Kawasaki KLR Forum banner

80/20? ReTire that! A sensible proposal

9K views 30 replies 6 participants last post by  samuel 
#1 · (Edited)
Comments welcome.



________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sensible Tire Classification
Tire Rating
Symbol
Description
Green circle

Purely a street tire. Excellent road performance in braking, cornering, and life expectancy.
Not intended nor recommended for off-pavement use. Characterized by continuous tread blocking, narrow grooves, considerable rain siping.
Example: Michelin Pilot Road series
Blue square

Similar to a street tire but with much wider and deeper grooving and less reliance on rain siping. Tread blocking may be continuous or segregated into large, close spaced blocks. Suitable for fire roads roads, firm and rocky Jeep trails,any rolling two-track.
Not suitable for loose and slippery surfaces such as uphill gravel, mud, may be difficult in sand and gravel.
Example: Pirelli MT60
Black diamond

A street-legal knobby tire. Characterized by a fair amount of open space between the knobs, which may be small in size. Suitable for easy single track and moderately loose surfaces such as shale, gravel, sand, decomposed granite, etc.
May be difficult in deep, dry sand, deep gravel, and loose deep mud.
Example: Michelin Anakee
Double black diamond

An aggressive knobby which may or may not be street legal. Has very large knobs and equally large spacing between the knobs. Uncompromising approach to off-road traction; suitable for all of road conditions.
Not suitable for road use due to poor life expectancy, excessive noise and vibration.
Example: Metzeler MC360
 
See less See more
1
#2 ·
Comments welcome.



________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sensible Tire Classification
Tire Rating
Symbol
Description

Green circle
Purely a street tire. Excellent road performance in braking, cornering, and life expectancy.
Not intended nor recommended for off-pavement use. Characterized by continuous tread blocking, narrow grooves, considerable rain siping.
Example: Michelin Pilot Road series

Blue square
Similar to a street tire but with much wider and deeper grooving and less reliance on rain siping. Tread blocking may be continuous or segregated into large, close spaced blocks. Suitable for fire roads roads, firm and rocky Jeep trails,any rolling two-track.
Not suitable for loose and slippery surfaces such as uphill gravel, mud, may be difficult in sand and gravel.
Example: Pirelli MT60

Black diamond
A street-legal knobby tire. Characterized by a fair amount of open space between the knobs, which may be small in size. Suitable for easy single track and moderately loose surfaces such as shale, gravel, sand, decomposed granite, etc.
May be difficult in deep, dry sand, deep gravel, and loose deep mud.
Example: Michelin Anakee

Double black diamond
An aggressive knobby which may or may not be street legal. Has very large knobs and equally large spacing between the knobs. Uncompromising approach to off-road traction; suitable for all of road conditions.
Not suitable for road use due to poor life expectancy, excessive noise and vibration.
Example: Metzeler MC360
Might re-space the text portion above, Tom? And add a couple more suggested examples to each catagory?
 
#3 ·
The text was copied and pasted so folks could easily edit it. The forum won't allow the uploading of a .docx file.

I'm open to suggestions of examples as well as edits to the words. My experience with tires is rather limited.
 
#4 · (Edited)
#7 ·
Good job, and appropriately classified by you IMHO, samuel!

As mentioned: The TrakMaster IIs are versatile; better on pavement than one might think!

Surprising, to be sure, but . . . validated to me, from my experience, at least.

And . . . they are DOT (Department of Transportation) street-worthy! :)
 
#8 ·
So these are great for dirt, OK for street, noisy on the highway, and perhaps a lil' squirrelly in a crosswind (am I remembering that correctly)? Eventually I feel like I'm going to end up with >1 pair of tires… perhaps worth a look for camping days.
 
#9 ·
Didn't notice excessive noise on the highway, nor particular difficulty in a crosswind. My riding style: I don't channel John Surtees on the pavement, myself, or race sport bikes in the twisties. Surely, the laws of physics apply to these tires, as they do to all knobbies. Certainly, the tread wears faster on the slab than does a less aggressive tread.

I have two sets of wheels for my KLR650; one fitted with 50/50 Kenda K270s; the other with TrakMaster IIs. I expected great road compromise with the knobbies; was surprised by their control and stability on asphalt and concrete.

No, the GP racers don't use knobbies; I'd just say I can ride TrakMaster IIs on the Interstate, within conservative reason, without becoming in my view a particular hazard and menace to safety; YMMV!
 
#13 ·
Bill,

That's by design, except for the white circle. Seemed unnecessary.

Doesn't it seem more logical to specify tires according to their use and capabilities? Would you take a Maxxis DTH Urban on a Black Diamond trail beacuse "I only ride like this 10% of the time", or would you be better off with a tire designed for that trail, like a Conti Baron?

BTW, it started as a ski trail designator...
 
  • Like
Reactions: DPelletier
#14 ·
I think it's fair to say that the number of discussions about dual sport tire selection, particularly in the FB Groups, is an indication that there's something askew with the current state of dual sport tire definition and classification. From my own experience, I'm thinking that there's probably not much of an issue when it comes to road bikes (pure on-road) and motocross (pure off-road). But, add the two (dual sportin') and it gets murky for a lot of people because there's a big range of skill levels looking at the same surfaces and classifications. For example, I can get by with a 50-50 in sugar sand. In fact I just did last month on a three day rally in sandy Ocala National Forest on set of Dunlop D605s. I've now moved to 10-90 Michelin AC10s, but it's on a bike that will see minimal pavement. Someone with less experience in the sand would definitely benefit from those AC10s I just spooned on...but they'd make for a miserable day on the road. So, bottom line, I don't have any real good answers, but I think that skill level is something that needs to be considered with the two dimensions of dual sport. :serious:
 
#15 ·
To me, the real point is "What should the tire be used for" and/or "I want to ride X so what tire should I be looking at?".

What can be done by a skilled rider with an inappropriate tire for the terrain shouldn't be part of the equation for rating/ranking tires. That should be the rider's choice based upon an honest evaluation of his skills.
 
#17 ·
What can be done by a skilled rider with an inappropriate tire for the terrain shouldn't be part of the equation for rating/ranking tires. That should be the rider's choice based upon an honest evaluation of his skills.
No, I don't agree that a 50/50 tire is an "inappropriate" tire for sand riding (based on my comment in earlier post). I go to a lot of sandy rallies where bikes run 50/50s and riders do just fine, as I did back in December. As to the second sentence, this whole topic seemed to be tire selection across all skill levels, so my point is why not take that into consideration. Is the classification system in the initial post just for weekend warriors? Being an experienced rider doesn't mean you know everything about every tire. Any classification needs to work for the full range of dual sport enthusiasts, not just the less experienced end.

Further, my lack of skills were not the reason that I went to the AC10. I went to those because the motorcycle (a fresh off the showroom floor KLX250) is being set up purely for rallies. Trailered and carefully chosen rallies to avoid pavement as much as possible. It goes without saying that a 10-90 DOT knobby is going to do better than a 50-50 in the sand; I've never heard anyone contest that, anyway. The duality of tire use and the wide spectrum of skill level exist. There needs to be a way to put them together in a tire classification scenario...

...and, I think I have one to throw out....working....


To me, the real point is "What should the tire be used for" and/or "I want to ride X so what tire should I be looking at?".
As I mentioned and whether anyone agrees, I think this is an issue largely isolated to dual sport tires which underlies my comments. The problem with the two points is both are singular...what should the tire be used for (singular purpose) and I want to ride X (singular surface type). I believe the crux of the dual sport tire problem is that the current two dimensional approach is confusing and, perhaps, inconsistent.


***
 
#16 ·
Speaking not from experience but from the perspective of someone who is actively trying to figure this stuff out, I think the issue with choosing tires for a range of settings is that, as always, there's inherent compromise on any topic where multiple means of estimation are in play. We can try to make one choice that "averages out" the various factors, but the compromises still exist.

Tire manufacturer claims of "quiet, equally grippy on sand and wet asphalt, infinite life" notwithstanding, it doesn't seem like there's anything out there that covers all the bases. So it really comes down to being honest with yourself about the relative importance of the factors you're weighing, and accepting that, given constraints such as skill level etc., you will have to compromise your plans (or abandon some part thereof) in order to meet your more important requirements. But I think directing the conversation toward specific uses and talking about the factors that are influenced by any decision, is better than coming up with a ratio and saying, "Well you spend x% of your time on this surface category, so here's your tire." It's more like "What are you willing to lose to get X?"
 
#18 ·
I don't think skill level is a constraint. I think something like the limited time you have to practice your skills is a constraint. There is a "Sport" component of Dual Sport and like any sport we need to practice to get better. Your compromises will change as your skill level improves (you recognize that in your comment) and those changes will probably be accompanied with changes in your tire selections.
 
#20 ·
Skill can make up for a poor tire choice but a poor tire choice remains a poor tire choice.....I don't think there is any reasonable way to introduce skill and experience into a tire rating system.

I certainly agree that dual sports face a level of compromises with tires (and everything else for that matter!) that pure street or dirt bikes don't have to deal with......or at least not to anywhere near the same degree.

2 cents,
Dave
 
#21 ·
Yet we introduce skill as a component of virtually every dual sport rally....the platform where our motorcycles and skills are put to the test. I normally run 6-8 "Dual Sport" Rallies a year (2018 was bad year where I did only 2. one in March and one in December). Irrespective, every one has/had a component of skill in the tracks or groups that each participant follows or joins and it ain't about tires.

My most recent rally was the annual Polar Bear Rally (January 4-6) where the 150+ riders were categorized A, B, C or D. I'm attaching a link below to Adventure Rider where you can see the category definitions. There's nothing about what tires one's riding in there.

So, kind of where my thinking is going is, if you take those four categories of skill (A-D), then create categories of dual sport trail surface types, then you could plug in the tire categories (green circle-double black diamond, if you wanted to use those) by skill level in a matrix format...i.e. the basic X and Y axis analysis. Personally, I think it would be better to use actual tire models than color/shapes, but either way the result would be something along the lines of a more experienced rider having a broader selection of tires (necessary for broader pavement use consideration) and a lesser experienced rider having a lesser selection (they're just going to have to use more aggressive tires until their skills improve).

Personally, I think this actually tracks the old adage that I attribute to you that one never gets stuck on the road. Essentially, the matrix approach kind of paraphrases that by saying that a rider should get the most aggressive tire relative to their trail plans that they can reasonably put up with on pavement.


Polar Bear Rally Thread
https://advrider.com/f/threads/2019-polar-bear-adventure-rally.1339234/


Hey Samuel, going back to your post, what would your view be of a matrix that on the Y axis (vertical) had four skill levels A-B, one of which you could identify with, and on the X axis (horizontal) had several trail surfaces (minimally hard, soft, intermediate; this is how we used to look at motocross tires). Then the axis' connection was either a symbol of tire tire type or a list of actual brands and models? I mean, at the end of the day, I'm going to get by. The test of a good system is if it responds to all skill levels and, in particular, the more inexperience trying to get into Dual Sport or improve their skill levels.


****
 
#23 ·
just because a skilled rider can get farther in poor conditions with a tire that isn't optimal for it doesn't make any difference as to what tire is the best choice. ....I guess I fail to see the correlation.

I completely agree that you should choose a tire for the worst conditions you expect to ride.

Dave
 
#24 ·
just because a skilled rider can get farther in poor conditions with a tire that isn't optimal for it doesn't make any difference as to what tire is the best choice. ....I guess I fail to see the correlation.

*snip*

Dave
Nope. I just disagree with that. Imo, it's totally contrary to the concept of dual sport. The word "optimal" is only relevant when put into the context of the rider's individual skill level. Ya'll want to focus on the tire and what's below, such as 50/50 under current classification is totally "inappropriate" for sand. That is just wrong and it's not even indicative of what's going on out there in the real world. I want to focus on the tire and what's below...and above. Obviously we're not going find common ground on this.

Go Saints! :smile2:
 
#26 ·
I think that what was originally proposed was an alternate, and hopefully more useful, nomenclature for tires to describe what they do. Rather than say that a K761 is a 90/10 tire it would be described as a "Green Square tire", thus putting it in a classification as most suitable for rather mild off-road circumstances, e.g street and fire roads.

I have ridden the K761 though 100 yards of mud, on slick muddy shale uphills/downhills for hours, and through 50-yard-wide sand washes every quarter mile for 5 miles. I did that because I pretty much had to as I had ridden hundreds of miles of pavement to arrive where I was. In each of those cases it wasn't much fun but it got done, I wished for more aggressive tires, I was beaten up and the worst of it was I kept spilling my beer back at camp.

My thoughts on adding variables beyond "best intended usage" is that it becomes not a tire rating system but a decision tree. We could go further than adding skill level and add cost sensitivity. Thus, "if you are an experienced rider and want to spend no more than $100/pair you will be happy with the K761 in situations where a novice would want a Black Diamond tire like the Mitas E07 at $300/pair." Going further (where do we stop?) what about the older rider who is an expert rider? With age comes reduced reaction time, loss of strength, joint deterioration, etc. The aged rider, though expert, may have only two miles of endurance where he once had 20. What then?

This is analogous to, in the skiing rating system, saying "This trail, for an experienced skier, is a Black Diamond. For a novice it is a Double Black Diamond, and for an expert it is a Green Square."
 
  • Like
Reactions: DPelletier
#28 ·
Here's a graphic I worked up for this conversation. If we were to really try to put it on a grid, and to have the axes labelled in a meaningful way, would this be an approach? Also, would the flexibility in this case refer to the tire, or to the rider?

 
#29 ·
I kind of like your graphic, Samuel. One might could use either the LH 8 or the RH 8 fairly readily. Or even the Center 8.


But your blending of the 'Complete' RH 4 column seem to make the most sense to me. (Street legal / Dual sport)

Or you could take the top & bottom from the 'Fair' column and add to the top & bottom of the 'Complete' 4, to make 6.
And I would suggest that it is to catagorize the Tire only.
 
#30 ·
Since the vertical axis is the tire classification from the first post, the horizontal axis must be the rider. So if I read this right, a rider with no flexibility in tire choice (due to skill or whatever) is going to have to go with a double black diamond. A rider who posesses the flexibility to make tire choices based on a fairly high skill level can pretty much pick from the full range of green circle tires to double black diamond tires. I think that's pretty much what we were talking about.

Now, if tires were rated by the shape/color system (as below) you'd have a nice tool for people to focus on their tire selection.

Good job, Sir! :smile2:


Comments welcome.



________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top