martym52
Supercharged
Dry weight 2005 Rocket lll 705 lbs., Roadster ABS 809 is what I'm finding. Touring 870 lbs. The specs seem to vary according to model and source.
OldNorthState
"Doc" in a small part of the world.
...and I've read from a couple of different now-forgotten but seemingly credible sources that the R3T is likely 30 - 40 #'s heavier than the listed "870 lbs".
My own '14 R3T (purchased new in '15) is now right at 8 thousand miles with the original Metz's. I've been meticulous with the suggested air pressures and am a conservative rider, not hard-torqueing on starts, no routine hard cornering, which an R3T isn't made for anyway), and though I LOVE this Trumpet, I have to say the tire wear - particularly on the front - is abysmally poor. I've never owned any machine that didn't typically get 1.15 to 1.5 X the wear out of a front tire over that of the rear... yet here, that formula seems reversed. Factoring in my intentionally VERY light acceleration to save rear tire wear, my front Metz appears that it won't go but perhaps another 1k at best, and the rear maybe that plus a tiny bit more. Of course there are folks here that will say I've gotten "good" tire mileage at these figures, but I suspect it's because they ride harder than I do in acceleration and cornering. Most bikes I've owned, even the cruisers, might typically get 12 or 13 k on a front with my riding style. In my best cases recalled, I think I pulled something near 12k on one particular Dunlop rear on my '96 Honda ACE 1100 (still have the bike; bought new in '96... great bike of the mid-weight cruiser class, but even these 1100 V twins produce enough low end torque to really "work" on rear treads if you're romping on 'em constantly, which I do not, typically), and almost 15 k on one particular Dunlop front. That bike uses classic spoked rims w/tubed tires, of course, bias ply. I've had other bikes produce similar tire wear results to these "bests", also. (Yes, I realize those machines are lighter than the R3T, but I still do not "buy" the excuses for the poor tire performance of these OE Metzlers on the R3T.)
To sum up, I've never seen a front tire wear out as quickly and oddly as has the R3T's Metzler, and the rear isn't doing much better. I say "oddly", as these Metz's may use a staged tread hardness design, where the cornering part of the tread is softer than the "straight line riding" middle part. There's a definite squared-edge center "stripe" of tread on the Metz front that's wearing - albeit still too quickly - a bit more slowly than the canted (cornering) part of the radius, and it's very obvious when looking at it. All this being said, I don't care anything about supporting Triumph dealerships in such lavish fashion (high dollar tires every year or more, potentially, and they also want nearly $200 for a flamin' oil change. I've NEVER had these kinds of routine maintenance costs with any other bikes I've owned. I did my own oil changes (usually) on my other machines, but the big Trumpet, here, is a bit more of a "different deal" on that, with the weight, low clearance, etc., so I had the dealership do my first scheduled change. Also, did I mention, "I DON'T LIKE THESE TIRES!" ? LOL......
(UPDATE: re-looking at the front tire, I'm not sure it's going to make another 1 thousand safely. All of my griping aside, however, let me repeat: I really do love just about everything else, thus far, about my R3T, and bought it with the thought that it would be my "last" bike.... big, powerful, heavy, solid, durable, comfortable and should last for the rest of my "riding days", hopefully. Though not "old", I'm almost 63, and I can't see myself needing or wanting to handle anything any more stout than "The Kraken", here... lol....)
Last edited:
OldNorthState
"Doc" in a small part of the world.
Let's see, here... my brain's in an a.m. fog... is there much "visual" difference in the 180/65 vs. the OE 180/70?
mport
.060 Over
I measured before and after I switched to the Michelin Commander 180/65-16 from a Bridgestone Exedra max 180/70-16. The difference was less than 1/8 inch in height.
I run the 130/90-16 on the front and it has over 9000 miles with very little wear. I just mounted my 2nd Commander II on the rear. I have pics of both on my media page.
I run the 130/90-16 on the front and it has over 9000 miles with very little wear. I just mounted my 2nd Commander II on the rear. I have pics of both on my media page.
OldNorthState
"Doc" in a small part of the world.
What sort of difference did you notice in RPM's at speed? (slight, probably, but is it apparent?)
Also, what about speedo variation?
Jag
Living Legend
I just switched to commander ll's and the tires are excellent, but if you have abs brakes that front tire size will not work. I also had terrible cupping on the front tire and I always check tire pressure before every ride.
For the rear 180/65/16 it will correct your speedometer.
For the rear 180/65/16 it will correct your speedometer.
I have Avon Cobras front and rear and while there is sufficient tread, they are 4 years old and seem a bit loose on bumps and uneven surface. They seem OK at speed in turns. I've always used Metz and think they handle great, until they wear out. My dealer recommended Excedra Max for the rear but Dunlop for the front. I could go with the Bridestone but what's the best handling front? I don't put a lot of miles on but I like good handling.
Jag
Living Legend
Send @TriumPhil a message I believe him and several other with your model bike are running a Michelin commander ll front and love them. I'm just not sure what size?
Bedifferent
Old man on a bike
I'm on my first full tire change and decided on the Exedra Max front and rear because of the V rating. Whether true or not, I think a V rating means a tougher tire. I had 7k on the rear Metz and changed it out because I was going on a trip and didn't want to stretch it. I don't do worn tires! I had 10K on the front Metz and decided it was time swap out the front tire. The tire didn't appear that bad on the bike but I wasn't impress with the wear pattern after I saw it off the bike. I'm glad I swapped it out.
The Max felt really gummy before I put them on, so I hoping the claims of better wet grip will be the case. I'm figuring I will still be doing the tire changes at around 8K and 10k as its just the price of riding a Rocket. 3k on the rear Max and it looks good with only a couple hundred so far on the front Max. The only thing is.....it looks like it will be hard to tell how much wear I have left on the rear Max as the center of the tire doesn't have a tread grooved. The only grooves are left and right of center.
So far I have been happy with the ride, handling and grip. The bike does feel a little heavier from a handling perspective on the straight, but seems to corner well and rolls over easy in a slow turn. It could be I just don't remember how it handled last summer. I know a lot of people have found other tires they like, but I think I'll be staying with the Bridgestone Excedra Max unless they give me a reason to switch.
The Max felt really gummy before I put them on, so I hoping the claims of better wet grip will be the case. I'm figuring I will still be doing the tire changes at around 8K and 10k as its just the price of riding a Rocket. 3k on the rear Max and it looks good with only a couple hundred so far on the front Max. The only thing is.....it looks like it will be hard to tell how much wear I have left on the rear Max as the center of the tire doesn't have a tread grooved. The only grooves are left and right of center.
So far I have been happy with the ride, handling and grip. The bike does feel a little heavier from a handling perspective on the straight, but seems to corner well and rolls over easy in a slow turn. It could be I just don't remember how it handled last summer. I know a lot of people have found other tires they like, but I think I'll be staying with the Bridgestone Excedra Max unless they give me a reason to switch.
Last edited:
Similar threads
