Michelin Pilot Road 2

[BoB21]

David im confsed with your theory/logic regarding more rubber less sipes. For starters we all get caught out in rain at some point or another. Yes you might wait for rain to pass but realistically waiting for road to dry?
You prefer more of  old compound of rubber and a tyre that has more than likely sat on shelf longer than a modern compound with sipes?
Each to own but dont follow logic.

[David.]

Michelin Pilot Road 4


Metzeler Roadtec Z8


Currently, PR4's & Z8's are factory fit to RT's. IMO, the photos show how two different tread patterns can work in all conditions. Some tyre manufacturers use grooves & sipes to improve wet grip, while others use chemical compounds to produce the same or similar performance. The latter may possibly be thought of as a cut slick which works in the wet on a race track.

Yes, the PR2 may be older tyre technology but are still in production and will have a date of manufacture on the sidewall of the tyre. I've recently purchased Dunlop Roadsmart 1's which are less than a year old, whilst Dunlop are now on to Roadsmart 3's. Dunlop have continued to improve their tyres by using new chemical compounds/rubber technology without resorting to cutting more grooves & sipes.

Before replacing my last pair of RS1's, which were well down to the TWI's, I rode in some atrocious wet conditions without any problems. If necessary, adjusting my riding style/pace to suit.

[hammo]

Everyone has their opinion on tyres , and everyone has their own riding style , you can only go by other riders comments , i ride to the speed limit at all times , some riders like to imitate Valentino Rossi , hence more wear on the tyres , i changed my tyres from Metzeler to Michelin Road Pilot 4 GT and have found them to be excellent in dry and wet conditions .   

[Our Gee]

I recall that when the Pilot Road 4 first came out some folk complained that there was a noticeable increase in the amount of road debris (grit and small stones etc) being picked up by the tyre and deposited on the front of the engine and exhaust headers etc. which is not surprising when you look at the amount of grooves and sipes.

[David.]

Found this 2012 Michelin Motorcycle Tyre Fitment Guide, http://www.ride.lv/files/downloads/mich ... alogue.pdf

Looking at the specs. (see page 11),  the Pilot Road 2 should not be a problem for a lightweight (10st/64kg) rider, without being loaded for touring or riding with a passenger (two-up). Most of my riding is now done solo without luggage. The load index & speed rating for the standard rear is (73 W),  this is exactly the same as the "B" version. Michelin say, "180/55 ZR 17 rear also available in a ‘B’ version, specifically designed for loaded sport touring or riding two-up". It does not list specific bikes such as the RT. The load index must include the bike and the payload, with the load distributed % wise over both F&R tyres.

Based on the above, when I'm next due a pair of tyres, if Dunlop Roadsmarts are not available, I may well give Michelin Pilot Road 2's a go, assuming they are still available themselves.

[David.]

Without tyre manufacturer weight guidelines for rider, passenger & luggage, tyre version codes are not a lot of use. I was out recently with a solo rider who at 20st is twice my weight. My Mrs & I are less than that which allows us some luggage capacity too. The Michelin tyre "B" version code guide is for loaded and/or two-up. Does this mean that both a 10st or a 20st solo rider can use the same non-version code rear tyre.

The same can be said of tyre pressures & suspension pre-load settings. At what point do you make changes for the payload on the bike.

The tyre manufactures probably "assume" that an RT is more than likely to be used two-up with or without luggage. Fitting "full fat" version code tyres e.g. GT's, covers all eventualities and the manufacturer's backside. If you only ride solo, like I do, why pay for something you don't need.

[simbo]

The tyre manufactures probably "assume" that an RT is more than likely to be used two-up with or without luggage. Fitting "full fat" version code tyres e.g. GT's, covers all eventualities and the manufacturer's backside. If you only ride solo, like I do, why pay for something you don't need.

I've used both versions of PR4's and couldn't tell any difference between them whatsoever. I've also had the PR4 'Trail' version and they're no better off road than the either of the road variants. I had PR2's on my GSX1250fa and they were good tyre's, my RT came with PR3's when I bought it and I felt they were a better tyre, especially in the rain. Then I went to PR4's (non gt) and couldn't tell much difference, Then the GT version, and again, no difference. I've got 5 Trails on my GS which I feel are a step up from the 4's in Dry weather grip, but not much difference in wet weather grip. At the end of the day, all these modern tyre's are better than 99.9% of the riders that use them. ( me inc)

[beemerboy9]

The tyre manufactures probably "assume" that an RT is more than likely to be used two-up with or without luggage ......

....cruising at 120 mph on a German autobahn in 30 degree summer temperatures.


This is why the manufacturers have to recommend the "reinforced" tyres for the RT.  If one does not ride in these extreme high-load conditions, one might very well get away with a non-reinforced tyre. A quick look at the axle loading of the tyre should inform one's decision.


It may be that certain folks are uncertain about whether all rubber compounds are the same, leading to the conclusion that a ultra-modern tyre with more sipes has less grip than a 10-year old design with no sipes. The truth might be that a modern, high-silica, low-internal-friction tyre can have a softer, grippier, hard wearing rubber compound with more water-dispersing sipes and still provide a slighter improved level of grip compares to a more traditional tyre.


The most important tyre charcteristic to me is the handling at the limit. Does the tyre slide a wee bit or is there a sudden loss of grip when negotiating an unexpectedly poor surface.

In saying the above, I am not trying to dissuade anyone from their preferred choice. Each to their own.....

[David.]

A quick look at the axle loading of the tyre should inform one's decision.

The load & speed index for the F&R rear tyres recommended for an RT is (58 W) front & (73 W) rear.

This is the same for standard & version code (GT) tyres, where the max load is front 236 kg & rear 365 kg for both tyre types.

[David.]

Take these two examples, my RT is 263 kg + rider at 64 kg = 327 kg.

A friend has a Triumph Tiger 1050 at 198 kg, was out with a.n.other rider at 129 kg. The combined weight of bike + rider would be as above 327 kg.

Why does the RT need a version code tyre and the Triumph doesn't. Surely, it's the combined loading of bike + rider etc. on the tyres.

[beemerboy9]

Take these two examples, my RT is 263 kg + rider at 64 kg = 327 kg.

A friend has a Triumph Tiger 1050 at 198 kg, was out with a.n.other rider at 129 kg. The combined weight of bike + rider would be as above 327 kg.

Why does the RT need a version code tyre and the Triumph doesn't. Surely, it's the combined loading of bike + rider etc. on the tyres.

Taking the current RT, 279kg is optimistic as one was on the weighbridge at 300kg with all the gubbins such as ESA and radio. Then you add a top box at 10 kg.


Fill all the luggage and add a heavy rider and pillion and you might get close to the 600kg combined limit of both tyres. 


Add in a nice safety factor for extreme use conditions and one might easily need a reinforced or heavy duty tyre.


It is truly bewildering when one looks at the different-spec tyres out there - and I don't have all the answers.


Nor does it all stop at motorcycles. Audi supplies "AO"-spec  tyres and Mercedes have theirs as well........

[David.]

Dunlop make it even more confusing, their latest RT fitment is the "standard" Roadsmart III.

Recently, to complement the existing "SP" rear, Dunlop have introduced an "SP" version front for lighter machines,
https://news.goodyear.eu/dunlop-introdu ... ront-tyre/

[David.]

Had another email reply from Michelin Europe with the correct answer.

"As per our phone call, you should fit GT tyres, for an example the MICHELIN ROAD 5 GT.

But if you are not wanting to purchase these due to price reasons, you can fit the MICHELIN ROAD 2 without any issues."

The previous reply was from Michelin UK & Ireland, probably some jobsworth.

[David.]

I was sent an article from this month's Bike magazine, Buy old model tyres.

"The latest tyres are better than last year's models but in the real world most of us couldn't tell. In fact, you'd struggle to spot the model before that unless you rode them back to back with the latest tyre and concentrated really hard. That means you can save a fortune by buying superseded models. These are still brand new - we're not recommending buying used tyres, or out of date rubber -just not the latest spangly version. So, for example, instead of getting a Michelin Road 5 (about £150 for a 180-section rear),  you get the excellent Road 4 (£125) or jolly decent Road 3 (£110). The theory works for all the big brands. And you still get to enjoy great tyres, and feel smug about it".

Or, a decent Road 2 for £88, https://www.nationalbiketyres.co.uk/mic ... t_id=36913

[Graham88]

Hmm, on the other hand if you are unfortunate enough to have a spill you would be asking whether that extra 0.5% would have helped in any way and was saving that £25 really worth it. If you're biking on a budget that tight, stay away from the BMW showroom. Me personally, as far as brakes, tyres, body armour and helmets go... I want the best, on the other hand I dont really care about a £1500 colour upgrade.