• A few people have been scammed on the site, Only use paypal to pay for items for sale by other members. If they will not use paypal, its likely a scam NEVER SEND E-TRANSFERS OF ANY KIND.

Tire wear

the Ferret said:
My experience with the Ravens certainly didn't match up with some other forum members and their Ravens. 670cc and Camaro Eric both get exceptional mileage out of their Ravens. But for some reason I didn't. I thought the Ravens were fine tires for as long as they lasted and I had no issues with traction or handling while running them. I would run any of the brands of tires I have tried so far again.

I would think you'd get less mileage than me due to the user mode and engine braking which I imagine would be more aggressive than I on both acceleration and braking???? since I use the softest riding mode that isn't rain mode.

I actually tried to go back with another set of Pirelli Angel GT's but couldn't get them, simply because of price. I prefer Michelins, but they were $100 more a set than the Angel GT's and I got nearly as many miles of my Angel GT's as the Michelins.

dduelin has over 10,000 miles on his Michelins R5's with 20% tread remaining, and I couldn't match that either with my first set of Road 5s.

Please keep us informed on how many miles you get out of your Ravens.
Click to expand...
Here's an update on my Shinko Raven 009's as requested. I mentioned in the first post that my OEM tires lasted 4000 miles before both front and rear were down to the legal minimum, and I was surprised that the front lasted no longer than the rear. The Honda dealer put this down to some of the stone and sealer back country roads we have here in the rural Delmarva peninsula. Today (03/29/24) my Shinko Raven 009's have reached the same 4,000 miles as the OEM tires, but I can report I have 3mm (4/32 in) left on the rear, which according to my tread depth gauge is now in the lower half of the yellow range of the green/yellow/red scale. The front has 4mm (5/32 in), which has just entered the yellow range from green. FYI the red range starts at 2mm (3/32 in). So just 1mm left to go on the rear and 2mm on the front. If I recall correctly, they both started out at 8mm, so I'm losing about 1mm/1000 miles and will likely only get about 5k miles out of the rear and 6k miles from the front. I think I can only dream about getting 10k miles as apparently dduelin is getting from his Michelin R5's with still more tread to go. I think his roads must be as smooth as a baby's bottom.
 
GLC said:
Here's an update on my Shinko Raven 009's as requested. I mentioned in the first post that my OEM tires lasted 4000 miles before both front and rear were down to the legal minimum, and I was surprised that the front lasted no longer than the rear. The Honda dealer put this down to some of the stone and sealer back country roads we have here in the rural Delmarva peninsula. Today (03/29/24) my Shinko Raven 009's have reached the same 4,000 miles as the OEM tires, but I can report I have 3mm (4/32 in) left on the rear, which according to my tread depth gauge is now in the lower half of the yellow range of the green/yellow/red scale. The front has 4mm (5/32 in), which has just entered the yellow range from green. FYI the red range starts at 2mm (3/32 in). So just 1mm left to go on the rear and 2mm on the front. If I recall correctly, they both started out at 8mm, so I'm losing about 1mm/1000 miles and will likely only get about 5k miles out of the rear and 6k miles from the front. I think I can only dream about getting 10k miles as apparently dduelin is getting from his Michelin R5's with still more tread to go. I think his roads must be as smooth as a baby's bottom.
Click to expand...
To be valid you must compare Michelin Road 5s on your bike & your roads to Shinkos and ride the same way on both sets. You can't compare your tire life experience to mine and expect repeatable results.
 
dduelin said:
To be valid you must compare Michelin Road 5s on your bike & your roads to Shinkos and ride the same way on both sets. You can't compare your tire life experience to mine and expect repeatable results.
Click to expand...
One of my least favourite questions at work is “how many kilometres will these tires last me?” I feel like saying “I don’t even know how many kilometres they’ll last ME, and I don’t even know you!”
 
This is valuable data, thanks for sharing it. Aside from tire choice there's many variable that can effect tire wear. I'm curious to know if there's any "general" consensus on the Forum for front vs back wear/tire life. I've owned my 2013 NC700 for about five years. I'm currently on my third set of tires, each different from previous. It seems that I'm getting a few thousand miles less on the front compared to the rear. Anyone care to explain the reason for a front tire wearing out sooner than the rear? So far I'm most impressed with the Metzeler Roadtec Z6 for performance and wear characteristics.
 
On my 2021 DCT, I’ve found that I got terrible mileage on my rest tires and have gone through a ton more rear tires than front. Here are the numbers:

1. Original rear tire - 4,834 miles
2. Original front tire - 9,493 miles

3. Raven 009 rear - 8,030 miles
4. Raven 009 rear - 8,237 miles

5. (Current) Raven 009 front - 12,309 with still another 3,000 miles left on it—still in great condition.
6. (Current) Raven 009 rear - 700 miles with still roughly 7,000 miles left

I’m likely going to try another tire next time around, but two things on the rear tires- first, I have big SW Motech paniers on the bike and I load them down for rally’s and travel for work. There is a TON of weight on the back tire (see picture with about 400 policy packs for an event we did in OKC. Secondly, I rode tons of long, straight roads (Texas isn’t know for twisties… at least in DFW area).

Both of my rear tires wear in the middle and have tons of tread left on the sides, but going DFW to either Little Rock or OKC and back is basically all straight line roads.
 

Attachments

  • F95EFB7F-AFCA-4420-A58C-DCE052391A3E.jpeg
    F95EFB7F-AFCA-4420-A58C-DCE052391A3E.jpeg
    806.4 KB · Views: 8
  • Like
Reactions: MZ5
Personally, I’d just as soon front tires wore as fast as rear, since I prefer changing in sets. Might be different if I had a bike I was putting high miles on, and was perfectly happy with the tires I was using, but I get several years out of any tire, and often think I need to try something new.
 
Dan German said:
Personally, I’d just as soon front tires wore as fast as rear, since I prefer changing in sets. Might be different if I had a bike I was putting high miles on, and was perfectly happy with the tires I was using, but I get several years out of any tire, and often think I need to try something new.
Click to expand...
Man, I'd love to get several years out of a tire lol. I usually go thru 2 sets a year on the NC and one set on the CB
 
Dan German said:
Well, my tire life is mostly down to limited riding time and living on an island that I almost never leave.
Click to expand...

Yea I really can't complain. Other than family, riding is my only passion and I have been able to do it nearly every day for decades, all over this country, Canada and Europe. So I go through a few tires every year .. it's totally worth it!
 
For rear tire wear, the best engine would be a 1,000 CC straight 6, with a firing pulse every 120 degrees of crankshaft rotation. The worst would be a 1,000 CC single, as it would have a firing pulse every 720 degrees of crankshaft rotation. Both bikes are at ,say, 60 mph, over the ground, but the rear tire, on both bikes would be speeding up, after a firing pulse, and slowing down on the exhaust and compression strokes, scrubbing off tire rubber, but such a happening would be a lot less on the 1,000 CC straight 6, than on a 1,000 CC single. Yes I know there is no 1,000 CC single. Our NCs with their semi sort big bang firing order act more like a single than a twin, a twin like a CB-350. Of course more power strokes per mile traveled on an NC would yield better, tire mileage, so I am thinking run the bike in the sport mode, for less tire wear, than running it in standard. I saw the preceding scenario in an article a long time ago in a motorcycle magazine, back in the heyday of such publications. One fix according to the tire engineer interviewed was to put more weight on the rear wheel, though that seems counter intuitive, and it would reduce the scrubbing action of the rear tire. As to front tires wearing quickly, I am thinking the current rage of trail braking is the reason.

Harry
 
1984VF1100S said:
For rear tire wear, the best engine would be a 1,000 CC straight 6, with a firing pulse every 120 degrees of crankshaft rotation. The worst would be a 1,000 CC single, as it would have a firing pulse every 720 degrees of crankshaft rotation. Both bikes are at ,say, 60 mph, over the ground, but the rear tire, on both bikes would be speeding up, after a firing pulse, and slowing down on the exhaust and compression strokes, scrubbing off tire rubber, but such a happening would be a lot less on the 1,000 CC straight 6, than on a 1,000 CC single. Yes I know there is no 1,000 CC single. Our NCs with their semi sort big bang firing order act more like a single than a twin, a twin like a CB-350. Of course more power strokes per mile traveled on an NC would yield better, tire mileage, so I am thinking run the bike in the sport mode, for less tire wear, than running it in standard. I saw the preceding scenario in an article a long time ago in a motorcycle magazine, back in the heyday of such publications. One fix according to the tire engineer interviewed was to put more weight on the rear wheel, though that seems counter intuitive, and it would reduce the scrubbing action of the rear tire. As to front tires wearing quickly, I am thinking the current rage of trail braking is the reason.

Harry
Click to expand...
I’ll take an electric motor with smooth, continuous power delivery, no firing pulses.
 
1984VF1100S said:
For rear tire wear, the best engine would be a 1,000 CC straight 6, with a firing pulse every 120 degrees of crankshaft rotation. The worst would be a 1,000 CC single, as it would have a firing pulse every 720 degrees of crankshaft rotation. Both bikes are at ,say, 60 mph, over the ground, but the rear tire, on both bikes would be speeding up, after a firing pulse, and slowing down on the exhaust and compression strokes, scrubbing off tire rubber, but such a happening would be a lot less on the 1,000 CC straight 6, than on a 1,000 CC single. Yes I know there is no 1,000 CC single. Our NCs with their semi sort big bang firing order act more like a single than a twin, a twin like a CB-350. Of course more power strokes per mile traveled on an NC would yield better, tire mileage, so I am thinking run the bike in the sport mode, for less tire wear, than running it in standard. I saw the preceding scenario in an article a long time ago in a motorcycle magazine, back in the heyday of such publications. One fix according to the tire engineer interviewed was to put more weight on the rear wheel, though that seems counter intuitive, and it would reduce the scrubbing action of the rear tire. As to front tires wearing quickly, I am thinking the current rage of trail braking is the reason.

Harry
Click to expand...
I think you are over thinking this
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

the Ferret
Happy Birthday Angry Bird
Replies
6
Views
668
INTHEWIND
INTHEWIND
the Ferret
good place to buy
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
Afan
Afan
dduelin
Crazy Tire Wear
Replies
1
Views
673
DTMWAP
DTMWAP
D
Sold 2013 NC700X Manual, <5k miles, Tucson. $4250
Replies
0
Views
157
Desertrider59
D
R
Pirelli Angel GT vs Michelin Road 6
2
Replies
33
Views
17K
Wheelee
W
Back
Top