Jump to content
faffi

Sport touring tyre comparo 2017

Recommended Posts

faffi
MOTORRAD compared these tyres on a Suzuki GSX-S 750:
 
Michelin PR4 2CT
Bidgestone T30
Conti Road Attack 3
Metzeler Roadtec 01
Dunlop Roadsmart III
Pirelli Angel GT
 
Dry and wet tests were made.
 
Overall winner: Conti 231 points - 140 dry and 91 wet. Excellent feedback and grip, great handling. Much improved over RA2 in the wet.
 
Metzeler: 228 points - 135 dry and 93 wet. Confidence and feedback from the moment you start rolling, very comfortable, slightly lacking in precision/stability. Best in the wet.
Pirelli: 227 points - 136 dry and 91 wet. Prefer a rider with firm inputs in order to give the best feedback. Very good in the wet.
Michelin: 222 points - 131 dry and 91 wet. Very good allround tyre, just a slight lack of accuracy and grip at a 10/10 pace. Used to be best in the wet, still very good.
Dunlop: 221 points - 135 dry and 86 wet. Nimbler than the previous version. Longest braking distance in the wet.
Bridgestone: 214 points - 131 dry and 83 wet. Slow handling, but very neutral. Easy for all to ride. Slow handling affect wet weather points, grip fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i28
I had Continental tires on my car and completely hated them. The reviews said they were better than the other brands but I didn't think so.
I wonder if motorcycle tires would be much more different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
faffi
Tyres are personal things. I bought Goodyear rain-something for my car since they were supposed to run silently and comfortable and provide great grip according to tests. They roll average, have little grip and wear rapidly. Really shyte. Regarding Bridgestone motorcycle tyres; they give me zero feedback, and most tend to offer too little grip as well. I used to hate Pirellis back in the 80s, but their new Stradas and Angels have been nice. The Michelin PRs are a bit like Bridgestones in that I lack feedback - tyres feel numb and do not offer the sensation of gripping. At least they last a long, long time. But the worst tyres I've had by a country mile, for both cars and bikes, have been Dunflops. No feedbadk, no grip and no life. Cannot get much worse than that :D
 
But others swear by tyres I dislike, so who am I to say how things are?
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ralph
Like the Michelins better than Bridgestone on the 07 good tyres and would be happy with them.
Bridgestones had a tendency to want to go straight on and did not have as much feel as Mich's
Got Continentals on now better than the Bridgestones and at least as good if not slightly better that Miches I like them.
Had Metzeler on other bikes, liked them a lot good turn in and brilliant in the wet.
Never had much luck with Dunlops personally would never fit them.
Never tried Pirelli on a bike though quite liked them on a car.
Will fit Conti or Metz at next change just down to whats available.
Here in the UK you need a good rain tyre and round here one that can deal with mud n cow crap.
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
faffi
I will try the Metz due to their supposed comfort. Don't ride much in the rain, but when I do, I like grip!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beemer
Like the Michelins better than Bridgestone on the 07 good tyres and would be happy with them. Bridgestones had a tendency to want to go straight on and did not have as much feel as Mich's
Got Continentals on now better than the Bridgestones and at least as good if not slightly better that Miches I like them.
Had Metzeler on other bikes, liked them a lot good turn in and brilliant in the wet.
Never had much luck with Dunlops personally would never fit them.
Never tried Pirelli on a bike though quite liked them on a car.
Will fit Conti or Metz at next change just down to whats available.
Here in the UK you need a good rain tyre and round here one that can deal with mud n cow crap.
 

I don't think there's a road tire on earth that can grip on mud or a cow patty in a corner, ha! Might as well be on ice.  ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
noodles
Interesting! I'm due for replacement of my rear tire soon-ish. I was thinking of the Dunlop RS 3's to replace my Angel GTs. I was hoping for something with a little more wet grip. They still feel like they want to slide in even light rain. Maybe I'll try the Contis. Here, I made a little chart for my short list of tires for our bike & their prices on Revzilla as of 8/7/17 if anyone else would benefit from it:
CONTI RA3 - (R $193 F $146)
P ANGEL GT - (R $193 F $148)
M PR4 - (R $200 F $156)
DUNLOP RS3 - (R$169 F $129)
  • Like 1

his face seems pulled and tense
like he's riding on a motorbike in the strongest winds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beemer
Tyres are personal things. I bought Goodyear rain-something for my car since they were supposed to run silently and comfortable and provide great grip according to tests. They roll average, have little grip and wear rapidly. Really shyte. Regarding Bridgestone motorcycle tyres; they give me zero feedback, and most tend to offer too little grip as well. I used to hate Pirellis back in the 80s, but their new Stradas and Angels have been nice. The Michelin PRs are a bit like Bridgestones in that I lack feedback - tyres feel numb and do not offer the sensation of gripping. At least they last a long, long time. But the worst tyres I've had by a country mile, for both cars and bikes, have been Dunflops. No feedbadk, no grip and no life. Cannot get much worse than that :D 
But others swear by tyres I dislike, so who am I to say how things are?
I hope you're wrong about the Dunlop RS II's because I ordered a set. Have you used the Dunlop RS2's or just other Dunlop model tires? No biggie I guess since I usually get off the road when it rains. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
faffi
Although of the worser tyres in the wet, the RS II must still be considered safe and sound. They drew flack for a harsh ride, heavy change of direction, massive tendency to straighten the bike when hitting the brakes mid-corner and poor grip (relatively speaking) in the dry. Long lasting and very stable at high speeds, the tyre was considered great for big sport-tourers doing very high speed touring on large bikes like the ZX-14, FJR1300, VFR1200 etc.
 
But only can tell whether you like them or not. Personally, I will never fit Dunlops to any vehicle - the ones I've had came with the purchase. The scariest were the D205 on my GSX600F because they had grip like crazy, wet or dry, on asphalt. But on worn tarmac, I had scary little grip in the dry - far less than you typically have on gravel - and in the wet the bike was spinning up in every gear like mad. And getting it stopped was even harder. Then there was the D208s that wore out in 1500 miles yet had no grip - other than the D205s on tarmac, I have never had so many slides at so little lean ever, before or after. Perhaps they would work in 100-degree heat, but not in this country.
 
No fan of Bridgerocks either, BTW :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
noodles

Based on this thread when it was time to change tires I switched from Angel to Road Attack 3's... We'll see how they hold up


his face seems pulled and tense
like he's riding on a motorbike in the strongest winds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gregjet

Continental tyres have had a huge change over the last 10 years. The good ones are really good but like all the others the lower rung tyres are not good. I liked them on the road on my motorcycles, but didn't like them much on medium sized bikes and bigger on the track. Used a set of race attacks ONCE and changed to a bridge 003r . Huge improvement.

Wet riding is a combination of compound AND water removal. Any tyre with substantial areas of uninterrupted smooth rubber is going to film up and reduce grip. Having lived for most of my life in a monsoon area, wet weather performance requires big water removal ability , so siping is imperative. For a long time that meant squirmy tyres but it is no longer necessarily the case ( PR4's look like wet weather racing tyres almost but perfom really well in the dry).

I would like to try the metzelers. I didn't like the adventure versions that canme on my TR650, but that may be a particular model thing. They were swapped to PR4's on it and the improvement was huge. The surprise was how reasonable the PR4's were on dirt roads ( NOT good but controllable). I know in the UK the metzelers have a great reputation for their race tyres.

It's funny , for years Dunlops were THE best wet weather tyres. The original k91's ( 1970's) were a revelation, but they just slipped backwards from then. They were the first real wet weather tyre.

I used pirelli's on my small race bkes , and at the tiny sizes they were pretty good wet and dry. We raced in the wet, including with 2'' water and mud running across the track in places. If you want to know why Jack Millar races well in the wet, this might give you an idea why...


Go forth and modify my son...go forth and modify...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
faffi

As I think I've mentioned already, tyre preferences differ greatly. For instance, Bridgestone BT45s were the standard for diagonal tyres for 2 decades, winning just about every comparo test printed. Personally, I hated them. I really liked the Pirelli MT75 front in conjunction with the MT66 rear on my Vulcan, though; compliant, communicative, long lasting and splendid grip. I also fancied the Michelin A49/M48 combination, but hated the Macadam 50s that followed. "Everybody" raved about the Pirelli MT28+ Supercomp back in the 80s, but for me they gave no life and would slide at the slightest provocation. And so on.

 

What really surprise me, though, is how well some tyres would stick even 30 years ago. I regularly leaned my GS550 far enough over to scrape the alternator cover plus exhaust and stands, and the Michelin tyres would still grip fine, despite being unloaded quite a bit. I've ridden radials with far less grip. At least for me and the way I ride. Maybe I do something wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gregjet

Faffi, I agree and disagree re: BT45's.

First the OEM ones had different profiles and compound to the aftermarket ones. No idea why.

Second I HATED Bt45 rears. Vague, tippy and just OK grip.

The fronts, however I loved. On my tiny race bikes I would use the fronts on the front and rear ( well the BT45R's). Don't even know why they gave them the same designation , because the front and back were SOOOO different.

 


Go forth and modify my son...go forth and modify...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HARRY BALZAK

What the hell is a tyre?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gregjet

"What the hell is a tyre?"

It's what the entire rest of the world except the US uses for round black things. Like Aluminum ( how come they don't have uranum, and sodum and magnesum?), the US just makes up it's own rules to ensure misunderstanding with the rest of the world.

I particularly enjoy a gallon of 144 fluid ounces instead of the original 160 ( not that pretty much nobody uses gallons, or other ancient Imperial legacy units anymore anyway).

  • Thanks 1

Go forth and modify my son...go forth and modify...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjh937

And yet you still have 17 inch wheels on your metric motorcycle ;)

  • Like 1
  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gregjet

Valid point mjh937. But that's how the sizes developed. I suspect it will change sooner or later as the US economy slips furthur and furthur back. It is an artifact of the US being the biggest economy for the period when tyres were being evolved. Of course the rest of the sizing is metric 180 is mm width. 55 is the actual profile aspect ratio in DIN calc ( ie the bead to crown height/tyre mounted width) not the original US aspect which used the height from the edge of the rim to the crown ( I may be mistaken in that though. It has been a long time since I knew that stuff well)

I also have 26", 29" and 27.5" wheels on my mountain bike. Of course none of the mtb ones are actually that measurement anywhere. There has been a push for a number of years to resize them using the bead diameter and most of them now have the meaningless inch, old euro measningless sizing and the new meaningful DIN sizes on them. I suspect that the latest DIN sizing will win out eventually, as the rest of the world gets more into cycling. Strikes me the same will happen with motorbike tyres, even though the inch sizing actually does makes some sense on them. The rest of this bike is metric except even I sometimes compare motorcycle weight in lbs ( slowly weaning myself off it but I grew up with imperial and we changed when I was 21 to metric in 1984)

Edited by gregjet
  • Like 1

Go forth and modify my son...go forth and modify...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rick

I do everything at work - weights, measures, volumes, & temps. - in metric/Celsius and split life at home between the 2 systems with vehicles mostly metric and everything else in, well, American.😉 . Can't even begin to imagine doing woodworking or anything that's involved in a house's construction in metric. Once, I accidentally switched the dash on the fZ to km and was a bit lost as to how fast I was going. Let's see, .62 times 55k = what? 

 

Guess I could get used to plywood/drywall not being 4x8 ft as well as wall studs being on centers other than 16"  if I had to - no problem. Fractions of an inch kinda suck anyway imo. Decimal fractions of an inch, as in thousandths are even worse. Don't see those or wheel diameters going metric here any time soon. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shinyribs

The metric vs SAE argument always makes me laugh. The metric guys always bragging how their system is so much more accurate. But when you enter the world of machining equipment, where accuracy is critical, everything has dials in inches. Both are simply units for reference. Neither has any advantages over the other. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjh937

If it was not for buying drugs and soda most Americans would have no idea the metric system existed :)

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gregjet

Woodworking in Aus took a long time to convert ( in some ways it hasn't) a standard sheet of ply is 1200x2400... except it isn't... it's the old 4x8'. But then a 2"x4" beam isn't 2" x 4" , so everyone gets used to the real actual size.

Machining tools though. When I went to buy a metal lathe all the units were metric . You couldn't buy an Imperial one if you wanted. Even my ancient Hercus ( german) was metric, though you could use various imperial cams and threading options. My mill and lathe units are metric. I think because most of the machining machines are so heavy and bulky, that the US tool making industry was protected by the convienence of local manufactured machines. That plus Great Britain manufactured their stuff in Imperial long after they went metric for lots of other things.

The majority of the lathes and mills here are manufactured in China and are metric ( as stock). I admit I was surprised when all the bolts were metric as I thought they were knock off of imperial ones , but apparently they followed the Japanese designs. Incidently I have been told the Jap's machining stuff were imperial ( no jokes please) for a very long time.


Go forth and modify my son...go forth and modify...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gregjet

" If it was not for buying drugs and soda most Americans would have no idea the metric system existed "

Except the entire scientific community...


Go forth and modify my son...go forth and modify...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
faffi

The metrical system was set in 1799 in France, and became an international system in 1875 when it was also accepted by law in Norway. Yet we still talk about 2x4 (actually 48x98mm) and 2in nails (actually 50mm), but for the most part, stuff is metric. Horsepower is hard to kill, though; few talk about kW when it comes to engines.

 

BTW, the best thing about metric is not its scale, but that it is divided by 10. Makes things far easier. And it is consistent, meaning you do not have to adhere to cups and ounces and spoons and 12 inches in a foot and so on. Yet even here many recipies are made up of cups and spoons, which is meaningless to most of us since we do not know the actual volume of either anymore. Old habits die slowly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjh937
7 hours ago, gregjet said:

" If it was not for buying drugs and soda most Americans would have no idea the metric system existed "

Except the entire scientific community...

Didn't we crash a Mars probe because the scientists could not convert to metric?   I did say most, not all. 

 

And to keep the post on topic has anyone tried the Michelin Road 5 yet?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.