Michelin Commander II Question

Joesmoe said:

is there a substitute tire for the Touring that will be better handling that will keep ABS happy ?

Click to expand...

Define Handling!.

A narrow low profile tyre will give you quick precise cornering but will require better suspension as the tyre will flex less, thus not absorbing mini-bumps. They are also less forgiving if you mess up. Go too far and a steering damper mey become a requirement. Scott was maching the Falcon to fit a Radial Damper - but the Falcon is rather special at 450bhp.

Wider high profile are far more forgiving when Mr F*ck Up comes to visit but because they flex more the steering is less precise. It is however much less fidgety (in general).

Also (iirc) a radial tyre footprint widens and shortens when compressed whereas a Bias tyre footprint lengthens and slims. You need to know where you want stability. If banked over - probably radial. If on big bumps straight line (gravel/dirt roads) more likely Bias.

On "T"s I'd suggest starting by doing something with the forks. Unlike the USD's on standards there are Cartridge emulators available. made by RaceTech in the US. USD 115 on US Amazon.



My local suspension guy was testing them - They are NOT going to replace a new bespoke set of cartridges - but improved hydraulics of the Yamaha he was testing on.

I'd suggest you do NOT leap down the tyre size table - but try step by step. So if you have a 150 now - go to a 140 and maybe drop a profile - I'd be reluctant to go UP a profile - but because I premium cornering.

I really thank you for trying get that to this slower boy from Alabama . . . just a bit over my head.

I just know on my 2014 Honda CTX700D I just got my first new front tire (a little over 8,000 miles) - they put on a Michelin Pilot, and oh what a positive difference that made in handling (not the precision terms you stated). The bike seems much more "sure footed" which translates to greater confidence and enjoyment for me when I ride it.

I'm hoping changes to the Rocket will have a similar improvement -- ultimately in my comfort level on the bike.

I get the basic message - go easy on the tires and look at the suspension.

Might you be a little more specific: "try step by step. So if you have a 150 now - go to a 140 and maybe drop a profile" -- what does that mean ?

And cartridges - different springs - I know you proudly told us about new cartridges you will install - might you provide a "bang-for-the buck", or low-hanging fruit list (however short that might be) ?

Thank you !

Joesmoe said:

Might you be a little more specific: "try step by step. So if you have a 150 now - go to a 140 and maybe drop a profile" -- what does that mean ?

Click to expand...

OK so a T has a 150/80R16 standard right? - a 140/80 would reduce circ by 2.5% but I can't see one in 16".
So maybe keep to 150 and drop to 70 profile - a 4.6% reduction. This would be fine as long as you don't mess with the rear much. But again I can't see one.
A 140/70 will kill the ABS at 6.8%.

Play on here Tire Size Calculator - Compare Tire Sizes | Tacoma World with sizes then see if they're commercially available. It's how I found the Azarro originally.

A precursory look suggests though you may need to consider the 130/90. They're all BIAS though.
Go for the highest Speed rating you can find. A plus with Higher profile tyres is they generally have higher load ratings too.
They'd ease the suspension deficits.
If you fit a bias front search for a bias rear.

Thank you for taking the time to explain this (and many others). I just quoted your description of power consumed vs. light output for LEDs under Rocket Resources.

Joe,
I have been planning on posting a review after several more thousands of miles.
But dont mind recommending the tires now.
I'm no tire guru, and can only talk about my experience.
I've used commander IIs and Dunlop's on my full dresser and liked them both.
I never liked radials on a heavy bike. The R3T in particular felt like sidewall flex made it wallow in curves at speed.
I'm pretty sure upgrading the suspension would solve it, but that's pretty costly.
Anyway leaned over dragging the boards at speed feels MUCH more stable 'to me' with bias than the radials ever felt.
Tip in at slower speeds feels a bit slower to start, then drops pretty fast. Probably the difference in using a rear tire on the front.

Both the commanders and the Dunlop's use a dual compound design to extend mileage. The center compound is harder therefore will sacrifice some grip when braking and accelerating in exchange for considerably longer tire life.

Depending on what you want out of your tires; they can be a very good option.

i may be wrong but i would think that if the margin of error was 3 % that is taking account of the difference of both tires. therefore u could not add 3% and 3% to get a total of 6%.

TURBO200R4 said:

did anybody ever think that when the arrow is on the bottom it points to the rear and when it is on top it points to the front

Click to expand...

Yes, first time I saw one.

This has been an interesting discussion. I'm drawn by the argument for bias-ply tires.

So the Michelin Commander II comes in a bias-ply rear tire that would fit the front of the Touring.

Looking for a mate in the 180/70 size for the rear of the Touring, one finds their (Michelin) Scorcher 32 in the lineup with a suitable load rating.

Mind you, riding east of the Mississippi, I've lost my appetite for speed on public roads, so an 'H' speed rating is o.k. with me.

Your thoughts ?

The Commander ll 180/65 /16 compliments the 130/90/16 front well

I run the 130/90/16 on the front of my R3T with great results. I have pics of the front and rear on my profile page. Or check Michelin Commander II update thread below.