tires



12 replies to this topic
  • mightybuck400

Posted October 03, 2001 - 10:21 PM

#1

I need some new rubber and was wondering what what brand some of you are using? I do mostly trail riding in central Jersey. I have a dunlop 752, and I think its too slippery. Any suggestions?

  • john.hilton@cape.k12.de.u

Posted October 04, 2001 - 01:29 AM

#2

Hey, I live in DE and I ride mostly in MD, PA, and NJ. Are the conditions sandy where you ride? If so, I would highly recommend the Bridgestone M26 rear tire. I haven't tried one on my 426 yet, but it worked GREAT on my KX 250. Also, it didn't seem to wear out any faster than other tires that I have used, even at Tower City, which is an area that eats rear tires. Actually, my 01' 426 is needing a new rear tire now too, I'm probably going to go with the M26.
John

  • Guest_Guest_*

Posted October 04, 2001 - 03:18 AM

#3

I live in central Florida. We are sand people here. The tires of choice (if you have a 19" rear) are Bridgestone M26 rear and Michelin S12 front. Where we don't have sugar sand we have bottomless mud and they are sweet there too. The Michelin Starcross rear works good too. If you have an 18" rear and like the Dunlop 752, try the Kenda Trackmaster. It is exactly the same pattern but a much harder rubber and it lasts forever and costs about 40 bucks. Only downside is stiff bead when mounting.

  • flyinguitars

Posted October 04, 2001 - 03:32 AM

#4

I live and ride in NJ too. I usually ride the track at NJORVP in Chattsworth or trails in wharton forest. I am using the dunlop 756s on the front and back. I noticed a difference immediately…the back seems to bite in when riding the softer stuff..traction was greatly improved compared to the stock 739s.
Mike

  • Guest_Guest_*

Posted October 04, 2001 - 05:12 AM

#5

Maybe your sand is different than ours. 756's are junk. They just don't bite. Dunlop makes the fastest wearing tires of any major brand I ever used. They round off too quickly.

  • flyinguitars

Posted October 04, 2001 - 07:26 AM

#6

Frankly,
Maybe my 756s are different than yours...I say do bite-in in the soft stuff...I also said thay were an improvement compared to the stock 739s. Mine have about 25-30 hours with no real signs of wear...Im very happy with their performance.

Visit the ThumperTalk Store for the lowest prices on motorcycle / ATV parts and accessories - Guaranteed
  • Guest_Guest_*

Posted October 04, 2001 - 08:24 AM

#7

Hey, no offense was meant, if you have mixed conditions sand/hardpack it probably works better. All we have in this part of Fl. is sand/mud. The M26 I use is also somewhat prone to wearing quickly, just not as fast as the Dunlops. If you have pure sand conditions and a 19" rear wheel try the M26 and you will be all smiles.

  • Guest_Guest_*

Posted October 04, 2001 - 09:21 PM

#8

Michelin
M-12 front
S-12 rear
awesome combo
great all 'round
I tried the S-12 front and ok but little washy on hard pack
I tried the M-12 rear and like an ice skate when stopping (on everything) p.o.s.
this m12/s12 seems to be the ticket

check into the mich. BIB bucks program i have posted b4
or get a hold of mich. and ask them if it is avail in ur area.
1st........$50
2nd.......$40
etc etc etc
FREE TIRES BASICALLY!
go MICHelin

------------------
Nope BOY, That's not THUNDER ridin your butt, It is a whole damn HURRICANE!!!!G4

  • Glen_T

Posted October 04, 2001 - 10:09 AM

#9

I'm running 756's in California. Our terrain is very intermediate. They were a vast improvement over the 739's and the rear seems to bite on corners even when it begins to look slick! Wear has been good as well. I'm wondering if anyone is using a Dunlop K490/695 combo. I've used it before on other bikes and have had excellent success. The front k490 sticks like glue. Anyone try these two on their YZ for comparison yet?

GLEN

  • Boit

Posted October 04, 2001 - 03:20 PM

#10

I've also been very disappointed with the stock 739's. I opted for 756's front and rear replacements and have been pretty happy so far. I noticed that nobody mentioned the 755's. I have a set ready to mount soon and expect these tires to perform even better in our loamy/sandy soil. Our tracks don't have enough hard pack to opt for a true hard terrain tread so we lean towards a soft to soft/intermediate. Thanks for the info and opinions.

  • Hick

Posted October 04, 2001 - 03:59 PM

#11

I like my 756, it definitely lasts longer that any tire I’ve used recently (except the Desert AT). I haven’t tried a Michelin in a while though. M26, huh? Is that a new model?

IMO if you want traction in sand running a 120 mm sized tire (130 Michelin?) helps more than switching from any one tread design to another. I usually run 120/90-19 Dunlops, either a 756 or 752 and the 739 AT for races (almost flat-proof).

I recently noted the difference anew when I went from the stock (110 mm) 739 that came on my ’01 YZ to a 120 mm 739AT, basically identical tread, and a stiffer sidewall, but it hooked up much, much better than the stocker. I dunno, maybe the bigger size makes berm shots harder, I’ve never been on a track, but I wonder otherwise why you don’t see more of the larger sizes, especially in muddy and sandy areas (and tracks).

The best pure sand tire I’ve tried is the Dunlop 752, I wanted to try the 755 too, but I couldn’t find that model in the larger size. I love the 752 in sand, but it isn’t as durable as the 756. I think it wears a little faster and also tends to start chunking knobs off (front AND rear do this) after a while, especially in rocks or hard pack.

It looks like I’m just helping to hijack mightybuck’s post and turn it into a sand tire debate. Mightybuck, post what kind of terrain you ride in up there and you can have your post back. :)

  • mcarp

Posted October 05, 2001 - 07:06 PM

#12

I tried the 756's and they don't compare to Michelin.

Some combo's to think about.
Mich S12 front and M12 rear
S12 front, S12 rear
S12 front, D755 rear
M12 front, S12 rear.

Note, that last post about the S12 is right--it's a little skaty on hard pack. Not terrible, you see...just not as good as maybe a 739 or 756 would be on hard pack. In the loose stuff-sand/loam/mud it can't be beat, IMHO. Washouts in slippery/loose terrain are minimal with the S12 front Posted Image

I felt the 756's were a big improvement over stock, yet tended to loose traction at unexpected times. they also wore quickly-even the front.

Also I agree regarding Dunlop wear. The 755 intermediate terrain wore much faster (like 2X) than a soft terrain michelin on the rear!
I'm riding in Ohio with some WVA too... soil-similar to TC (just rode there this summer) just with fewer and less jagged rocks, and perhaps slightly more clay content to keep wet off-camber areas "interesting".
In the medium-packed sand, the S12 works great too. I suck at riding very loose sand, like southern NJ type sand (I'm originally from central NJ).

BTW, tire sizing seems to be different from brand to brand and type to type. My D755 110/100-18 seems sooo much wider than a similar sized kenda/michelin/IRC. Dunno why. Apparently the metric system is not shared by tire companies! Look at the new tire and compare to actual stock width (not just what the sidewall says) before blindly ordering by size. Weird but true.

  • nozzlejockey

Posted October 13, 2001 - 07:52 PM

#13

I live and race in oregon. I used 755's front and rear through the summer and was pleased with their performance. They are a definte improvement over the stock 739's. I have noticed they wear fairly fast. I am going to try a 756 in the back and leave the 755 in front, it looks like the 756 has better lugs on the side and with the oregon rain coming they may work.
Later-The fireman





Related Content

 
x

Join Our Community!

Even if you don't want to post, registered members get access to tools that make finding & following the good stuff easier.

If you enjoyed reading about "" here in the ThumperTalk archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join ThumperTalk today!

The views and opinions expressed on this page are strictly those of the author, and have not been reviewed or approved by ThumperTalk.