Michelin PR 2C 170/60ZR/17?

[Khunajawdge]

1st of all, please toss this into - Never-Ending Pointless Recurring Threads

TIA Admins

2nd - to address the question begun above with the Topic Tiltle; A Metzeler ME 880 170/60HB/17 is the size/brand of tire I keep on the rear of my FJR and I've been using them faithfully for over 35,000 miles. Prolly(?) gone through at least 5 of 'em. Normally, I have been using the Metzeler ME 880 version of this rear tire size, with a Metzeler Z6 120/70ZR /17 on the front. I'm going to give the Michelin dual compound Touring rear tire a shot (going back to a ZR rating). I am mostly after mileage, and some leaning over! I rarely hit over 120mph for very long, so I don't really need a Z rated tire! I ride a healthy diet of mixed roads.

Anybody else try a PR 2C (rear) in this size? Comments on handling or mileage?

'05 FJR100a (44,600 + miles)

 

[Fred W]

1st of all, please toss this into - Never-Ending Pointless Recurring Threads
TIA Admins

2nd - to address the question begun above with the Topic Tiltle; A Metzeler ME 880 170/60HB/17 is the size/brand of tire I keep on the rear of my FJR and I've been using them faithfully for over 35,000 miles. Prolly(?) gone through at least 5 of 'em. Normally, I have been using the Metzeler ME 880 version of this rear tire size, with a Metzeler Z6 120/70ZR /17 on the front. I'm going to give the Michelin dual compound Touring rear tire a shot (going back o a ZR rating). I am mostly after mileage, and some leaning over! I rarely hit over 120mph for very long, so I don't really need a Z rated tire! I ride a healthy diet of mixed roads.

Anybody else try a PR 2C (rear) in this size? Comments on handling or mileage?

'05 FJR100a (44,600 + miles)

OK, I'll bite at the obvious. Why not try a 180/55ZR17 as is called for? Is it that much cheaper?

 

[Khunajawdge]

OK, I'll bite at the obvious. Why not try a 180/55ZR17 as is called for? Is it that much cheaper?

No, the narrower/taller tire is NOT cheaper! I like the 170/60ZR/17 for the following reasons;

1. It is easier to change. Just pulling the rear wheel off is easier with a narrower tire.

2. The hugger I have, used to rub (smoke) when cornering with a 180 wide tire when it distorted during a leaned over coner.

3. My tire guy told me that even though he "believed" that I was riding to my full potential and comfort level, I wasn't using the entire profile of a 180 width tire. There was at least 3/4 of an inch of unused tire at the corner ridge on both sides of the 180 (still shiney at the time of replacing the tire). The 170 proved that I use it all the way to the ridge.

4. To get more mileage, a taller (diameter) tire takes less revolutions to cover the same distance than a shorter (diameter) tire.

HTH

 

[Fred W]

OK, I'll bite at the obvious. Why not try a 180/55ZR17 as is called for? Is it that much cheaper?

No, the narrower/taller tire is NOT cheaper! I like the 170/60ZR/17 for the following reasons;

1. It is easier to change. Just pulling the rear wheel off is easier with a narrower tire.

2. The hugger I have, used to rub (smoke) when cornering with a 180 wide tire when it distorted during a leaned over coner.

3. My tire guy told me that even though he "believed" that I was riding to my full potential and comfort level, I wasn't using the entire profile of a 180 width tire. There was at least 3/4 of an inch of unused tire at the corner ridge on both sides of the 180 (still shiney at the time of replacing the tire). The 170 proved that I use it all the way to the ridge.

4. To get more mileage, a taller (diameter) tire takes less revolutions to cover the same distance than a shorter (diameter) tire.

HTH

Interesting theories!

I like the idea of using the full width of the tire tread. Logic says that (given the same compound) you are bound to end up with longer total tread life if you wear the whole tire vs. just the inner 80%. That's one reason I like the Roadsmart I have on the back of my bike now. The tire's shape is less radical so I am able to use the full width of the tread without grinding hard parts. But who knows how the Roadsmart compound compares to the PR2's? I hear anecdotally that the Michelins are better. That will probably be my next choice for the rear so long as I'm feeling flush at the time.

As to assertion #4 though, the overall diameter of a 170/60 and a 180/55 are very, very close. As I think you already know, the /50 and /60 in the tire size stand for the tires sidewall height expressed as a percentage of the stated width in mm. So the 60% of 170mm and 55% of 180mm are very close (102 vs 99). Michelin for some reason doesn't happen to list their tire's specs online, but I went to Dunlop and looked at their Roadsmarts and the 180/55 has a diameter of 24.84 inches, and the 170/60 has a diameter of 24.99. So, yes, their 170/60 is 0.15" (00.6%) larger in diameter. So if you averaged 8k miles per rear tire (good luck there) you'll net an extra 48 miles due to the larger diameter (circumference actually, but it's a linear relationship).

However, your reason #3 may be a good enough reason to go with the thinner PR2. A lot depends on the individual tire's tread profile shape. Please keep us posted if you do opt to go that route.

 

[Khunajawdge]

Interesting theories!

Thanks for responding Fred, you wrote;

> I like the idea of using the full width of the tire tread. Logic says that (given the same compound) you are bound to end up with longer total tread life if you wear the whole tire vs. just the inner 80%. That's one reason I like the Roadsmart I have on the back of my bike now. The tire's shape is less radical so I am able to use the full width of the tread without grinding hard parts. But who knows how the Roadsmart compound compares to the PR2's? I hear anecdotally that the Michelins are better. That will probably be my next choice for the rear so long as I'm feeling flush at the time. >

Thanks for this concept, I have NO experience "yet" with dual compound tires.

> As to assertion #4 though, the overall diameter of a 170/60 and a 180/55 are very, very close. As I think you already know, the /50 and /60 in the tire size stand for the tires sidewall height expressed as a percentage of the stated width in mm. So the 60% of 170mm and 55% of 180mm are very close (102 vs 99). Michelin for some reason doesn't happen to list their tire's specs online, but I went to Dunlop and looked at their Roadsmarts and the 180/55 has a diameter of 24.84 inches, and the 170/60 has a diameter of 24.99. So, yes, their 170/60 is 0.15" (00.6%) larger in diameter. So if you averaged 8k miles per rear tire (good luck there) you'll net an extra 48 miles due to the larger diameter (circumference actually, but it's a linear relationship). >

Well, 48 miles is 48 MORE miles...

>However, your reason #3 may be a good enough reason to go with the thinner PR2. A lot depends on the individual tire's tread profile shape. Please keep us posted if you do opt to go that route. >

I am going "that route" and, I "will" keep you posted.

 

[user 213]

The differences are insignificant, except your rubbing issue. Go for it. I don't think you'll notice any mileage difference, aside from the PR2s have some good reports on lasting longer and have better wet traction than the ME880R does.

Like you, I've run the ME880 enough to not sweat the minor size difference.

 

[jwilly]

Go for it.

This coming from a guy who's running car tires on the FJR...

 

[madmike2]

Go for it.

This coming from a guy who's running car tires on the FJR...

Funny man! At least Eric is trying different solutions to his tire wear issue.

George, I just changed my PR2 rear @ 9800 miles. That's compared to a normal 5,500-6,000 on first gen PRs. That should help you regarding service mileage.

 

[Panman]

I just replace my PR2's 10,700 mile. The rear is shot and the front still has a few miles left in it.