate them, but they worked just FINE for me. Frankly, I think there is a bit of placebo effect or psyc-effect going on here- whenever I mention them to a rider, I get horrified looks and incredulous "RETREADS??????!!???" replies. I wonder if the testers are not as objective as they would have you believe, too.

The manufacturer should commission a double-blind test. In fact, I think I will propose it to them right now!

[The CyberPoet]

The manufacturer should commission a double-blind test. In fact, I think I will propose it to them right now!

The problem with the Tomahawks, as far as I can tell, is that the quality of the tire can never be any better than the carcass it is mounted on. Thus, you could get radically different qualities between one retreaded Dunlop 207 and another retreaded Dunlop 207, simply because of factors beyond their control. They retread a lot of different basic carcasses, whatever they get their hands on, and although they have some quality control (X-raying the carcass from what I understand), xrays will only show belt damages, not heat damages nor other rubber-foundation damages in the donor carcass.

Combine that with the aircraft single-compound matrix they use and the tires, although cost-effective, still leaves a lot to be desired compared to the best of breed of modern tires, including sports-touring tires, IMHO. With a pair of Z6's coming in around $220 - $250 mounted and good for over 10k miles, it just doesn't make sense to me....

Q: how many miles have you gotten out of them? I'm curious.

Cheers,
=-= The CyberPoet

[StevieB]

With respect to Mr. CyberPoet, who has submitted many thoughtful and informative post here, I am having some trouble accepting the suggestion re. tire carcasses- the original manufacturer controls that, other than wear and damage that may be suffered while the tire is in use. Further, x-raying the tires will show the results of heat-damage, insofar as the rubber has allowed the belts to move or shift- the wires that make up the belts or radial plies will show non-uniform placing inside the tire, thus resulting in rejection of the tire.

I keep a careful log of repairs, replacements, mods, even trips taken on the Bandit. When I checked the mileage, I was suprised to have gotten 15,000 miles out of the rear, and still have some tread left. Although this may suggest a very hard, not-very-grippy tread compound, I have not noticed any slippage that was caused by that. 50% more tread life and 33% (or more) less cost.

Make sense now?

[SKNL2]

I have fallen in love with my Michelin Pilot Roads. I commute and they inspire confidence in the rain. I ride to Deal's Gap often and they inspire confidence in the dry as well. I will let you know about the mileage I get out of them as they are a week or so old. I would have bought Pilot Powers if my bike weren't my primary transportation.

I mounted 120/60 R17 and 160/60 R17s on my 2002 stock rims without issue.

[The CyberPoet]

StevieB, I'm happy to have anyone debate me as long as it doesn't degrade into name calling
You have first hand experience, so in general, if you're happy with their tires, you're happy with their tires... Who am I to debate that since I haven't ridden them for more than a couple miles on someone else's bike?
Curious: What tire carcass do you have under their compounds?

...I am having some trouble accepting the suggestion re. tire carcasses- the original manufacturer controls that, other than wear and damage that may be suffered while the tire is in use. Further, x-raying the tires will show the results of heat-damage, insofar as the rubber has allowed the belts to move or shift- the wires that make up the belts or radial plies will show non-uniform placing inside the tire, thus resulting in rejection of the tire.

The OEM manufacturer does control quality at the outset -- and I have no issue with that.
I also accept that if the carcass rubber has degraded enough that the belts have shifted noticeably, they will reject the tire before retreading it. They probably also reject tires based on original date of manufacture imprinted into the side-walls (not sure on this, but I would expect so, just as common sense), using only tires produced in the last few years.

Thus, the only problems I see are what happens if the rubber is prematurely VOC-robbed (hardened excessively from excess heat) in the carcass, or close to the borderline of chemically unbonding (same basic concept) -- without any belt shifting -- plus the question about whether the aircraft tire matrix they use is the best choice available for reasonable grip in crisis situations (implying the millions, possibly billions in R&D the leading motorcycle tire producers spend in developing their matrixes are possibly for naught?)?

There are people who swear Cheng Shins are the best price-performers in the world, since you can buy three of them for the price of one typical sports-touring tire. That may well be true -- but tires are one of the two places I'd rather lay out a tad more money and have the assurance of the best solution I could find on the Kats (the other is oil & filters). That difference in stopping distance & handling prowess could some day mean the difference between riding away and going off in a meat-wagon in my mind. The same logic applies to the Tomahawks in my mind...

Until I see a back-to-back tire comparo with other brands of tires that evaluates them well, I will continue to prefer to simply avoid them. Everyone else can make their own call on the issue

Cheers,
=-= The CyberPoet

[StevieB]

As I recall, the carcassas on my tires are Metzlers, but memory may not serve well...

I prefaced my last post with "the honorable Mr. CyberPoet" stuff so that all would know that I respect your post and opinions, even on the occasion when I might disagree with them.

[vahankin]

StevieB, tires are one of the two places I'd rather lay out a tad more money and have the assurance of the best solution I could find on the Kats (the other is oil & filters).

What oil and filter do you use and why?