Tu be or not tu be.

Discuss all things 1970 & later Airheads right here.
Post Reply
ME 109
Posts: 7308
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 3:00 am
Location: Albury, Australia

Tu be or not tu be.

Post by ME 109 »

That was/is the question.

Thought I'd conduct a little test between a tubed and non tubed 35 psi Mac50 rear.

For some reason, I always thought I got about 13,000 k's out of my first Mac50, which was run tubeless.

Subsequent Macs (15 or so) have only ever returned 6,500 - 8,000k's.
So I finally managed to get a Mac50 rear mounted tubeless again. The result was a 7,000 k tyre.

In my case as good as no tyre wear difference, tube or no tube.

I now have a tubeless Michelin Pilot Active on the rear as the Mac50 is nla. I hope it lasts longer as claimed.
First corner I went around I found the bike to almost fall into the corner :o
I didn't think a rear could influence the bike like that, it sure feels/felt different!
After the weekend excursion in the mountains, all feels normal again.
Lord of the Bings
User avatar
vanzen
Posts: 1438
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 2:29 pm
Location: Hidin' in the Hills

a long time or a good time ?

Post by vanzen »

Regarding tubes vs tubeless –
Yes, increased heat generation of the former vs the later
may contribute to an overall tire longevity difference ...
The operative consideration, however,
might very well be the differential of unsprung weight
as it will affect handling and braking performance ...

Regarding tire compounds –
Tire longevity and traction will always be mutually exclusive terms,
maximum longevity defining the limit at one end of a linear spectrum,
maximum traction defining the other.
Each and every tire (brand and model) will be something of a compromise,
lauding it's rightful place on that line, and being somewhere between the two maxims.
There will be no having your cake and eating it too !

Tires provide that fine line that keeps us connected ...
I am happy to buy as many tires per season as necessary
to guarantee that connection.
I will choose to monitor tires with an air pressure gauge and a tread depth gauge –
not an odometer.
Your mileage may vary ...
Image
ME 109
Posts: 7308
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 3:00 am
Location: Albury, Australia

Re: a long time or a good time ?

Post by ME 109 »

vanzen@rockerboxer.com wrote: and a tread depth gauge –
Yer shitn' me?


Tyres. I buys 'em when I needs 'em but it would be nice if the bastards lasted a little longer. :mrgreen:
Lord of the Bings
Mal S7
Posts: 661
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 5:26 am

Re: Tu be or not tu be.

Post by Mal S7 »

well, if I had a tread depth gauge it would tell me

front - 0.001 (thou or mm take yer pick)
rear - + 0.1 to minus something ..... depending on where you spin the tyre to ....

It still holds a good line on the straights and sweepers, but its a tiresome wrestle in the twisty stuff.

I am putting her up on chocks now til the cash flow reverses. Just in time for Captains Flat.
ME 109
Posts: 7308
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 3:00 am
Location: Albury, Australia

Re: Tu be or not tu be.

Post by ME 109 »

Well Mal, Dubbo'll do that to yer tyres.

At least down here we can wear out the sides of the tyre before the centre!
Lord of the Bings
User avatar
SteveD
Posts: 4941
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 3:29 am
Location: Melbourne, Oz.

Re: Tu be or not tu be.

Post by SteveD »

Mal S7 wrote: ...It still holds a good line on the straights and sweepers, but its a tiresome wrestle in the twisty stuff....
I think Jeffs right. ;)
You need to be looking at the LWB /5's I expect!
;) ;)
Cheers, Steve
Victoria, S.E.Oz.


1982 R100RSR100RS supergallery. https://boxerboy81.smugmug.com/R100RS
2006 K1200R.
1994 R1100GS.
Mal S7
Posts: 661
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 5:26 am

Re: Tu be or not tu be.

Post by Mal S7 »

Well Steve, I was thinking .......

Image
Post Reply