Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'GS Boxers' started by Disco Dean, Apr 8, 2013.
That seems fair to me. Mine were more and I shopped around.
I paid $375 for a set plus $70 to mount them.
Installed today. So far only rode home from the dealer. Real test comes tomorrow. I will say that turning is... interesting so far. Not bad, just interesting. Seems like the bike is leaned a lot further over than usual.
Had the bike in rain mode (lots of that today) and the traction control light was flashing at me quite a bit at first. Settled down after a touch, though. The bike moves a lot more depending on the surface. Not a big deal, really. Noisy? Probably, but I ride with earplugs so nothing that bothered me.
Excited for dirt tomorrow.
Thanks for the review. Bummer - I was really looking forward to throwing these on at my next change. I, too, love my TKC 80s, but based on other reviews, I was hoping to get better life with the Wilds. The Wilds do have a speed rating one notch higher (R vs. Q), so in addition to longer life, I was looking forward to that extra 7 MPH of headroom onroad...
Also, the Wilds are radials vs. the bias-ply TKCs, so I was assuming that a more modern design might deliver addtional benefits, but evidently not.
I may spoon-on a set anyway and see how my experience aligns with yours and others.
Damned Lincoln County riff-raff!. I figggered you were a hooligan when I saw you were from Denver (of the east).
Michelin is trying to compete with the TKC 80 but (I think) is coming up a bit short. I ran 2 sets of TKC with one set of Wilds in between. My experience is the TKC is better in mileage, noise, ride and ease of mounting. I can almost mount a TKC rear without tools, the Wild is a PITA. If you need to ride at 106 mph vs 99 mph (whatever it is) you may need the Wild. Who the heck rides above at 100 mph for more that a few seconds unless you live in the middle of the Nevada desert. If you ride that fast on a regular basis the Wild probably isn't for you either.
How about the mileage and the cupping/handling on road and off road on the front? If running a rear dual sport with a front knobby, is the wild better than TKC80?
Thanks for the info, it is very helpful to hear from those who have done real world use comparisons!
I should have mentioned more about the Wild front in post #695. At 2,634 miles the center tread measures about 6.5mm, it was 8mm when mounted. This is very little wear compared to the rear as is typical in my experience. No cupping is evident. Off road handling was excellent front and rear, my problem with the handling is on road as stated in #695.
I never run different tires together, only matched sets, and a new front goes on if I change the rear. Yes this costs me a lot more for tires. I know many people mix front and rear tire types or will change just the rear if the front has good tread left and I don't have a problem with that if you are not pushing the tires to their traction limit on pavement, I do occasionally and thats why I am willing to spend the extra money. Just me.
BTW the rear Wild started life at 10mm center tread.
Actually I'm originally from Denver (of the west) but I am a hooligan
Some more thoughts...
Awesome on gravel, hard pack, loose stone, wet loose stone, through puddles in dirt, surprisingly good on pavement after being scrubbed in and getting used to them a bit more.
Absolutely awful on clay and slick mud. Not that I imagine any tire is going to be amazing on it, but this thing... did not inspire confidence. Possibly need more experience, possibly the tire. Like any good racer I'm blaming the equipment and not lack of skill. Hah.
Are you able to compare/contrast your experience to the TKC 80s in similar conditions?
When I first saw these tires, I was super excited about them over the TKC 80s, given their supposedly longer life (~1.5 - 2X in many reported cases). Now that the longevity advantage has been seemingly debunked by several inmates, we're merely left with the advantage of a slightly higher speed rating of 106 mph vs. 99 mph, which does provide a bit more headroom when passing or eating miles on a long, desolate road, but perhaps too marginal of an advantage to give up the tried and true TKC 80.
Which begs a question to the tire gurus around here about a possible remaining advantage of the Wild: What, if any, is the real benefit of a Radial (Wild) vs. a Bias (TKC 80) tire design, all else equal?
Rode for about an hour in heavy rain and 16mph winds yesterday on asphalt and aggregate roads. Speeds due to the heavy rain were 45-50 mph but this was because of limited visibility.
I was very pleased with the performance of the wilds. I've got about 350 miles on them.
For me, it was not having to air down/air up. I ran both front/rear at 36 lbs and they served me well.
I can't, unfortunately.
I also like not having to air down. There isn't a lot of 'squidge' to the tire. If you've ever ridden a true dirt bike tire on the street (I have, but very briefly) you'll know what I mean. The rear can feel like liquid. Sort of the same as a very under inflated tire. None of that with the Wild.
Dunno if I mentioned this, but... they are loud. Remind me of the BFG Mud Terrains I had on my old truck.
If you ride a lot of back country routes that go between pavement and dirt you don't have to air up and down.
Well... that description perfectly describes most of my riding. I assume you're referring to Radials being more flexible across varying terrains. If so, then this adds one more benefit of the Wild column over the TKC 80 in my book.
Having noted this, I've never really changed air pressures in my TKC 80s between onroad and offroad and never really had a problem.
Because of the rocky places I normally rode with TKC80s, I decided early on that potential rim damage from low pressure wasn't worth any potential benefit from riding with low pressure (same with the knobbies on my DR650 and with previous bikes). Never any issues off-road with the tires at normal street pressure, but I'm sure I would air down if I only rode in sandy areas, etc.