New Tires - Manufactured Date - What is Fair and Reasonable

[Cormanus]

I find myself in an ambiguous position. I don't resile from my statement that Marc should get tyres he's comfortable with or it may affect his riding. That said, Ulvetanna makes some very good points about the need for science rather than prejudice to guide us on matters such as tyre life. He gives some good examples of where coming to terms with prejudice and overcoming it is wise.

Now to a question about tyre life. (And I'm sorry, but I'm Australian and will continue to spell tyre with a 'y'.) There's an interesting article here, but it didn't answer my question.

What is meant by the so-called 5-year rule? Does it mean that tyres should not be used after they are 5-years old or more? Or does it mean they should not be stored for more that 5 years? There's a difference. If they shouldn't be used after 5 years, then the age at purchase becomes important and will vary depending on how long the tyre is expected to be on the bike. A bloke like Ferret could happily buy an older tyre than a bloke like Guth.

But if they shouldn't be stored for more than 5 years without being fitted, it suggests there's another factor which is: what is the reasonable life expectancy of a tyre once it's been fitted? Obviously a range of factors like climate and use and so forth will affect that, but there is likely to be a moment at which the tyre becomes a liability only because of the age of it's structure. The question that arises in my mind is whether the Ferret or other high mileage rider could safely purchase a 5-year old, properly stored tyre and still expect it to perform well give it won't last more than a year?

Otherwise tyre manufacturers and suppliers need to be asking riders a whole set of important questions when they sell them a tyre.

[Marc]

Thanks for the thoughtful replies. In my case, I will likely only put 1500 km per year on this bike. Sad I know. So they will be replaced due to age and likely not wear.

Again my inquiry to the forum was to ensure that I was not being unreasonable in my expectations of a new tire.

Here is the reply that I received from my retailer earlier today that I feel provides some useful insight from the retailers perspective:

"You're not being picky at all, this is completely understandable. 3 years is definitely a little older than what we'd like to sell, though we unfortunately don't get the chance to inspect any tire's manufacturing date before it ships, as we order them fresh from our distributor. The vast majority are between 6 months and 2 years old, though there is the odd outlier. In any case, we're happy to exchange them at no cost if you ever receive tires that are over 3 years old."

So it would appear that from this retailers perspective they think it's fair to expect a tire to be less than two years old when purchased as new.

Hope this helps others in their expections when buying new tires. In the future, I will use 24 months as my expectation for my road tires.

[Ulvetanna]

(02-16-2018 05:57 PM)Marc Wrote:  Thanks for the thoughtful replies. In my case, I will likely only put 1500 km per year on this bike. Sad I know. So they will be replaced due to age and likely not wear.

Again my inquiry to the forum was to ensure that I was not being unreasonable in my expectations of a new tire.

Here is the reply that I received from my retailer earlier today that I feel provides some useful insight from the retailers perspective:

"You're not being picky at all, this is completely understandable. 3 years is definitely a little older than what we'd like to sell, though we unfortunately don't get the chance to inspect any tire's manufacturing date before it ships, as we order them fresh from our distributor. The vast majority are between 6 months and 2 years old, though there is the odd outlier. In any case, we're happy to exchange them at no cost if you ever receive tires that are over 3 years old."

So it would appear that from this retailers perspective they think it's fair to expect a tire to be less than two years old when purchased as new.

Hope this helps others in their expections when buying new tires. In the future, I will use 24 months as my expectation for my road tires.

With those use parameters, yep, go with skins within 24 months old, because tyres age much more quickly once they're mounted and exposed to the elements. If a tyre stays on any bike of mine for a year, that would be unusual. I don't think that's ever happened. So for me, no problem.

I recently had to replace a set of tires on an SUV I rarely drive, which is parked outside. After four years, the sidewalls were cracked quite noticeably. But the tyres only had 7,000 miles on them. Auto tires are sold much faster than m/c tires so the DOT age stamp is far less a concern, though.

[jimgl3]

it took you 5 years to need new tires? !!!!!!! jeeze!!!

[Ulvetanna]

(02-16-2018 08:51 PM)jimgl3 Wrote:  it took you 5 years to need new tires? !!!!!!! jeeze!!!

I only ever use that thing to pull my trailer.

[Guth]

(02-16-2018 08:51 PM)jimgl3 Wrote:  it took you 5 years to need new tires? !!!!!!! jeeze!!!

I'm not exactly sure who (or who all) this was intended for, but I qualify so I feel inclined to respond. Even though I really like motorcycles (enough so to start this forum anyway), motorcycling is only one facet of my life. In addition to two motorcycles competing for my time (along with this forum), I also have a Honda S2000 roadster that has begun to consume an increasing amount of my fair-weather time. I also love to spey fish for steelhead year-round. In addition to our house, we have an old log cabin up in the mountains (both of which are in need of more of my time and attention). I also still like to visit the pub for a beer every now and then (but never when I'm riding). We sent our son off to college last year but we still have a couple of dogs. I've been playing guitar since I was in school and don't see that changing anytime soon either. Frankly, if I had not been commuting to work so much on my motorcycles (oh yeah, I also have a job) I would have put even less miles on them. Health issues have taken away time from all of the above at various times over the past few years. To be honest, I'm surprised that I've put as many miles on my CB1100 as I have, lol.

Just not enough time in the day as they say.

[Cormanus]

I think Jim was referring to the length of time tyres were on Ulvetanna's SUV.

[Guth]

(02-19-2018 11:43 PM)Cormanus Wrote:  I think Jim was referring to the length of time tyres were on Ulvetanna's SUV.

I didn't get that impression and it wasn't clear as there were no quotes or references (and Ulve mentioned 4 years not 5). But my post is a good reminder that we all ride for different reasons and in different ways. Not to mention that we replace our tires for different reasons, lol.

[Aussieflyer]

My tyres were near enough to 7 years old when i changed them ... obviously I don't do many miles. The bike was manufactured in 2011, tyres were dated end of 2010, new rubber fitted in the beginning of 2018. Front was worn out (poor set up and my riding habits) however the rear had plenty of life albeit with a plugged puncture. No issues with grip in the dry but I don't ask too much of them ... the public road is not my race track, yada yada. Not so concerned about the age of tyres when I have been in control of them since new, it's different if their history is not known e.g. on a second hand bike. Seven or eight years old but well cared for and kept out of the sun doesn't sound unreasonable to me. On my new rubber I like to push a thumbnail into the tread and see how long it takes for the imprint to spring out. Then check it periodically over the life of the tyre to get a feel for how much they are hardening up. How long is too long to wait for the imprint to spring out I do not know, but at least there's something to gauge it by without a durometer handy.

[Cormanus]

My wife recently bought a durometer.