22-cent mod videos available, if I'm not mistaken.

Those symbols are the same shapes and colors of the mountain bike trail difficulty rating system, except for a white circle (easiest trail) is missing.

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...

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.

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.

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?"

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....


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.


***

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.

Here's to hoping my skill level actually does improve!

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