Surprising Wear on ContiGo tire

[m_stock10506]

I am surprised by the very fast wear I'm experiencing on a ContiGo rear tire. I've got two Airheads, an R60/6 and an R100. The R100 has a ContiGo in size 110/90x18 61H, my dealer got this for me instead of the 4.00x18 that I requested. The R60/6 has a 4.00x18 64H. I ride both bikes on the same roads and in the same style. I keep the rear tire pressure at around 36-38 PSI. If you look at the attached photo you'll see that the R100 tire (right side) is much more worn than the R60/6 tire. But, the R100 tire has only 2,500 miles while the R60 rear has 3,600 miles. Any thoughts on why this might be?

 

[amiles]

Are both tires made in the same country within a reasonably close manufacturing date? Perhaps if either are not close it's possible the formulation may be different?

 

[darryl cainey]

low tire pressure

go by the tire reccomendations not the bike.

 

[20774]

36-38 seems reasonable for a rear tire pressure.

There is a difference in power to the rear wheel on the two bikes...you might not be conscious of it, but I suspect that you're just getting more micro-sliding of the R100 tire...plus the R100 weighs a bit more so that means the tire has more force on it...friction is directly related to the normal force on the tire.

 

[bikerfish1100]

kurt- wouldn't the greater weight of the R100 mitigate against tire slippage from its increased power?

personally, i don't think that it is either weight or slippage going on, as tire slippage from excessive power (really, too much power from a stock airhead? all 62 hp of it?) would show up as wear in the center of the tire, not on just the right side. and, exact same for extra weight of the bike- that load is generally centered, so that is where the wear would be seen.
unless of course the OP spends an inordinate amount of time taking right hand turns, and exiting under very hard throttle.

 

[20774]

kurt- wouldn't the greater weight of the R100 mitigate against tire slippage from its increased power?

Could be... ... they might offset each other...hard to tell. Another thing to factor in might be the final drive ratio?? The R100 is probably pretty tall...although that tends to work better getting top end speed at the expense of jack rabbit starting.

I couldn't tell from the pictures if there was off center wear. But is there much difference in 2500 and 3600 miles? I'd be more concerned if it was say 2500 and 5000 miles.

 

[m_stock10506]

Lot's of interesting comments so far...

Both tires "Made in Korea." The R60 tire, the better one, was manufactured in 2007 - the R100 tire was made in 2009.

There's not much difference in weight between the two Airheads, less than 20 pounds diff. The R100 is heavier - probably the snowflake wheels.

Both bikes are ridden the same, mostly on the same roads, same typical route. The R100 tire, the worn one, is noticably squared off in the center - the center sipes are almost worn off. The R60/6 tire still has a very round profile.

I ride both these bikes on back roads, not highways, in a spirited manner. Before these ContiGo tires I was running Michelin Macadam 50 tires. Last rear tire on these bikes: R60/6 - 6,100 miles, R100 - 4,650 miles.

 

[helmut_head]

Possibility:

They may cost optimize at the manufacturer after the product gets a good reputation. Normal for the automotive industry. ....

Save the rubber tree.

 

[nickrides]

I'm running these same tires on my 1978 R80/7 front and rear. I am experiencing short life from the rear.
The front tire looks almost new.
After 2000 miles of back roads the rear looks like it may only go another 1000 -1200 miles. These were manufactured at the end of 2010, also in Korea.
While checking the manufacture date I dug my fingernail in the sidewall just for fun and tried to scratch it. It was VERY soft, compared to the Metzeler tire on my K75.

It's too bad about the short life because I really like these tires, They handle great and the bike can flick back and forth with ease. Before these I also ran the Michelin Macadam 50's. That set ran about 5700 miles.

I think the short life is due to a very soft rubber compound.

 

[m_stock10506]

Thanks Nick, looks like your experience is similar to mine. What size tire are you using?

What's the Michelin replacement for the Macadam 50 tire?

 

[35634]

They may cost optimize at the manufacturer after the product gets a good reputation.

That is an unsettling concept

 

[nickrides]

Micheal
On the rear I've got a 120/90 -18 65V...And its slightly too wide. After I had these mounted up, the clearance was close but there was a space in there. After 500 or so miles the tire started to touch the driveshaft housing and [ please don't flame on me too much guys!] I stopped at a cabinet shop and belt sanded off some of the tire ridge on the right side. That ridge looked like it was easily 7/16th -9/16th thick so it didn't concern me.
My old Macadam 50's were this same size and they fit fine their whole life.

I think the replacement for the Macadam 50 is the Michelin PILOT ACTIV and these come in the proper Airhead sizes.
I may go this route soon and I wonder for the rear if I should get the slightly wider 120/90-18 or the stock 4.00-18. I like the looks of the slightly wider tire, but I also want it to fit .

 

[doktortim]

I put a ContiGo on the rear of my RS 2 years ago. When I get it out at the end of the month I will post a pic and check my notes for miles. Guessing some 3k, but will verify that when I find my maintenance log.

 

[helmut_head]

Continental has become a very big player in the entire automotive industry selling every component imaginable such as sensors, tires, fuel systems, high pressure fuel pumps, turbochargers, brakes, wiper systems....just all sorts of stuff. With them buying up suppliers to provide these items, I'll betcha management is cost optimizing everything to pay for what they've just purchased. Lord knows how they might cheapen the tires through it all. I bet the tire business is one of the few profitable areas they now have and its payting for alot of newly purchased component divisions.