Bridgestone Battlax

[The emperor has no clothes]

Has anybody used this tire up front ? Any opinions ?

http://www.americanmototire.com/catalog/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=696&products_id=6911

[wiggydotcom]

Rob, I just ordered the Battlax BT45 rear tire to go on the front of my F6B. I just ordered it yesterday from Jake Wilson and darned if it didn't show up on my doorstep today. To top it off, Jake had the best price at $114 for a bias ply. It's hard to beat Jake Wilson for tires!

It will be a few days before I get it mounted. I am confident it will be a great tire. I'm just torn between mounting it in the forward or reverse direction.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Rob, I just ordered the Battle BT45 rear tire to go on the front on my F6B. I just ordered it yesterday from Jake Wilson and darned if it didn't show up on my doorstep today. To top it off, Jake had the best price at $114 for a bias ply. It's hard to beat Jake Wilson for tires!

It will be a few days before I get it mounted. I am confident it will be a great tire. I'm just torn between mounting it in the forward or reverse direction.

I've been running the Michelin Pilot Activ on the front. This is my third now and I like them well. 2 of them I ran reversed, this last one I accidently didn't reverse it and was too lazy to take back off. No problems either way. It might be slightly noisier under braking non reversed . But it doesn't rain much here. I think reversed is the way to go for the best water distribution.

[wiggydotcom]

Rob, I just ordered the Battle BT45 rear tire to go on the front on my F6B. I just ordered it yesterday from Jake Wilson and darned if it didn't show up on my doorstep today. To top it off, Jake had the best price at $114 for a bias ply. It's hard to beat Jake Wilson for tires!

It will be a few days before I get it mounted. I am confident it will be a great tire. I'm just torn between mounting it in the forward or reverse direction.

I've been running the Michelin Pilot Activ on the front. This is my third now and I like them well. 2 of them I ran reversed, this last one I accidently didn't reverse it and was too lazy to take back off. No problems either way. It might be slightly noisier under braking non reversed . But it doesn't rain much here. I think reversed is the way to go for the best water distribution.

Thanks for that info. I'll mount it reversed then. The Michelin Pilot Active would have been my other choice for doube dark. I'm hearing I should get + 20k out of the Battlax. What kind of mileage did you get out of your first two Michelins?

[Jess from VA]

What I've read pretty consistently, they handle well in all conditions, wear evenly and are good solid tires; they just don't last very long.  (Just like my undersized Michy Commander II fronts)

[msb]

I have been debating going CT  going on 6-7 years, always deciding to stay MC in the rear. I will probably try the Austone next tire change.... just because after all these years reading these threads I should try it at least once    Now... what is the primary  attraction of a larger tire in the front on a Valk... looks, traction, wear, matches up better with CT rear handling-wise,  combination of these,...?  And why bias? I get great mileage out of my Avon front tires, like the handling, and am not shy about  riding in wet weather and get decent traction in those conditions. I do like the look of fatter tires though.
An inquiring mind wants to know........

[Jess from VA]

I have been debating going CT  going on 6-7 years, always deciding to stay MC in the rear. I will probably try the Austone next tire change.... just because after all these years reading these threads I should try it at least once    Now... what is the primary  attraction of a larger tire in the front on a Valk... looks, traction, wear, matches up better with CT rear handling-wise,  combination of these,...?  And why bias? I get great mileage out of my Avon front tires, like the handling, and am not shy about  riding in wet weather and get decent traction in those conditions. I do like the look of fatter tires though.
An inquiring mind wants to know........

IIRC, some guys in Canada say they can't get past routine inspections with car tires.  If that was an issue, I think the Austone would have a better chance of passing than a 205 60.

The OE front is already a 150 (and I know of no larger on any bike; not taller, wider); the only way to go larger is to remove or fatten up the fender quite a bit, if that is even possible.  I think only one guy on here runs a 170, and no front fender.

What guys are doing is running a rear MC tire on front (usually reversed for water dispersal and cord stacking on hard braking) to get the much better tread depth on (new) rear MC tires.  I can't find it right now but rears may have 2/3 more tread depth than fronts, new.  And a good percentage of the available sizes that fit in front (maybe over half) are bias ply, not radials.  And of course the bias is always a bit cheaper than the radial in the same/similar sizes (for the bargain minded).

Just like the official DOT/tire industry word is that car tires are flaming death on motorcycles, most all authorities say you should not mix bias and radials on a bike either.  But the fact is, loads of guys have done so on the Valk, especially those running radial car tires on the back.  Neither have any documented flaming death, or any other real world problems related to the mix.  It may well be that on Gixxers (sport bikes) or track racers, problems might be revealed, but on the heavyweight cruiser Valk, this seems to work perfectly (with good rubber, air pressure, care).

I tried an Avon bias rear on front reversed, but in a 130, and did not like it.  I don't think it had much of anything to do with it being a bias ply, it was the rubber composition (slippery) and smaller size and weaker carcass I didn't like, and it didn't last but maybe 1K more miles than my usual Metzler 150 radial front (which never last over 8-9K for me).  I seem to recall a number of guys run an exactly correct 150 rear Dunlop bias (D 404??) on front and love it's handling and get great mileage too (and maybe that's a front tire, not a rear).

Copy/paste from some authority:
In general, radial tires offer lower temperatures (leading to longer life), stiffer construction, and the ability to have sidewalls with a lower aspect ratio, resulting in less flex. Bias-ply tires offer a softer, more compliant ride and, typically, a little lower price. Their other main advantage is load-carrying capability. In a given size, you’ll typically see a bias handle more weight. It explains why Harley (a big player in the heavy cruiser market) and certain touring bikes use them.


If you like your Cobra fronts for price, handling and miles, stick with them.  After some experimenting with two different tires on the front (trying for better miles but still great handling), I am now sticking with my Metzler 150 radials, low miles or not.

I assume you want to keep your front fender, so stick with a 150 up front.

[wiggydotcom]

I have been debating going CT  going on 6-7 years, always deciding to stay MC in the rear. I will probably try the Austone next tire change.... just because after all these years reading these threads I should try it at least once    Now... what is the primary  attraction of a larger tire in the front on a Valk... looks, traction, wear, matches up better with CT rear handling-wise,  combination of these,...?  And why bias? I get great mileage out of my Avon front tires, like the handling, and am not shy about  riding in wet weather and get decent traction in those conditions. I do like the look of fatter tires though.
An inquiring mind wants to know........

IIRC, some guys in Canada say they can't get past routine inspections with car tires.  If that was an issue, I think the Austone would have a better chance of passing than a 205 60.

The OE front is already a 150 (and I know of no larger on any bike; not taller, wider); the only way to go larger is to remove or fatten up the fender quite a bit, if that is even possible.  I think only one guy on here runs a 170, and no front fender.

What guys are doing is running a rear MC tire on front (usually reversed for water dispersal and cord stacking on hard braking) to get the much better tread depth on (new) rear MC tires.  I can't find it right now but rears may have 2/3 more tread depth than fronts, new.  And a good percentage of the available sizes that fit in front (maybe over half) are bias ply, not radials.  And of course the bias is always a bit cheaper than the radial in the same/similar sizes (for the bargain minded).

Just like the official DOT/tire industry word is that car tires are flaming death on motorcycles, most all authorities say you should not mix bias and radials on a bike either.  But the fact is, loads of guys have done so on the Valk, especially those running radial car tires on the back.  Neither have any documented flaming death, or any other real world problems related to the mix.  It may well be that on Gixxers (sport bikes) or track racers, problems might be revealed, but on the heavyweight cruiser Valk, this seems to work perfectly (with good rubber, air pressure, care).

I tried an Avon bias rear on front reversed, but in a 130, and did not like it.  I don't think it had much of anything to do with it being a bias ply, it was the rubber composition (slippery) and smaller size and weaker carcass I didn't like, and it didn't last but maybe 1K more miles than my usual Metzler 150 radial front (which never last over 8-9K for me).  I seem to recall a number of guys run an exactly correct 150 rear Dunlop bias (D 404??) on front and love it's handling and get great mileage too (and maybe that's a front tire, not a rear).

Copy/paste from some authority:
In general, radial tires offer lower temperatures (leading to longer life), stiffer construction, and the ability to have sidewalls with a lower aspect ratio, resulting in less flex. Bias-ply tires offer a softer, more compliant ride and, typically, a little lower price. Their other main advantage is load-carrying capability. In a given size, you’ll typically see a bias handle more weight. It explains why Harley (a big player in the heavy cruiser market) and certain touring bikes use them.


If you like your Cobra fronts for price, handling and miles, stick with them.  After some experimenting with two different tires on the front (trying for better miles but still great handling), I am now sticking with my Metzler 150 radials, low miles or not.

I assume you want to keep your front fender, so stick with a 150 up front.

Good write up, Jess. But I don't "think" a rear MC tire has 2/3 more tread than a front. That might have just come out wrong in your post. I "think" the correct assessment is that a rear mc tire has a couple 32nds more tread than the same front tire. I would be willing to measure my tread depth on the new BT45 if someone had the same measurement on a front BT45.

As far as size, I chose a rear Battlax with the same dimensions that my bike specifies for a front, so my setup shouldn't change too much.  Here again, I run an F6B, not a Valk any more.

I've never run a bias ply tire on a bike before but you are correct, they didn't have the size I needed in a radial but did in the bias.

The good thing about changing the tire myself with a Harbor Freight changer is that if I don't like the Battlax after a few thousand miles, I'm only out 114 bucks and will just switch to something else.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Rob, I just ordered the Battle BT45 rear tire to go on the front on my F6B. I just ordered it yesterday from Jake Wilson and darned if it didn't show up on my doorstep today. To top it off, Jake had the best price at $114 for a bias ply. It's hard to beat Jake Wilson for tires!

It will be a few days before I get it mounted. I am confident it will be a great tire. I'm just torn between mounting it in the forward or reverse direction.

I've been running the Michelin Pilot Activ on the front. This is my third now and I like them well. 2 of them I ran reversed, this last one I accidently didn't reverse it and was too lazy to take back off. No problems either way. It might be slightly noisier under braking non reversed . But it doesn't rain much here. I think reversed is the way to go for the best water distribution.

Thanks for that info. I'll mount it reversed then. The Michelin Pilot Active would have been my other choice for doube dark. I'm hearing I should get + 20k out of the Battlax. What kind of mileage did you get out of your first two Michelins?

Russ, I've been getting 18-20k out of them. Some guys seem to get a lot more, but I think compared to the 11-12k I got out of regular fronts I'm happy.

[Hook#3287]

Good write up, Jess. But I don't "think" a rear MC tire has 2/3 more tread than a front. That might have just come out wrong in your post. I "think" the correct assessment is that a rear mc tire has a couple 32nds more tread than the same front tire. I would be willing to measure my tread depth on the new BT45 if someone had the same measurement on a front BT45.

Taken from Dunlop's D404 web site.

D404 FRONT   150/80-17      tread depth 5/32   

D404 REAR   130/90-17      tread depth 9/32

The rear tire is almost twice the depth, or 80% deeper than the front.   

I didn't check any other tire company.

[msb]

OK, all my questions are answered...thx. I guess in a year or two when I retire, I  might think differently about trying to save a few bucks on rubber. Now it's just more the intreague that will make me try the CT in the rear. Will leave the front as is. 
Jess, I've never heard about the issue of inspection not allowing CT's... must be an Ontario or Quebec thing...  I  never had to run the Valk through inspection even when we had them (then it was just for emissions) ... which we no longer do in BC.  

[RDKLL]

Has anybody used this tire up front ? Any opinions ?

Meathead, I am using that tire up front in a 170/60-17 variety...handels great, no issues.  Not much experience in the rain and I think you will have the same rain experience being in AZ.

[wiggydotcom]

Good write up, Jess. But I don't "think" a rear MC tire has 2/3 more tread than a front. That might have just come out wrong in your post. I "think" the correct assessment is that a rear mc tire has a couple 32nds more tread than the same front tire. I would be willing to measure my tread depth on the new BT45 if someone had the same measurement on a front BT45.

Taken from Dunlop's D404 web site.

D404 FRONT   150/80-17      tread depth 5/32   

D404 REAR   130/90-17      tread depth 9/32

The rear tire is almost twice the depth, or 80% deeper than the front.   

I didn't check any other tire company.

Thanks, Hook. I stand corrected-and it wouldn't be the first time. Apologies to Jess!

[..]

I have been debating going CT  going on 6-7 years, always deciding to stay MC in the rear. I will probably try the Austone next tire change.... just because after all these years reading these threads I should try it at least once    Now... what is the primary  attraction of a larger tire in the front on a Valk... looks, traction, wear, matches up better with CT rear handling-wise,  combination of these,...?  And why bias? I get great mileage out of my Avon front tires, like the handling, and am not shy about  riding in wet weather and get decent traction in those conditions. I do like the look of fatter tires though.
An inquiring mind wants to know........

Another rear daRkside option is the Champiro VP
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1-NEW-GT-Radial-Champiro-VP1-205-60R16-92H-BSW-/222383909320?fits=Section+Width%3A205%7CAspect+Ratio%3A60%7CRim+Diameter%3A16&hash=item33c71d29c8:g:G~IAAOSwNnRYgivX&vxp=mtr

[Hook#3287]

I have been debating going CT  going on 6-7 years, always deciding to stay MC in the rear. I will probably try the Austone next tire change.... just because after all these years reading these threads I should try it at least once    Now... what is the primary  attraction of a larger tire in the front on a Valk... looks, traction, wear, matches up better with CT rear handling-wise,  combination of these,...?  And why bias? I get great mileage out of my Avon front tires, like the handling, and am not shy about  riding in wet weather and get decent traction in those conditions. I do like the look of fatter tires though.
An inquiring mind wants to know........

Another rear daRkside option is the Champiro VP
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1-NEW-GT-Radial-Champiro-VP1-205-60R16-92H-BSW-/222383909320?fits=Section+Width%3A205%7CAspect+Ratio%3A60%7CRim+Diameter%3A16&hash=item33c71d29c8:g:G~IAAOSwNnRYgivX&vxp=mtr

Paul, you're presently running this tire, right?

What are your feelings on it?

It looks like a good option.

[..]

I have been debating going CT  going on 6-7 years, always deciding to stay MC in the rear. I will probably try the Austone next tire change.... just because after all these years reading these threads I should try it at least once    Now... what is the primary  attraction of a larger tire in the front on a Valk... looks, traction, wear, matches up better with CT rear handling-wise,  combination of these,...?  And why bias? I get great mileage out of my Avon front tires, like the handling, and am not shy about  riding in wet weather and get decent traction in those conditions. I do like the look of fatter tires though.
An inquiring mind wants to know........

Another rear daRkside option is the Champiro VP
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1-NEW-GT-Radial-Champiro-VP1-205-60R16-92H-BSW-/222383909320?fits=Section+Width%3A205%7CAspect+Ratio%3A60%7CRim+Diameter%3A16&hash=item33c71d29c8:g:G~IAAOSwNnRYgivX&vxp=mtr

Paul, you're presently running this tire, right?

What are your feelings on it?

It looks like a good option.

2 thumbs up. Just over 6,000 happy miles.

[Jess from VA]

Good write up, Jess. But I don't "think" a rear MC tire has 2/3 more tread than a front. That might have just come out wrong in your post. I "think" the correct assessment is that a rear mc tire has a couple 32nds more tread than the same front tire. I would be willing to measure my tread depth on the new BT45 if someone had the same measurement on a front BT45.

Taken from Dunlop's D404 web site.

D404 FRONT   150/80-17      tread depth 5/32   

D404 REAR   130/90-17      tread depth 9/32

The rear tire is almost twice the depth, or 80% deeper than the front.   

I didn't check any other tire company.

Thanks, Hook. I stand corrected-and it wouldn't be the first time. Apologies to Jess!

No need to apologize Russ.   I knew that rears had a lot more tread (and they do) than fronts.  But 2/3 more depth is still wrong.  

I believe this is still an bit of an indictment of the bike tire makers..... why do front MC tires have so little tread to them in the first place????   If they didn't, we wouldn't be experimenting with rears on front (in bias or radial), or having this conversation.  

And FWIW, my experiment with a 130 bias rear (Avon Roadrider) on front was.... that extra depth only got me a thousand more miles...... nowhere near enough to justify the other bad attributes of that particular tire.  (When I said it was slippery (above), it was for the first 2-300 miles in any weather, and in any wet weather the whole life of the tire).  It was like having a fun governor on the bike, not for mostly straight and level riding, but all the time in the twisties.  

[The emperor has no clothes]

Has anybody used this tire up front ? Any opinions ?

Meathead, I am using that tire up front in a 170/60-17 variety...handels great, no issues.  Not much experience in the rain and I think you will have the same rain experience being in AZ.

Thanks, Tony. I remember seeing your tire in Prescott now. 

[MarkT]

The Dunlop K491 was 11/32 depth. It was replaced by the D404.  I got 23kmiles out of the K491.   I have a fresh BT-45 rear out in the barn; I'll go check it - it's 9/32.  The typical MC front tire has 5-6/32 tread depth.

I've been running the Batlax bias ply BT45 rear on the front of my wing and Deerslayer for years, and on Jade since I got it almost 2 years ago.  Run the tire reversed at 38# - bit softer ride.  I use the 130 wide for lighter steering. It's 17/90-130. In back, I run the radial Austone on Jade, a radial Vredestein 205/60-16 on Deerslayer, and a radial Cobra on the wing. There are no negative handling issues other than the usual DS behavior on the Vredestein, I can detect. The Austone replaced a pricey Michelin 205/60 snow/ice tire which had bump steer issues for me.  On the BT45, speedo error about the same as always. Last one ran about 20k. I don't think water displacement is an issue at all on a rounded motorcycle tire.  They part even deep water like the prow of a boat regardless of tread pattern.  I once hit what I thought was a long puddle at 65 - it was actually 13in deep. It was like sitting in a geyser - but the bike went through it with no loss of control; no hydroplaning. Once the sea is parted by the front tire, don't think even a CT will hydroplane in deep water at speed. JMHO I'm not going to hit another long foot-deep road wash at high speed to prove it.

[wiggydotcom]

Mark and Jess,

I looked up the tread depth on the BT45 and it was listed as 9/32nds rear and 6/32nds front. I agree, Jess. 6/32 doesn't sound like much of a tread depth.

As a side note, I have 13k on my stock Bridgestone that came with the F6B and could probably get another thou out of it but IZ is coming up so it's time to shuck it. Thanks to all who've chimed in, i'll feel confident running it in reverse direction now.

[MarkT]

Good write up, Jess. But I don't "think" a rear MC tire has 2/3 more tread than a front. That might have just come out wrong in your post. I "think" the correct assessment is that a rear mc tire has a couple 32nds more tread than the same front tire. I would be willing to measure my tread depth on the new BT45 if someone had the same measurement on a front BT45.

Taken from Dunlop's D404 web site.

D404 FRONT   150/80-17      tread depth 5/32   

D404 REAR   130/90-17      tread depth 9/32

The rear tire is almost twice the depth, or 80% deeper than the front.   

I didn't check any other tire company.

Thanks, Hook. I stand corrected-and it wouldn't be the first time. Apologies to Jess!

No need to apologize Russ.   I knew that rears had a lot more tread (and they do) than fronts.  But 2/3 more depth is still wrong.  

I believe this is still an bit of an indictment of the bike tire makers..... why do front MC tires have so little tread to them in the first place????   If they didn't, we wouldn't be experimenting with rears on front (in bias or radial), or having this conversation.  

And FWIW, my experiment with a 130 bias rear (Avon Roadrider) on front was.... that extra depth only got me a thousand more miles...... nowhere near enough to justify the other bad attributes of that particular tire.  (When I said it was slippery (above), it was for the first 2-300 miles in any weather, and in any wet weather the whole life of the tire).  It was like having a fun governor on the bike, not for mostly straight and level riding, but all the time in the twisties.  

I tried a RoadRider on the front of the wing.  Wasn't impressed.  Took it off when it went flat with most of it's tread intact.  However the rubber stem was probably the culprit.  It's gone now too.