On 04/02/2017 07:27 PM, Jonas Schneider wrote:
Auurgh! Tire reviews.
Tire reviews are like people rating their mother's cooking.
Everyone is biased toward the tires *they* selected, while some can't stand
their mother, no matter what.

Then you might as well blindfold yourself and throw darts at the wall.

A guy spends six hundred bucks for tires, and then he writes a review about
it. The review is sort of like how the CIA rates dictators we prop up in
South America. Yeah, they're *******s, but they are "our *******s".

I doubt the Motor Trend writer is paying for many tires out of his own
pocket. Possibly he's getting paid under the table by Cooper but is that
worth slagging a couple of other brands that he found inferior?

The must have bought the topspeed author a few beers too:

http://www.topspeed.com/cars/cooper-...3761.html#main

But, like the guy said, buying tires is boring. Not sucking completely
is the main criteria.


I did not chose the OEM tires, Bridgestone Potenza 92E's.
You probably do what most people do, including me.
The market research I quoted said that most people choose OE tires early in
the life of the vehicle, where they stray further and further away as the
vehicle ages.

The Bridgestones on the first Yaris were worn and I planned to replace
them in the spring with some other brand. However, the Yaris did not
survive a head on collision with a snow plow. The second Yaris came with
the same tires, which I replaced with Coopers when they wore out. The
92E's are not bad for ride quality, noise, and traction but the tread
life sucks and they're quite expensive when you're not Toyota buying
them by the boatload.


I won't even start on my process for selecting bike tires, particularly
for my dual sport bike. For example, Dunlop D606's are great in mud but
howl like a banshee at 80 mph on pavement. Bridgestone Trailwings are
civilized on the pavement but only marginally better than any pure
street tire in the mud.
I'm not sure how motorcycle tires differ from passenger-car tires, as it
has been a while since I have ridden myself. Last ones I bought I mounted
myself though, and didn't bother to balance them.

These days motorcycle tires tend to be designed for specific ends.
Dunlop D401's, known as Dunrocks in some circles, have great life. I got
over 15,000 on the rear and replaced the front when i got sick of
looking at it. However performance suffers. I ran a couple sets of
Bridgestone Spitfires. Much better performance, but only about 7500
miles on the rear. You pays your money and you makes your choice. I'm
running Pirelli Routes on the Harley now. Decent performance and the
jury is out on the mileage. All the boy racers report 10 to 15k, so
that's better than the spitfires.

I've been through a few flavors with the DR650. I get about 5000 miles
on the rear with D606 which is more oriented to off-road, and around
7000 with the Trailwings, which are more on road. I'm running Kendas
now, less aggressive than the D606's and they'll go to about 6000. When
I need a front tire it will not be a Kenda. For whatever reason it's a
pain in the butt to seat the beads on the Kenda fronts. I do not balance
knobbies. I mean, how could you ever tell?

The V-Strom gets Michelin Anakee III's. Good grip, good life, and not
completely useless in the dirt if you're careful. After all, what good
is an adventure bike if you can't adventure.

The big difference with bikes other than you only have two tires under
you so you think a little more about what you're buying, is you're also
buying them a lot more frequently and unless you're in a mindless rut
can do your own comparisons.