Rear tire mounted up front.

[JimmyG]

Well, got home from my trip and I need to get a new tire up front. I have been running the Dunlop D404 rear,reversed for a while now.  I got 15,792 miles on this last one and still have a few hundred left, but tread is thin, and time to change for safety sake. Anyhow, I want to know more about the Michelin rear tire mounted up front.  Gary has one and is getting great traction and wear.  His is a 16" though and is an Activa. 17" rears are pilots. So,  who has used them on their Valks?  Seems like someone recently wrote about it, but I can't find it.  Any info out there?

[JimmyG]

Great info Roger,thanks. I am looking real hard at the Michelin Pilot.
 

[JimmyG]

Hey Tom, yeah, I know what you mean. Got to listen to the users

[vanagon40]

Maybe you are thinking of this post by Fla. Jim on September 19, 2018. Scroll to the bottom:

Currently running a Michelin pilot rear on the front turned backwards of course. New Pilot front with the then 30k mileage Mich. Hydroedge rear car tire installed. Pilot front has 9k  and still has a bunch of tread left.

[98valk]

Well, got home from my trip and I need to get a new tire up front. I have been running the Dunlop D404 rear,reversed for a while now.  I got 15,792 miles on this last one and still have a few hundred left, but tread is thin, and time to change for safety sake. Anyhow, I want to know more about the Michelin rear tire mounted up front.  Gary has one and is getting great traction and wear.  His is a 16" though and is an Activa. 17" rears are pilots. So,  who has used them on their Valks?  Seems like someone recently wrote about it, but I can't find it.  Any info out there?

what PSI are u using for the D404?  I'm using that tire at 40-41 PSI and after 6k miles and the amount of tread wear so far, I project 27-30+k miles for tire life.

[JimmyG]

I normally run that tire at 38 - 40 lbs. Lot of edge tread left, middle is thin, down to 1/32. I'm thinking 36 might be better overall. For $80 bucks, nearly 16,000 worked out ok.  That is the second D404 rear on the front. Im going to try the Michelin pilot rear on the front this time.  I'm going to have to get 26,000 miles out of the michelin to be equal in cost to the Dunlop.  I'll happily pay more for the trade out, plus the hassel of changing tires.

[turtle254]

No rear tire size for 150/80 17" only 150/70 17" and that makes the speedo even further off!
Its reads fast as it is.


Anyone found a 150/80 17" rear tire ?

[98valk]

I normally run that tire at 38 - 40 lbs. Lot of edge tread left, middle is thin, down to 1/32. I'm thinking 36 might be better overall. For $80 bucks, nearly 16,000 worked out ok.  That is the second D404 rear on the front. Im going to try the Michelin pilot rear on the front this time.  I'm going to have to get 26,000 miles out of the michelin to be equal in cost to the Dunlop.  I'll happily pay more for the trade out, plus the hassel of changing tires.

thanks, I will check my pressure and tread depth more closely and see if my psi is too much.

[JimmyG]

Yes 98valk, I'd keep a close eye on it. I thought I was, but it got away from me before I knew it. I really think 36 might be optimal, as long as handling is not affected, which I doubt.  Traction may improve also.  I have been very happy with the tire and performance.  After the Michelin pilot, I may go back, just have to see if it performs and lasts long enough to make it worth the extra money. Of course, the argument is, "what's an extra $50 bucks"?   Safety is everything!  But, overall, I have been very happy with the D404 and I think you should get anywhere between 16-20 K,  if you keep the tire pressure right. 

[turtle254]

Anyone found a 150/80 17" rear tire ?

[Gideon]

I normally run that tire at 38 - 40 lbs. Lot of edge tread left, middle is thin, down to 1/32. I'm thinking 36 might be better overall. For $80 bucks, nearly 16,000 worked out ok.  That is the second D404 rear on the front. Im going to try the Michelin pilot rear on the front this time.  I'm going to have to get 26,000 miles out of the michelin to be equal in cost to the Dunlop.  I'll happily pay more for the trade out, plus the hassel of changing tires.

I am also on my second Dunlop D404 rear, reversed rotation. I got 19,000 miles on the last one. There was still more miles left, but I was leaving on a trip to the East Coast. I am running 40 -41 PSI.

[JimmyG]

 :cooldude:Gideon  I think if I would have kept closer tabs on mine, I may have gotten a few more miles.

[vanagon40]

I got 20,000 miles out of a Dunlop K491 Elite II MT90HB17 Rear Tire mounted on the front (replaced it only because it was 10 years old). No longer made. Pic below: After 20,000 miles



I got 16,000 miles out of my 150/80-17 Dunlop D404 Front tire. Mostly flat, straight roads in central and northern Indiana. A lot of interstate miles.

Replaced it with the 404 rear tire: 130/90-17 (68H) Dunlop D404R.

Pic below: Original D404 Front | Worn out D404 Front | New D404 Rear

[98valk]

I was looking forward to getting mileage like Fla Jim posted esp since my last tire was a ContiGo 130/90/17 provided 26k miles to the wear bars and was V-rated.  The D404 being H-rated tire usually gets more mileage due to tread compound and tread depth vs a V-rated tire.

[JimmyG]

So what air pressure have you guys been running?

[vanagon40]

I run mine right at 40 psi (front and rear)

[0leman]

I have been running the D404F for a while, been getting around 12K when it looks like vanagon40 middle pic (did get really crappy mileage out of last one, but that was due to my not noting that tire was old).  I have been running 36-37 psi. 

I believe that our "Chip Coated" roads are to blame for the less mileage out of my tires.  Do ride about 40% of time on straight roads.  Very little Interstate miles.

[turtle254]

I guess no one has  found a 150/80 17" rear tire ?

[h13man]

No 150/80-17 rear. As mentioned why you want a smaller tire?

[BobMoe]

Maybe I missed it but I don't understand why the reverse rotation?

[turtle254]

No 150/80-17 rear. As mentioned why you want a smaller tire?

This is a tire for the front, which is 150/80 17". Would like to find a rear 150/80 17" tire?

[vanagon40]

Maybe I missed it but I don't understand why the reverse rotation?

Check out this link for an explanation (same as my link in Reply #3 above).
Many also notice that running in reverse has the tread pattern "matching" the tread pattern designed for the front tire. (See my second photo in Reply #12 above). Gryphon Rider provides an explanation here.
Some old timers stated that tires were sometimes designed to be used either as front or rear with the direction reversed depending on the application. Leathel from New Zealand verified this claim here.

PS: WELCOME TO THE FORUM

[Jersey]

May I ask what the noticeable changes to riding, handling, gas mileage, etc. are in doing this?

I currently run an Envigor DS on the back and would consider running a rt on the front... if the advantages were worth.

Thanks,
Jersey

[Quixote]

No 150/80-17 rear. As mentioned why you want a smaller tire?

Actually, I'd like to change out the front wheel and tire to something narrower like a VTX model C front end.

Here in Central Oregon, where we don't have enough gumption to tax studded tires, our roads are all worn with two ruts that can be as much as 30" wide and 3" deep. The Valk doesn't handle riding on the side of the ruts very well. My other bikes, with narrower front tires don't fight the ruts nearly as much. Has anybody here ever tried such a conversion?

Thanks
Bill

[0leman]

No 150/80-17 rear. As mentioned why you want a smaller tire?

Actually, I'd like to change out the front wheel and tire to something narrower like a VTX model C front end.

Here in Central Oregon, where we don't have enough gumption to tax studded tires, our roads are all worn with two ruts that can be as much as 30" wide and 3" deep. The Valk doesn't handle riding on the side of the ruts very well. My other bikes, with narrower front tires don't fight the ruts nearly as much. Has anybody here ever tried such a conversion?

Thanks
Bill

Bill, ya just learn to ride on the tops of the ruts 

Where in Central Oregon do you live?

[JimmyG]

That doesn't seem right to me. I would think a fatter tire would be better in bad road conditions.  It has been way to long ago riding smaller bikes with narrower tires for me to remember about that though. 

[turtle254]

Bump steer … caused my more contact patch 90 deg. to travel

[Quixote]

Hi Oleman,
I live in Bend.

Jimmy G,
If you draw a section view of a tire rolling on a flat surface you'll see that the contact patch and the weight is aligned with the center of the tire. Now keep the bike up right but incline the road surface a few degrees either way and you'll see that the contact patch is no longer centered. Now start imagining that the tire is wider and you'll see that the wider tire's contact patch is displaced further from the center than the narrower tire's contact patch is displaced. The larger displacement causes more steering input and causes the bike to roll away from the side slope more forcefully.
Bill

[Jersey]

Hi Oleman,
I live in Bend.

Jimmy G,
If you draw a section view of a tire rolling on a flat surface you'll see that the contact patch and the weight is aligned with the center of the tire. Now keep the bike up right but incline the road surface a few degrees either way and you'll see that the contact patch is no longer centered. Now start imagining that the tire is wider and you'll see that the wider tire's contact patch is displaced further from the center than the narrower tire's contact patch is displaced. The larger displacement causes more steering input and causes the bike to roll away from the side slope more forcefully.
Bill

Damn good explanation!  Thanx!

[JimmyG]