• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

A big post on tires

Michelin basically took the Power Race and re-treaded it to look like the Power One for the superbike sizes (after they had major issues with the tread peeling off of the carcass of the all new Power One). They didn't have any issues with the 160s though, so they sport a new carcass and the new tread.
Let the smack-down commence!
 
Compound
...
For street use, it's worth taking into account that more street/track oriented tires will tend to perform much more poorly in cold/wet conditions than sport touring tires. This also applies when the tire has not been brought up to temperature yet, and is another reason that it's prudent to stick with sport touring tires if your bike is going to see commuting more than the track.
...

Question here: I know that the tread pattern on touring tires will move more water, but doesn't the amount of silica or the general stickiness of the street/track tires also provide an advantage in wet weather riding? Is there a tire with good water treads and a sticky compound?
 
Question here: I know that the tread pattern on touring tires will move more water, but doesn't the amount of silica or the general stickiness of the street/track tires also provide an advantage in wet weather riding? Is there a tire with good water treads and a sticky compound?

Generally, sport touring tires are more grippy across the range of operation, but have lower overall grip levels, while street/track tires tend to be a little less forgiving when cold, but with higher overall grip when warm. Grip doesn't exist as a "more is better", it's very dependent on conditions, road and tire temp, road surface, and a bunch of other factors.

As to which is best? That's really a matter of personal preference. I enjoy michelin road tires but don't particularly care for their track tires. I got good grip and feedback on my 929 from metzler Z6s, which many people detest. I thought the Continental Road Attacks were the best in the rain and marginal the rest of the time. It's really a matter of personal feedback as to what people feel is best overall in the rain, on different bikes, different people will report different results with different tires.
 
Question here: I know that the tread pattern on touring tires will move more water, but doesn't the amount of silica or the general stickiness of the street/track tires also provide an advantage in wet weather riding? Is there a tire with good water treads and a sticky compound?

Yes, that tire is called the Michelin Pilot Power (and PP2CT). Their tread could part the Red Sea while the silica-rich compound is better than Snoop Dogg's sticky-icky in the wet :party
 
Generally, sport touring tires are more grippy across the range of operation, but have lower overall grip levels, while street/track tires tend to be a little less forgiving when cold, but with higher overall grip when warm. Grip doesn't exist as a "more is better", it's very dependent on conditions, road and tire temp, road surface, and a bunch of other factors.

As to which is best? That's really a matter of personal preference. I enjoy michelin road tires but don't particularly care for their track tires. I got good grip and feedback on my 929 from metzler Z6s, which many people detest. I thought the Continental Road Attacks were the best in the rain and marginal the rest of the time. It's really a matter of personal feedback as to what people feel is best overall in the rain, on different bikes, different people will report different results with different tires.

You, me and the vast majority of street/track riders I know share this sentiment. Something about their dot race front being awesome, and their rears being great up until they let go all of a sudden and bam. At least to me, and I'd venture to say to most riders, feedback and consistency while breaking loose is paramount...even more so than overall grip level.
 
Absolutely.

I've heard the PPs are very good in the wet, although I didn't notice one way or the other as I never really pushed it in the rain, I also had good experience with the Pilot Roads...

Modern tires are pretty damn good all around, honestly. It really does come down to personal preference, as there's few absolutes.
 
Michelin basically took the Power Race and re-treaded it to look like the Power One for the superbike sizes (after they had major issues with the tread peeling off of the carcass of the all new Power One). They didn't have any issues with the 160s though, so they sport a new carcass and the new tread.

I'm afraid you've been misinformed. The 160 went back to the P zero construction used in the previous generation Pilot Race, which requires higher tire pressure. If anything, the 160 A-compound rear had issues for SV racers because although it was a very fast tire, it didn't last nearly as long as the older Power Race.

The 180/190 Power One has been a hit from day one with all three compounds: A, B, and C. Last year Bobby Fong came from the last row and put a relatively stock GSXR1000 on the Formula Pacific box, using a Power One V front and a 190/55 Power One A rear. With that same tire combination, Eric "GoGo" Gulbransen won an Open Twins race on a KTM Superduke, beating the 2009 class champion on a Ducati 1098R...

Keep in mind there are "commercial" Power One's that you can buy at your local shop and there are "racing" Power One's that are only available through race distributors (only about a dozen of us throughout the United States). I don't deal with the commercial tires, but in 2009 the 180/190 Power One racing tires were a step forward and certainly not a re-treaded Power Race.

The "unpredictable" myth of "letting go without warning" is attributed to the TX series Michelin DOT tires from the early 90's - I raced on those back then on a GSXR1100 and that was actually true in those days (never actually crashed but had several BIG moments!). Michelin DOT race tires are 6 or 7 generations past the TX series, completely different rubber, completely different construction, only the name brand is the same.

Other than a potentially "sketchy" front tire from another brand, I don't know of any current race tire that is in any way "dangerous" or will "put you on the ground". The "major 4" (Bridgestone, Dunlop, Michelin, Pirelli) all provide a quality product and any rider trying to lay blame on any of these tires for a crash is full of it - it's either setup/suspension or rider error or oil/water/debris on track. All four brands CAN and HAVE won races, but at one time or another every single brand is "blamed" for someone's crash... and really, that's mostly bs. Pick your favorite "flavor" (whatever brand makes you happy) and have fun riding your motorcycle, that's what it's all about. :thumbup
 
This sort of inconsistency, while it may not be the fault of the tires, just doesn't lend confidence. I've heard many, many stories about street tires just suddenly going off, and that's a much more rare occurrence with track tires. Plus if you've ever run DOTs on the track, you'll know how much more grip and feel they give you.

Also, while I use A/B/C as a general rule of thumb, there are fast tracks and slow tracks and fast groups and slow groups. I've done days on my SV where I was at the top of the A group, and I've done days where I've spent all day in A being passed and never passing anyone. Which is why I recommend moving up tire compounds earlier, rather than later...it makes sure that you have the best suited tool for the job.



I hate this comparison more than anything else. I know that Colin edwards got within 8 seconds of his best on his motoGP bike on the old Pilot Powers. That doesn't mean that it's a good idea for a new rider, who's still expanding their personal limits. You're talking about people with decades or more of experience riding and racing, who are able to extract that level of performance out of a tire. Someone who's been riding for a couple of years, may have upwards of a hundred thousand miles under their belt, and you're comparing their performance to that of a seasoned racer? It's absurd.

Riders like Ken Hill, Berto, the guys who are rocking the front row of the AFM grids can do amazing things on subpar hardware. That doesn't mean that it's a good idea for one of us to be doing that. You have to realize that Ken Hill, at 1:56s, is pulling times that for him are an eternity off of his personal bests there. Is it fast by our standards? Absofuckinglutely. But he's extracting every bit of traction out of that tire and more, probably sliding it around a fair bit, and playing with the limits of traction in a way that's hard enough to explain, let alone replicate. He's pulling laps that probably feel a lot like warm up laps to him. He's got the lines, he's got the throttle control, the brake control, the lean control, and a thousand and one other factors that go into a fast lap besides the tires that a new rider simply doesn't have.


Again, just my 2c. If you're going to go to the track, it would make sense that you bring the appropriate tools. Just because Ken Hill can drive a railroad tie with a framing hammer doesn't mean we should ignore that we also have sledgehammers available. :laughing


Roytmani, I've run on a wide variety of bikes at the track, and I still really don't think it's a good idea to run street tires when you start to up the pace, regardless of size and construction. You don't compare the performance of a world class rider to that of a trackday noob in any other realm, why do people think it's a good idea to do that with tires? It's like saying "Just brake less and gas more and that's how you get a fast lap". Sure, it's the truth and it's how you do it, but it's not helpful, and it's likely to end up with someone on their head as they accidentally, rather than intentionally, exceed the limits of the tires and their skillset. I've drifted around the track on a roasted SC2 before, and I learned a lot, because it let me lose traction way before my personal limit. I'd guess it feels much the same for the fast guys to roast a street tire on the track...they're finding that limit of traction way before their personal limits would be kicking in, so they're able to focus and extract the maximum performance out of the tire while maintaining excellent consistency and technique as they ride.

So when the mags say "SS street tires of today are better than race tires of 10 years ago" and such are they blowing smoke?

No snark intended, just a question.
 
So when the mags say "SS street tires of today are better than race tires of 10 years ago" and such are they blowing smoke?

I'll take a shot at that question... and to some extent, yes! For brief periods of time you may see great performance from a modern street tire, but if it came down to riding a 4 hour endurance race, I would much rather be on 10 year old racetire technology than street tires. When Colin Edwards put those Pilot Powers on the MotoGP bike, they supposedly had to crank the hell out of the traction control settings and the bike still spun that rear tire like mad. Most of us would've highsided ourselves to the moon trying to do what Colin Edwards did on Pilot Powers! Street tires are not designed to operate at the sustained high temps of race tires. Some race tires' operating temp can be close to 300 degrees - I've actually dealt with 16.5 slicks that had to be handled with gloves when they came back for a tire change after a track session, otherwise I would've burned my hands. Put most street tires on a 200+hp superbike and they will turn to mush after a relatively short stint on some of the faster racetracks.

For sure street tires today are better than street tires 10 years ago. And if I were to ride my ZX10R on the street I would still choose today's street tires over the race tires from 10 years ago. However, when it comes to riding on a racetrack, I think I will stick with race tires over street tires...
 
How far back would you have to go for today's street tires to be better than the race tires of the time?
 
How far back would you have to go for today's street tires to be better than the race tires of the time?
.

Define "better". If you mean "better for street use", then today's street tires are already better than race tires 10 years ago, especially for warm-up time. If you mean "better for the racetrack"... as in I would rather race on today's street tires than older race tires... well, I would have to go back at least 15 years, maybe to the old Michelin TX and the Dunlop 364. Of course that's only a hypothetical reply because you shouldn't be on a racetrack on any tire that's more than 5 years old, so I'm comparing a "fresh" outdated racetire to a "fresh" current street tire.... and clearly it's impossible to get a "fresh" Dunlop 364 because I don't think they've made them in over 10 years afaik...

I think the point here is that you should use tires for the purpose intended: street tires for the street, race tires for the racetrack. :thumbup:thumbup
 
Great piece of info presentation Z3n, and I agree 100% on side wall stiffness.

It's glairingly obvious on super rough roads. The Pirelli and Metzelers conform or comply with the rough bumpy roads, easing the job of the suspension to the point you would swear you had a major up grade done.

Dunlop is the worst, Michelin close behind.
 
I'm afraid you've been misinformed. The 160 went back to the P zero construction used in the previous generation Pilot Race, which requires higher tire pressure. If anything, the 160 A-compound rear had issues for SV racers because although it was a very fast tire, it didn't last nearly as long as the older Power Race.

The 180/190 Power One has been a hit from day one with all three compounds: A, B, and C. Last year Bobby Fong came from the last row and put a relatively stock GSXR1000 on the Formula Pacific box, using a Power One V front and a 190/55 Power One A rear. With that same tire combination, Eric "GoGo" Gulbransen won an Open Twins race on a KTM Superduke, beating the 2009 class champion on a Ducati 1098R...

Keep in mind there are "commercial" Power One's that you can buy at your local shop and there are "racing" Power One's that are only available through race distributors (only about a dozen of us throughout the United States). I don't deal with the commercial tires, but in 2009 the 180/190 Power One racing tires were a step forward and certainly not a re-treaded Power Race.

The "unpredictable" myth of "letting go without warning" is attributed to the TX series Michelin DOT tires from the early 90's - I raced on those back then on a GSXR1100 and that was actually true in those days (never actually crashed but had several BIG moments!). Michelin DOT race tires are 6 or 7 generations past the TX series, completely different rubber, completely different construction, only the name brand is the same.

Other than a potentially "sketchy" front tire from another brand, I don't know of any current race tire that is in any way "dangerous" or will "put you on the ground". The "major 4" (Bridgestone, Dunlop, Michelin, Pirelli) all provide a quality product and any rider trying to lay blame on any of these tires for a crash is full of it - it's either setup/suspension or rider error or oil/water/debris on track. All four brands CAN and HAVE won races, but at one time or another every single brand is "blamed" for someone's crash... and really, that's mostly bs. Pick your favorite "flavor" (whatever brand makes you happy) and have fun riding your motorcycle, that's what it's all about. :thumbup

Thanks for setting the record straight Alex...both on the Power Race vs. Power One carcass and the "letting go without a warning" myth :thumbup
 
Great piece of info presentation Z3n, and I agree 100% on side wall stiffness.

Actually that's one of the pieces where my friend Conan was quite a ways off the mark. Compliance with pavement irregularity is what suspension is for. If you believe that softer sidewalls are an added benefit, then why not wheels that flex? Suspension is what absorbs pavement irregularity and obviously a stiff sidewall, a stiff wheel and the stiff forks and triple clamps remain a constant: STIFF! Fortunately, inside the forks we have these flexible springs and cartridges that allow us to control compression and rebound rate in order to have a suspension that deals with pavement irregularities. A STIFF sidewall basically has zero effect on suspension, so all the adjustments need to be made with the spring rate and the compression/rebound settings. A SOFT sidewall is actually an integral part of the suspension system and the sidewall itself has a "spring rate" and a "compression/rebound" that is built into the construction of the tire. Often times when racers go from a soft tire sidewall to a stiff tire sidewall they must make suspension adjustments just as they would when they go from a stiff sidewall to a soft sidewall.

It's not a matter of right or wrong, it's a matter of having a total suspension package that works! Whether you have a soft sidewall that is a part of the suspension or you have a stiff sidewall that is not part of the suspension... really, that doesn't make one good or the other bad. If we were all riding on motorcycles without suspension, then I suppose the soft sidewall would be a plus, but since all our bikes have suspension components, the soft vs. stiff sidewall argument is largely irrelevant (unless of course your suspension is really, really screwed up and then the softer sidewall will mask some of the bad settings in your suspension... in essence, the tire acts as suspension for the bike since the forks aren't doing their job).
 
Actually that's one of the pieces where my friend Conan was quite a ways off the mark. Compliance with pavement irregularity is what suspension is for. If you believe that softer sidewalls are an added benefit, then why not wheels that flex? Suspension is what absorbs pavement irregularity and obviously a stiff sidewall, a stiff wheel and the stiff forks and triple clamps remain a constant: STIFF! Fortunately, inside the forks we have these flexible springs and cartridges that allow us to control compression and rebound rate in order to have a suspension that deals with pavement irregularities. A STIFF sidewall basically has zero effect on suspension, so all the adjustments need to be made with the spring rate and the compression/rebound settings. A SOFT sidewall is actually an integral part of the suspension system and the sidewall itself has a "spring rate" and a "compression/rebound" that is built into the construction of the tire. Often times when racers go from a soft tire sidewall to a stiff tire sidewall they must make suspension adjustments just as they would when they go from a stiff sidewall to a soft sidewall.

It's not a matter of right or wrong, it's a matter of having a total suspension package that works! Whether you have a soft sidewall that is a part of the suspension or you have a stiff sidewall that is not part of the suspension... really, that doesn't make one good or the other bad. If we were all riding on motorcycles without suspension, then I suppose the soft sidewall would be a plus, but since all our bikes have suspension components, the soft vs. stiff sidewall argument is largely irrelevant (unless of course your suspension is really, really screwed up and then the softer sidewall will mask some of the bad settings in your suspension... in essence, the tire acts as suspension for the bike since the forks aren't doing their job).


You have your reasons for your opinions.

I have mine. I ride my roads, I know what is working and why, here.

Because of Race Tech's proven history in Off Road racing and MX racing, I had Race Tech R&D select the shim stacks and springs to make my suspension work on the roughest sections of these road at the speed I can ride them.

Maybe your "mask bad settings" and "forks not doing their job" and super silly "why not wheels that flex" and "inside forks we have spings" drivel means something valid to you, but... you don't ride like I do, and where I do, and my bike is set-up specifically for what I put it to.

If you actually knew more, you would have different rational understanding of how this stuff works.

Stiffer side walls transmit a sharper impact into the suspension, with that greater movement. I have to believe you don't fly your bike...But surely You do know that bikes are flown...right?
 
Last edited:
If you actually knew more, you would have different rational understanding of how this stuff works.

While I have found my Corsa III's superior to other tires I've tried for the reasons Lou mentions, I'm not sure where put downs fit into a civil conversation.

Thank you AFMmotorsports for your cogent explanation of modern street rubber compared to decades old race rubber. :thumbup
 
Actually that's one of the pieces where my friend Conan was quite a ways off the mark. Compliance with pavement irregularity is what suspension is for. If you believe that softer sidewalls are an added benefit, then why not wheels that flex? Suspension is what absorbs pavement irregularity and obviously a stiff sidewall, a stiff wheel and the stiff forks and triple clamps remain a constant: STIFF! Fortunately, inside the forks we have these flexible springs and cartridges that allow us to control compression and rebound rate in order to have a suspension that deals with pavement irregularities. A STIFF sidewall basically has zero effect on suspension, so all the adjustments need to be made with the spring rate and the compression/rebound settings. A SOFT sidewall is actually an integral part of the suspension system and the sidewall itself has a "spring rate" and a "compression/rebound" that is built into the construction of the tire. Often times when racers go from a soft tire sidewall to a stiff tire sidewall they must make suspension adjustments just as they would when they go from a stiff sidewall to a soft sidewall.

It's not a matter of right or wrong, it's a matter of having a total suspension package that works! Whether you have a soft sidewall that is a part of the suspension or you have a stiff sidewall that is not part of the suspension... really, that doesn't make one good or the other bad. If we were all riding on motorcycles without suspension, then I suppose the soft sidewall would be a plus, but since all our bikes have suspension components, the soft vs. stiff sidewall argument is largely irrelevant (unless of course your suspension is really, really screwed up and then the softer sidewall will mask some of the bad settings in your suspension... in essence, the tire acts as suspension for the bike since the forks aren't doing their job).

So you're saying that you won't be able to feel the difference if you adjust your suspension?

One of the most important things about tires to me is feedback, and changing the carcass of the tire surely changes the feedback the rider is receiving, no?

I dont like stiff carcass Dunlops because they transmit too much feedback, for me it makes me nervous when I feel every little thing in the pavement which gives me less confidence. The Pirelli's give me feedback to what the bike and tire are doing but at the same time they mask some of the irregularities in the pavement which help me focus more on riding. Like you said in a way, acting as a second suspension, making the ride more plush. I dont' think I can suddenly tune this out by adding dampening. Nor would I want too
 
You have your reasons for your opinions.

I have mine. I ride my roads, I know what is working and why, here.

Because of Race Tech's proven history in Off Road racing and MX racing, I had Race Tech R&D select the shim stacks and springs to make my suspension work on the roughest sections of these road at the speed I can ride them.

Maybe your "mask bad settings" and "forks not doing their job" and super silly "why not wheels that flex" and "inside forks we have spings" drivel means something valid to you, but... you don't ride like I do, and where I do, and my bike is set-up specifically for what I put it to.

If you actually knew more, you would have different rational understanding of how this stuff works.

Stiffer side walls transmit a sharper impact into the suspension, with that greater movement. I have to believe you don't fly your bike...But surely You do know that bikes are flown...right?

Wow, easy there tiger...cabin fever in full effect I see :laughing

What Alex was saying is that tire flex (whether it be less with Dunlop or more with Pirelli) is part of the overall suspension formula and as such, your suspension components will need adjustment going from stiff carcass tires to soft ones. If you feel like the Pirellis absorb bumps better and Dunlops worse, it's because suspension adjustment (maybe even valving, oil weight, etc.) might be necessary to achieve the same bump damping performance on the Dunlops.

BTW, you're talking to the Michelin race tire distributor, if anyone knows close to everything when it comes to rubber it's Alex.
 
Wow, easy there tiger...cabin fever in full effect I see :laughing

What Alex was saying is that tire flex (whether it be less with Dunlop or more with Pirelli) is part of the overall suspension formula and as such, your suspension components will need adjustment going from stiff carcass tires to soft ones. If you feel like the Pirellis absorb bumps better and Dunlops worse, it's because suspension adjustment (maybe even valving, oil weight, etc.) might be necessary to achieve the same bump damping performance on the Dunlops.

BTW, you're talking to the Michelin race tire distributor, if anyone knows close to everything when it comes to rubber it's Alex.

I'm not convinced that changing suspension can make one tire feel like another. If I"m wrong I'd be interested in hearing why
 
Well Alex sure wasn't talking like someone that knows what a tire distributer should know. Saying what he said to me.
 
Back
Top