The latest on Dunlop 745 or 952
Posted May 04, 2008 - 11:05 PM
Posted May 05, 2008 - 02:59 PM
Posted May 05, 2008 - 05:10 PM
Posted May 05, 2008 - 06:51 PM
Posted May 06, 2008 - 08:19 AM
Posted May 06, 2008 - 12:06 PM
o the not for highway use easy fix
use a dremel and take it off
if it dont say DOT and it dont say no highway
how can they tell you its not
Posted May 07, 2008 - 11:55 AM
What are your riding conditions with the 756. Do you do hard rocky trails?? I dont know what Virginia dirt looks or tastes like!!?!! Thanks, Jason
Posted May 08, 2008 - 01:43 PM
The 742FA was a big disappointment. It's great in loamy mid soft stuff, but definitely not on hard pack, and surprisingly bad in sand and deep gravel.
I run a Dunlop 755 as a desert tire and I find I like it a lot. I had it at a local MX track recently that has a lot of dry, dusted over hard pack in it, and it did unexpectedly well there, too.
Posted May 09, 2008 - 05:58 PM
I am pretty sure of the 952 but I have a friend who says he likes the 745. I was hoping someone on Thumper would verify his satisfaction or a diapproval for what ever reason on the 745. Outside of that I am sold on the 952!!!??? Thanks, Jason
Posted May 09, 2008 - 08:42 PM
Posted May 11, 2008 - 12:52 PM
Posted May 12, 2008 - 06:02 AM
I just put a 952 on the front and it handles perfectly; night and day difference.
I also have a 952 on the rear. I think these are the premier do it all tires. The bike really feels like it tracks perfectly.
I ride in sand, mud/roots good, lots of rocks and pea gravel roads occasionally. It handles all of this stuff predictably. I'm pretty fussy about my tires too.
I have tried Maxxis IT deserts on my XR600 and I'm not impressed and it was a complete whore to put them on - 6ply. Im just gonna cut them off to change them:busted:
Posted May 12, 2008 - 04:31 PM
Posted May 12, 2008 - 05:39 PM
I carefully remove the NOT it's been looked at a few times, I've never been question, nobody seems to know the difference
Posted May 12, 2008 - 09:38 PM
Posted May 13, 2008 - 08:39 AM
Haven't used a 745 rear, and you really should try a 952 in 110/90 before you decide you don't like it.
What do you think of the 745's sizing 120/80/19 as opposed to the stock size 110/90/19? I tried a 120/90/19 952 and didnt like it. Maybe I would have liked it in the stock size? I like the 756, but it does where out fast. I'm considering a 745 when my 756 wears out.
The 745 in 120/80 should weigh about the same as a 110/90, and be roughly the same height. In theory, it's only 10mm wider, so that shouldn't be a factor.
The 745 is intended as a tire for intermediate to hard soils, and by the look of it, I wouldn't think it would work as well in mud or sand as a 952 does. 952's were meant to work well over a wide range of soil types and to wear very well. It does a great job of both, IMO.
Posted May 13, 2008 - 08:49 PM
Posted May 14, 2008 - 05:51 AM
I don't know about rubber compound, per se, but I do know that a lot of people confuse the target soil type designation (hard, soft, etc.) with a description of compounds. The rubber used in tire construction, especially in high grade tires is a fairly complex thing sometimes. Quite often a hard terrain tire will use a soft compound to gain traction on hard surfaces, where it must stick to the ground, rather than dig into it. Soft tires are likely to use harder rubber to help force the knobs into the soil surface for a better bite. It is the tread design that primarily dictates in what kind of soil the tire will work best.
That said, my guess would be that the 745 uses softer rubber than the 952, based on it being a intermediate/hard tire. The 952 wears extremely well, so that tells me it's harder, yet it works well on hard pack.