Metzeler Lasertec -> Bridgestone BT45

[Paul]

I recently replaced my set of Metzeler Lasertec tires and thought other may be interested in my meager experience.  Plus, I am curious if other have had similar experiences with the Lasertec tires.

Before the set of Lasertec tires, I always ran the Metzeler ME99/ME33 combination.  The Lasertec rear tire lasted 8,000 miles.  This is a couple thousand miles more than the ME99s lasted.

The front Lasertec was looking well worn and I did not feel bad about replacing it after 8,000 miles.  The front tire did have a few more miles left in it.  I think the front tire wore at the same rate or a little bit faster than the ME33.

As a side note, I always ran the Metzeler tubes in the Metzeler tires

My 1983 R65 felt about the same running on Lasertecs as it did on the ME99/M33.  However, after a thousand miles or so, I moved to Maryland.  In Maryland, after riding this R65 for 7 years, for the very first time low sided my R65 on a slow corner and spun up the rear tire in the rain.  Is it Metzeler or is it Maryland?

At the end of March, the R65 was treated to a new set of Bridgestone BT-45 tires (110/90-18 rear, 90/90-18 front) and Kenda tubes.  On this new set of tires, I been commuting 165 miles each day.  The other day we had heavy rain and the bike felt planted (sure footed, stable) for the 82.5 mile commute home.  Most of those miles were ridden at 75 mph on the freeway.

Paul

[airhead]

I had been running BT45's front and rear on my 65 and when they needed replacing, opted for the Metzelers (Lasertec front, ME55A rear). At first I liked the feel, nice and progressive roll into corners etc. However in the wet I feel a little less surefooted cornering than I did (or felt I did) on the 45's. Rain isn't such an issue over here in Western Australia so I'm just a bit more careful when it does. Hardly a fair comparison as it could be I'm riding faster into corners with the Metz's now than I did with the 45's under the same situation, so the jury is still out on that one.

Bill.........................;-)

[Justin B.]

I have not used the Bridgestones (well, had a Yamaha Virago a couple years ago with 'em but I never rode in the wet) but I've pretty much given up on Metzlers.  Every bike I have bought in the past 5 years with a Metzler front had headshake (40-45 mph hands off bars) even though the tires looked barely worn.  I may try the Bridgestone if Michelin ever quits making the Macadams but by that time who knows!

[nhmaf]

Hmm, I'm probably going to be looking for new tires for the R65 by the end of this year, too.
The Metzlers have been my "standard" bike tires since 1994 - while living in Massachusetts I noticed
that I had a slow leak in the rear tire on my Yamaha.   I then discovered a nail in the tire, and
gingerly rode it to the nearest bike shop to get it replaced.   As it turned out, I had (5) nails in
that tire, which I had been riding on at 80 mph the previous day.   I had ridden passed a construction
zone on a side street just before that, and must have picked up the nails then.   The fact that it
didn't blow out on me and only had lost about 5 pounds of air in a day caused me to only buy
Metzlers in the future for all my bikes, if they had a decent model that fit, etc.

But, it may be time to try something new - I'm getting less risk adverse in my old age, I guess.
 

[Melena]

Good topic.  I know this topic has been talked about ad infinitum, but it's always good to hear what people have to say about this most important part of our ride.

Saying that, I'm needing a new tire before I get on the bike again.  I just realized how little tread is left on that front tire.  

Right now I have Metzlers on my bike - ME88 on the rear and I'm not sure what on the front.  The front is 100/90 V18 and the rear is 120/90 B18-71H.  Not exactly sure what all that means, but I think I want a different profile. These are the same tires she had on when I bought her.  I'd say there's probably 6,000 - 8,000 miles on them now.  The rear tire looks like it's still got lots of life in it, but I'm thinking about changing to a completely different tire.

One question I come up with is price versus the best tire for the bike - does a higher priced tire equal a better tire necessarily?  

Another question is about how different tires affect how the bike responds - the Bridgestones sound pretty good to me.  

And one more question has to do with the height of the sidewall.  I'd like a tire that is a bit shallower so the bike would ride a bit lower - in other words, so my feet would touch the ground a bit flatter.  If you've got a long inseam, this wouldn't be an issue.  I'm not that short, but I think I'd feel more in control with my feet fully flat on the ground.  Are the Bridgestone 45's a bit lower than the Metzlers?

I want to figure this out this week so I can get tires next weekend.

Sue, what do you use on LRB?

[trolle]

the wh8la2 became new footwear 1000 miles ago. She changed from a metzeler 88 120/90 rear and metzeler 33 90/90 front to Bridgestone BT45 120/90 rear and 100/80 front. We did 125 miles on a racing track soon after (advanced driver's course) and she felt very surefooted. The Bridgestones have a very good grip in dry weather and according to  one of the instructors, a professionel driver, the grip is good in wet conditions as well. We have been doing another 1000 miles on normal roads since, and I am rather pleased with the BT45s.

As to the cost I think it may be a little lower for the BT45s as they have a reputation of lasting longer than the Metzelers.

Just my two øres

greetings from a sunny and slightly cool north - perfect for driving though.

trolle

[thrang]

I run Contential supertwins on mine, they are not the hardest wearing (about 6k if I ride carefully on a rear) but give a good performance in the wet (which is handy as I live four miles east of the wettest place in England) and the dry.

I've tried Metzlers and they were good in the dry but a little skittish in the wet.

Bimbo2 came wearing Bridgestones and so far (about 900 miles) they seem pretty good, but until I've had them out in a good downpour I with hold my judgment.

[nhmaf]

My friend and I had similar experience with the Continental Supertwin tires - they were smooth riding
and gripped pretty well, but they did wear out quite fast even on Kawasaki 750 twins..

[Semper Gumby]

<snip>
Right now I have Metzlers on my bike - ME88 on the rear and I'm not sure what on the front.  The front is 100/90 V18 and the rear is 120/90 B18-71H.  Not exactly sure what all that means, but I think I want a different profile. These are the same tires she had on when I bought her.  I'd say there's probably 6,000 - 8,000 miles on them now.  The rear tire looks like it's still got lots of life in it, but I'm thinking about changing to a completely different tire.

One question I come up with is price versus the best tire for the bike - does a higher priced tire equal a better tire necessarily?  

Another question is about how different tires affect how the bike responds - the Bridgestones sound pretty good to me.  

And one more question has to do with the height of the sidewall.  I'd like a tire that is a bit shallower so the bike would ride a bit lower - in other words, so my feet would touch the ground a bit flatter.  If you've got a long inseam, this wouldn't be an issue.  I'm not that short, but I think I'd feel more in control with my feet fully flat on the ground.  Are the Bridgestone 45's a bit lower than the Metzlers?

I want to figure this out this week so I can get tires next weekend.

Sue, what do you use on LRB?

Hi Melena!

120/90V18

"120" is the width in millimeters.  120 is as wide as you can get on the rear without rubbing rubber on the swing arm.  (bad)

"90" is the aspect ration.  A good way to think of this is that the tire is 90 percent as tall as it is wide.  You can get a 80 series tire which will have the lower sidewall you desire - but this will change the handling of the bike.  It will probably make the steering quicker.  (maybe good, maybe bad, you be the test pilot)  Be careful - with an 80 series tire the widest part of the tire may not fit in the little cutout on the swingarm.

"V" means the tire has a higher speed rating than you will ever go on your bike and the rubber will wear out sooner.  Most touring people (Distance) riders go for the lower speed "H" tires as they will last longer.  But if you like turning, burning and better braking then get the "V" rated tire for better grip.  This usually applies to the same brand/model of tire.  Comparing different brands is like comparing apples and oranges because of different rubber compounds and carcass construction.  This can also turn a thread into a flame war....

"18"  the size of the rim (in inches) the tire was designed to fit on.

The original rear tire for the R65 was a 4.00H18 which was a 4 inch wide tire with a 100% aspect ratio (it's as tall as it is wide).  Someday I may try one...

Tires can "wearout" before the tread is used up.  If your sidewalls are dryrotted (little horizontal cracks) then the tire is done.  Replace it immediatly.

Most people seem happy with 120/90 V or H-18 on the rear and a 100/90 V or H 18 on the front.  You can also put the 90/90 V or H 18  on the front for quicker steering.

Take care,

Bill

[Melena]

Aaarrrrggghhhh!    It's all so confusing, isn't it.    :-/   When you buy new tires you're pretty much stuck with what you've got until they wear out unless you don't mind putting out a whole bunch more cash.  

Since I know that what I have has done me well, I'll just replace the front tire with the same thing for now.  That will give me a bunch of time to figure out what I want to do when these wear out.

Thanks for all your input into this.  I know this can be a flammable    [smiley=flamethrowingsmiley.gif]    subject, so I'm glad I didn't start anything.   It all ends up being a decision on what's best for your type of riding.

[Semper Gumby]

Hey Melena,

I've noticed in another thread that some people use the 110/90H18 for the rear.  Apparently its easier to get on and off the bike.

[Justin B.]

That's what I use as after a "ciphered" everything out it was the closest to the stock size...

[msbuck]

Melena,

I used to put the "80" aspect ratio on my bike when I first got it.  The only one I could find that would fit was a Chen Shing (sp?).  I haven't found any recently, but haven't tried very hard the last couple of time I needed tires.  I would defintely look for something with the smaller aspect ratio to help get your feet on the ground.  I didn't see a lot of difference in the handling, but I'm not an aggressive rider, either.  

I know it can get confusing...   the last time I replaced mine, the shop had 2 tire choices in my size.  I looked at them (Off the bike) to see which one was shorter (not that it will ultimately make any difference once mounted, but it made me feel better about my choice!).  

[drewboid]

Looking at WebBikeWorld there was a rave recommendation for BT45 110/80 and a warning about using the 110/90.  So for a front tire I have seen 90/90, 100/90, 100/80 and 110/80 recommended.  HELP!!
what are the actual experiences and negatives?  I'm considering either the 110/80 or 100/80 but want other expert advice.  ps - if it makes a difference in opinions - this is for my girlfriend who is a relatively newbie rider riding a 1984 R65.  

Thanks to all,
Drew
R60/2 - LS200
R75/6
R65

[trolle]

The factory mounting is 90/90 so the 100/80 will have appr. the same circumference. I changed from 90/90 to 100/80 and have driven 2000 miles since. Steering is slightly crisper and there is a slight tendency to oversteering but nothing alarming.

greetings from a grey and cold north

trolle