otay mini tech day

[Randy Shultz]

--- In DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com, "Eric L. Green" wrote:

> > Now, I gotta figure this one out. Here I am, riding a cheap bike

that I > bought off the local equivalent of the want ads for just 'bout nuthin, and I'm gonna put tires on it that cost 1/10th of what my whole bike cost? Nuts on that!

>

What's this logic now? Because I had the brains to buy a bike for 1/3 the cost of a BMW dual sport, now all my gear has to have that same ratio? Nonsense. I don't skimp on tires or any other safety gear. Tires make a significant difference in overall performance. Why would I try to save $50 on tires just to maintain the relative ratio of my original bike purchase? There's an old saying pennywise/pound foolish. I just put 2,500 miles on a pair $30 tires that are less than stellar on-road. My next set will cost twice as much and if they are only 25% better on the road I will be completely satisfied. To get the most out of your bike sometimes you need to buy good quality components. I don't spend ANY money trying to get another 3 horsepower out of the KLR engine. But I bought a galfer brake line, quality radiator guard, etc. Sometimes skimping is counter- productive. Tires, in my opinion, is one of those areas. Randy

[John Kokola]

Maybe some folks bought the bike because it's just about the best bang for the buck in motorcycling, but they want the peace of mind that good rubber brings. Or they're 'attached' to a certain kind of tire. Or they figure that they've got some money to spend, since they saved so much on the bike. Just because a bike is expensive doesn't mean that you have to buy into the mentality that only big-buck Jesse bags and a $1000 GPS rig will fit the bill (I'd love to see, say, a 1200GS with ammo cans and a home-welded mounting rig). Similarly, just because a bike is cheap to purchase and operate shouldn't mean that you have to automatically buy into the 'only K-Mart tires will do.' mentality, though for many of us it makes sense to do so. Buy what you want -- that's what real individuality means. The above is my opinion only (doesn't mean much). --John Kokola

> -----Original Message----- > From: Eric L. Green [mailto:ericnospam@...] > > > So: what's the deal here? Why are people putting tires on their KLR that > are twice the price of a Kenda or IRC, but don't appear to offer twice the > performance? I mean, this is a *KLR*, not some friggin' BMW or other > big-buck bike where you could justify it with "but that last 3% of > performance is no big deal compared to the price of my ride"! Am I missing > something here? >

[Eric L. Green]

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004, Randy Shultz wrote:

> --- In DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com, "Eric L. Green" > wrote: > > Now, I gotta figure this one out. Here I am, riding a cheap bike > that I > bought off the local equivalent of the want ads for > just 'bout nuthin, and I'm gonna put tires on it that cost 1/10th of > what my whole bike cost? Nuts on that! > > I don't skimp on tires or any other safety gear. Tires make a > significant difference in overall performance. Why would I try to save > $50 on tires just to maintain the relative ratio of my original bike > purchase?

Think $100 on tires. My Kings and Kenda tires cost half as much as a name-brand equivalent. And my point was that I have *NOT* found a significant difference in overall performance between the low-cost brands (Kenda, IRC, Kings) and the name brands (the Metzelers that were on my bike when I bought it), thus why should I pay out the nose for what may be 3% better performance from the name brand? Gosh, if I was so concerned with 3% better performance and price were no object, I'd go out and buy a KTM, not a KLR!

> There's an old saying pennywise/pound foolish. I just put 2,500 > miles on a pair $30 tires that are less than stellar on-road. My

Sounds like Cheng Shen .

> horsepower out of the KLR engine. But I bought a galfer brake line,

Waste of money. Doesn't give you any more braking power, just a different (less spongy) feel.

> quality radiator guard,

That's not a 3% difference in performance, that's a 100% difference in performance!

> etc. Sometimes skimping is counter- > productive. Tires, in my opinion, is one of those areas.

And sometimes paying extra money just to get a name is foolish. If there were a significant difference in performance between a Kenda tire and its name brand equivalent, I'd be with you all the way, brother. I just haven't seen that difference. -E

[Krgrife@aol.com]

In a message dated 11/20/04 3:20:04 PM Pacific Standard Time, rshultz@... writes:

> To get the most out of your bike sometimes you need to buy good > quality components. I don't spend ANY money trying to get another 3 > horsepower out of the KLR engine. But I bought a galfer brake line, > quality radiator guard, etc. Sometimes skimping is counter- > productive. Tires, in my opinion, is one of those areas.

I haven't found a dual sport tire that works any better for me than the KT966 regardless of price so how exactly am I skimping? Kurt Grife [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Keith Saltzer]

> Think $100 on tires. My Kings and Kenda tires cost half as much as a > name-brand equivalent. And my point was that I have *NOT* found a > significant difference in overall performance between the low-cost

brands

> (Kenda, IRC, Kings) and the name brands (the Metzelers that were on

my

> bike when I bought it),

If you rode like me you would feel the difference.

> > horsepower out of the KLR engine. But I bought a galfer brake

line,

> > Waste of money. Doesn't give you any more braking power, just a

different

> (less spongy) feel.

The braking difference is felt in the last 5 or 10% of the bikes braking capacity, just like the better more expensive tires. Again, if you rode like I did you would be able to tell the difference.

> And sometimes paying extra money just to get a name is foolish.

Hell, ALWAYS paying extra for just a name is foolish. If there

> were a significant difference in performance between a Kenda tire

and its

> name brand equivalent, I'd be with you all the way, brother. I just > haven't seen that difference.

And most riders haven't either. Cause they are only riding the bike to somewhere around 50% of it's capabilities. But just because YOU can't tell the difference doesn't mean that there isn't one. I could put the crappiest, cheapest off name brand tires on my mother in laws car and tell her to drive around on them for a month, and then switch them to a super sticky, expensive, name brand tire and she would not know the difference at all. Why? Cause she drive's like the conservative, law abiding, grandma that she is. She wouldn't even approach 50% of either tires capabilities so there's nothing different to feel. If I taught her how to enter and exit turns to the max potential of the tires she had on though, she would feel a BIG difference. I personally NEED the better more expensive tires. Others don't need them, but if your going to throw some money away at something you don't always need, it should be the tires. Someday, somewhere, down the road you will be grabbing the front brake for all it's worth. Or you will be entering a corner too hot (for you, not the bike) and you will be cranking it over more and more and more. That's when having better tires, the only thing between you on the bike, and the road, is going to pay off. MrMoose A8 (Barbie and Ken special)

[Judson D. Jones]

--- In DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com, "Keith Saltzer" wrote:

> > > Think $100 on tires. My Kings and Kenda tires cost half as much as a > > name-brand equivalent. And my point was that I have *NOT* found a > > significant difference in overall performance between the low-cost > brands > > (Kenda, IRC, Kings) and the name brands (the Metzelers that were on > my > > bike when I bought it), > > > If you rode like me you would feel the difference. > > > > > horsepower out of the KLR engine. But I bought a galfer brake > line, > > > > Waste of money. Doesn't give you any more braking power, just a > different > > (less spongy) feel. > > > The braking difference is felt in the last 5 or 10% of the bikes > braking capacity, just like the better more expensive tires. Again, > if you rode like I did you would be able to tell the difference. > > > > And sometimes paying extra money just to get a name is foolish. > > > Hell, ALWAYS paying extra for just a name is foolish. > > > If there > > were a significant difference in performance between a Kenda tire > and its > > name brand equivalent, I'd be with you all the way, brother. I just > > haven't seen that difference. > > > And most riders haven't either. Cause they are only riding the bike > to somewhere around 50% of it's capabilities. But just because YOU > can't tell the difference doesn't mean that there isn't one. > > I could put the crappiest, cheapest off name brand tires on my mother > in laws car and tell her to drive around on them for a month, and > then switch them to a super sticky, expensive, name brand tire and > she would not know the difference at all. Why? Cause she drive's > like the conservative, law abiding, grandma that she is. She > wouldn't even approach 50% of either tires capabilities so there's > nothing different to feel. If I taught her how to enter and exit > turns to the max potential of the tires she had on though, she would > feel a BIG difference. > > I personally NEED the better more expensive tires. Others don't need > them, but if your going to throw some money away at something you > don't always need, it should be the tires. Someday, somewhere, down > the road you will be grabbing the front brake for all it's worth. Or > you will be entering a corner too hot (for you, not the bike) and you > will be cranking it over more and more and more. That's when having > better tires, the only thing between you on the bike, and the road, > is going to pay off.

I guess I'm going to stick with my $35 Kenda on the rear, unless I can get my hands on a Cheng Shin 858. The K270 has one big thing going for it besides price: it lasts two to three times as long as any tire that works as well off road. I am aware that I sacrifice some performance on pavement, but I ride accordingly. On the KLR I am usually either touring or exploring; neither requires that I test the limits of my rubber on asphalt. It means a lot more to me to have a tire that I only have to change once a year. The price is the icing on the cake.

[Randy Shultz]

--- In DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com, "Eric L. Green" wrote:

> And sometimes paying extra money just to get a name is foolish.

Sometimes? I'd say always. But you said that tire purchases should be proportional to what you paid for the bike. That is ridiculous. That was my point. Always buy the tire with the most value that can do the job you need to do. Don't worry what it costs relative to what you paid for the bike. That's the point. Peace.

[squasher_1]

My $100 Metzeler tourance(s) lasted more than twice as long as my IRC or Duro brand tires. plus I didnt have to change them as often. but what you want. P.S. I hated the Avon Gripsters. felt like riding on a marshmellow

[matteeanne@yahoo.com]

Here here! I'm in the same boat. My tires are cheap but I scrape peg all the time, and I am certain I could tell if I spent big money on my tires, and the bike would handle better due the the lighter laod in my wallet ;O) --- Krgrife@... wrote:

> > In a message dated 11/20/04 10:17:04 AM Pacific > Standard Time, > ericnospam@... writes: > > > > So: what's the deal here? Why are people putting > tires on their KLR that > > are twice the price of a Kenda or IRC, but don't > appear to offer twice the > > performance? I mean, this is a *KLR*, not some > friggin' BMW or other > > big-buck bike where you could justify it with "but > that last 3% of > > performance is no big deal compared to the price > of my ride"! Am I missing > > something here? > > > > Nope, I agree with you. The KT 966 is so cheap that > I keep extras on hand in > case I want to do a spur of the moment long trip > with a fresh one. The tires > are well suited to the riding I do which is not hard > core dirt but lots of > two track back country stuff and they have given me > good milage. Of course I'm > known to my friends to be a bit on the "thrifty" > side, translate that as being > downright cheap. I try to get the most riding for > every dollar spent and > good cheap tires fit right into that plan. > Kurt Grife > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > > > List sponsored by Dual Sport News at > www.dualsportnews.com > List FAQ courtesy of Chris Krok at: > www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > DSN_klr650-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > > > > >

__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com

[js-anti]

----- Original Message ----- From: "squasher_1" Subject: [DSN_klr650] Re: Need advice on road tire > My $100 Metzeler tourance(s) lasted more than twice as long as my IRC > or Duro brand tires. plus I didnt have to change them as often. but > what you want. > P.S. I hated the Avon Gripsters. felt like riding on a marshmellow A lot of interesting comments on tires in these threads. Has anyone had experience with B-stone TW21-22s? I know the msg thread seems primarily aimed to road tires, but this is the thread getting play. The TWs appear to have a nice compromise tread pattern; one that should perfrom acceptably on the road, and still give some purchase off-road. Course just lookin at tread and profile can't really tell you much on how a tire really rides and performs, thatz why the comments are really worthwhile. js