|
|
Iron Butt
Posts: 880
Orlando, FL | Just looking to fill my curiosity.
Dunlop E3's have a total load rating (max weight the tires can carry) of 1,592 lbs
Front 63 = 600 lbs Rear 80 = 992 lbs TOTAL 1,592
Metzler's, Avon's (and apparently Bridgestone's) have a total load rating of 1,427 lbs
Front 63 = 600 lbs Rear 74 = 827 lbs TOTAL 1,427 lbs.
According to Victory's 2011 spec sheets the GVWR (Gross Vehicle Weight Rating) is 1,414 lbs.
So the question is ......... considering that the GVWR is 1,414 for the Vision, what's the big issue about the lower load rating for the Metzler's, Avon's etc, when both tires are within the GVWR of the bike??
|
|
| |
|
Cruiser
Posts: 208
Edmonton Alberta, Canada | motorcycle = 850#
myself = 275#
pylon = 180#
leather = 80#
std gear stowed = 20#
pylon's gear
(purse, snacks,
water, gatorade
etc) = 20#
_________
Total =1405#
That would leave a 22# safety window, now when we travel we carry probally more than 60# of gear. Maybe just me but I prefer a little bit more of a safty factor! However on that, I will be going darkside when my dunlop elite wears out. I may have to change my riding style, however I have never kept my cages on OEM tires and in many cases I have gained either in wear, traction, or handling.
Just my personal opinion.
|
|
| |
|
Iron Butt
Posts: 880
Orlando, FL | norcan, that's not the question. The Gross Vehicle load rating is 1,414 lbs. Exceeding that is as dangerous as exceeding the tire load rating. Having tires with a 20,000 lb load rating does not change the load factor of the bike. You are only 9 lbs from the vehicles max load bearing ability REGARDLESS of the tires load capacity!!
Edited by MaddMAx2u 2012-04-28 9:16 AM
|
|
| |
|
Tourer
Posts: 500
| norcan...Assuming your bike is a Vision Tour it weighs more than 850lbs....Dry weight is 869lbs. + a tank of fuel, etc. puts your bikes weight at 900lbs...I would be careful how much you are, or think you are, loading on your tires/bike JMHO.....Sorry I do not have an answer to Maxx's question.....
Edited by opas ride 2012-04-28 11:04 AM
|
|
| |
|
Visionary
Posts: 8144
New Bohemia, VA | I'm sticking with the Dunlap E3s. They run great, exceed my expectations, never seen anything yet in print that disproves that, and it requires a lot less thinking... Go ride, go ride, go ride, or watch SOA...
Edited by varyder 2012-04-28 11:31 AM
|
|
| |
|
Visionary
Posts: 1229
Rancho Cucamonga, CA | An issue that has been overlooked, is that the Victory Vision has almost a 50/50 weight distribution between front and back. Unlike most cruiser motorcycles that are closer to 55/45 (R/F). If a front tire is rated to 600#, then, on a Vision, your max weight should be 1200#. For a 55/45 cruiser that would be 1333#.
I know that most of the weight over 1200# is passenger and saddlebag stuff centered over the rear tire, but has anyone actually taken their bike fully loaded to a scale to see how much weight is on the front tire? |
|
| |
|
Iron Butt
Posts: 742
North Orange County CA | http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmc...
If I am reading this article correctly, it appears that a tire that has a higher load rating has passed tests that demonstrate that it has a greater ability to withstand punctures and blowouts than a tire with a lower load rating.
|
|
| |
|
Iron Butt
Posts: 742
North Orange County CA | http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmc...
If I am reading this article correctly, it appears that a tire that has a higher load rating has passed tests that demonstrate that it has a greater ability to withstand punctures and blowouts than a tire with a lower load rating.
|
|
| |
|
Iron Butt
Posts: 880
Orlando, FL | Thanks to all that replied~ |
|
| |
|
Iron Butt
Posts: 612
| varyder - 2012-04-28 11:30 AM
I'm sticking with the Dunlap E3s. They run great, exceed my expectations, never seen anything yet in print that disproves that, and it requires a lot less thinking... Go ride, go ride, go ride, or watch SOA...
+1 |
|
| |
|
Visionary
Posts: 1632
Jasper, MO | Nozzledog - 2012-04-28 1:18 PM
An issue that has been overlooked, is that the Victory Vision has almost a 50/50 weight distribution between front and back. Unlike most cruiser motorcycles that are closer to 55/45 (R/F). If a front tire is rated to 600#, then, on a Vision, your max weight should be 1200#. For a 55/45 cruiser that would be 1333#.
I know that most of the weight over 1200# is passenger and saddlebag stuff centered over the rear tire, but has anyone actually taken their bike fully loaded to a scale to see how much weight is on the front tire?
Well, sort of. When we were coming home from our last trip together, my buddy and I pulled our fully loaded bikes onto the truck scales in town. They ride a GL1800. We had been on a 10 day trip and both bikes were loaded to the gills, trunks full, saddlebags full, luggage rack bags full. We both had about a half tank of gas left. He outweighs me by about 10 pounds. I weigh about 210. The weights of the individual women are a closely guarded secret, but they probably weigh about the same as each other. We weighed the bikes with rider and passenger aboard, just as they roll down the highway.
The Goldwing weighed 1290 pounds. The Vision weighed 1280 pounds. We had also weighed both bikes completely empty and alone before going on the trip. The Goldwing weighed 900 pounds and the Vision weighed 890 pounds on the same set of scales.
Point being, the bikes weighed less than 1300 pounds fully loaded and with 200+ pound riders and a pillion passenger each. Any of the tire brands can handle that load without a problem.
Secondary point concerning luggage capacity of the Vision vs the Goldwing. We had just as much stuff, that weighed just as many pounds, in/on our Vision as they did their Goldwing. It just takes slightly more effort to pack it on the Vision. Using a couple of stuff sacks per saddlebag, instead of the bag liners, is the key. The Vision's bag openings are the problem, being smaller than the bag itself. The saddlebags actually hold a lot. They don't appear to, due to the small openings. To best use the capacity requires using 2 or 3 stuff sacks per bag or reserving the bag space for jackets, raingear, etc.
No, we didn't weigh the front and rear wheel loads separately.
Ronnie
|
|
| |
|
Iron Butt
Posts: 1117
Northeast Ohio |
No, we didn't weigh the front and rear wheel loads separately.
Ronnie
This will give us the million dollar answer. It's not as simple as looking at the total weight of the bike.
Let's assume nozzledog's theory that the bike has a true 50/50 split. Let's also assume that anything past the motor, rearward, is rear justified. The reality is some of the rear weight spills forward (but let's not go there unless we have a math major help us). 903lbs for ABS bike or 869lbs for non-ABS bike / 2 = ~435-450lbs on each tire.
Add 225lbs for rider with gear on, 150lbs for passenger (you know they won't tell you their weight) and another 75lbs for trunk and sidebag stuff.
450+225+150+75= 900lbs of rear justified tire weighting.
E3 or Darkside....
Edited by ScoreBo 2012-04-29 1:42 PM
|
|
| |
|
Visionary
Posts: 1632
Jasper, MO | ScoreBo - 2012-04-29 1:26 PM
No, we didn't weigh the front and rear wheel loads separately.
Ronnie
This will give us the million dollar answer. It's not as simple as looking at the total weight of the bike.
Let's assume nozzledog's theory that the bike has a true 50/50 split. Let's also assume that anything past the motor, rearward, is rear justified. The reality is some of the rear weight spills forward (but let's not go there unless we have a math major help us). 903lbs for ABS bike or 869lbs for non-ABS bike / 2 = ~435-450lbs on each tire.
Add 225lbs for rider with gear on, 150lbs for passenger (you know they won't tell you their weight) and another 75lbs for trunk and sidebag stuff.
450+225+150+75= 900lbs of rear justified tire weighting.
E3 or Darkside....
The driver's weight will be divided between the front and rear; I expect nearly equally. I think you're off by about 110-115 pounds<> on the rear tire loading. Most of the passenger's weight, and the luggage weight, will be on the rear. I'll weigh the front and rear separately when I get the chance. Inquiring minds (mine) want to know the truth. We'll see. I'll try to get front and rear weights of the bike alone, bike and rider, and bike, rider and passenger. I'll have to get somebody to go with me to get the scale readings as we make the transitions, and we'll have to do it when the scales aren't busy. I'll probably have to get one of my buddies to serve as the passenger, since my wife isn't going to take any chances that we'll figure out what she weighs.  I'll report back.
Ronnie |
|
| |
|
Visionary
Posts: 1229
Rancho Cucamonga, CA | Thank you so much, it will be greatly appreciated. Most every other manufacturer I have been able to find out what the weight distribution is, all but Victories. I only have magazine reviews that have said it is 50/50, and none of the articles or specs say what it is with a rear passenger (or gear). I was a little suprised to see such a low load rating for the front tire compaired to the rear for a bike with an even distibution of weight.
I an currently using a Metzeler Marathon 880XXL 140/70R-18 with a 67H(677#) rating, but it doesn't fit under the fender.
Edited by Nozzledog 2012-04-30 12:03 AM
|
|
| |
|
Cruiser
Posts: 157
| Goldwings also run on E3's |
|
| |
|
Visionary
Posts: 8144
New Bohemia, VA | The GAWR is front: 513 lbs and rear: 901 lbs on the '08 Vision.
I too believe there is a 50/50 weight distribution while the bike is sitting alone without cargo. So my assuption would be that the front weights 445 lbs with fuel and 445 lbs in the rear with the trunk mounted. When you sit, and your pillion, and your luggage loaded, the weight distribution shifts toward the rear. We can all continue to guess at this, but until the hard data is got from the weigh station, we'll never know. E3 Front has a 600lb rating at 41psi and the rear 992 lbs at 41psi, exceeding the over all GAWR for the Vision. All is well and at rest. |
|
| |
|
Iron Butt
Posts: 1117
Northeast Ohio | Ronnie,
You are right about some of the rearward weight being distributed to the front. I stated that in my reply. "The reality is some of the rear weight spills forward (but let's not go there unless we have a math major help us)."
Also, my numbers are probably low for some folks. The numbers can continue to go up if you have a trunk rack with a bag, are heavier than my example numbers or pull a trailer. Lower if you are running without the trunk, without a passenger / ride solo all the time, etc. Every situation will be different... In my mind, I am over-limit (or pretty darn close) on a 74 rear tire. I am 6'4" @ 250# - geared up at ~265#. Even if I went on the "stop eating, you fat bastard" diet, I will never be below 210# (225# w/gear).
In order to put this debate to rest, if you have the time, can you please make sure your front and rear weight add up to the bike's total weight (or pretty close)?
Victory, if you are reading this and can provide us the weight distribution information, it would be greatly appreciated.
Edited by ScoreBo 2012-04-30 8:30 AM
|
|
| |
|
Visionary
Posts: 1632
Jasper, MO | texasgrumpy - 2012-04-30 7:01 AM
Goldwings also run on E3's
They used to. Honda is using the Bridgestone Excedra G704 and G709 as OEM tires now. They carry the 74H rating...........
Ronnie |
|
| |
|
Visionary
Posts: 1632
Jasper, MO | ScoreBo - 2012-04-30 8:29 AM
Ronnie,
You are right about some of the rearward weight being distributed to the front. I stated that in my reply. "The reality is some of the rear weight spills forward (but let's not go there unless we have a math major help us)."
Also, my numbers are probably low for some folks. The numbers can continue to go up if you have a trunk rack with a bag, are heavier than my example numbers or pull a trailer. Lower if you are running without the trunk, without a passenger / ride solo all the time, etc. Every situation will be different... In my mind, I am over-limit (or pretty darn close) on a 74 rear tire. I am 6'4" @ 250# - geared up at ~265#. Even if I went on the "stop eating, you fat bastard" diet, I will never be below 210# (225# w/gear).
In order to put this debate to rest, if you have the time, can you please make sure your front and rear weight add up to the bike's total weight (or pretty close)?
I'll do my best sir. I really think the rider's weight, however much it is, is fairly evenly distributed between the front and rear. Many years of experience loading large trucks has given me a bit of insight into where the loads are carried. Any weight carried BETWEEN two sets of axles gets distributed between the two. The percentage of distribution, forward or rearward, changes as the weight is shifted forward or backwards, but it never reaches 100% until you go PAST an axle. The luggage added to a Vision is probably all on the rear axle, as a trailer would be. The weight of both the rider and passenger will be distributed between the front and rear, especially the rider's weight. Realize: the torso and head weights of the rider and passenger is applied to the seat where they set, but the weight of the rider's and passenger's arms and legs extend forward towards the front axle. Your 265# is not all resting on the seat. The percentage of your weight that is your arms and legs extends forward and gets added to the front axle. Since you're sitting between the axles, even your torso weight is divided between the axles. It's not as simple as considering the total weight of the load.
In any case, I'll put my bike on the scales, as soon as I can round up some help, and do some load distribution tests and report the results. Maybe I'll be the one who is surprised.
Ronnie |
|
| |
|
Visionary
Posts: 8144
New Bohemia, VA | varyder - 2012-04-30 9:27 AM The GAWR is front: 513 lbs and rear: 901 lbs on the '08 Vision. I too believe there is a 50/50 weight distribution while the bike is sitting alone without cargo. So my assuption would be that the front weights 445 lbs with fuel and 445 lbs in the rear with the trunk mounted. When you sit, and your pillion, and your luggage loaded, the weight distribution shifts toward the rear. We can all continue to guess at this, but until the hard data is got from the weigh station, we'll never know. E3 Front has a 600lb rating at 41psi and the rear 992 lbs at 41psi, exceeding the over all GAWR for the Vision. All is well and at rest. Bump I think the first line enters into the equation... |
|
| |
|
Visionary
Posts: 2118
Pitt Meadows, BC Canada | Turk - 2012-04-29 8:05 AM varyder - 2012-04-28 11:30 AM I'm sticking with the Dunlap E3s. They run great, exceed my expectations, never seen anything yet in print that disproves that, and it requires a lot less thinking... Go ride, go ride, go ride, or watch SOA... +1 Agreed. Winter is just too long for some people  Life's TOO short .... |
|
| |
|
Iron Butt
Posts: 1117
Northeast Ohio | donetracey - 2012-04-30 2:29 PM
Turk - 2012-04-29 8:05 AM varyder - 2012-04-28 11:30 AM I'm sticking with the Dunlap E3s. They run great, exceed my expectations, never seen anything yet in print that disproves that, and it requires a lot less thinking... Go ride, go ride, go ride, or watch SOA... +1 Agreed. Winter is just too long for some people??? ? Life's TOO short .... ? ?
And it may be shorten more (for some) if we don't investigate this more thoroughly. To me, this is about safety. Plain and simple.
I, too, like the E3s. They perform well, but I hate the noise after a few thousand miles. What I dislike the most is not knowing if I have another choice without sacrificing safety.
Hopefully Ronnie will be able to get the magical data some of us need to make a safe & sound decision. |
|
| |
|
Visionary
Posts: 8144
New Bohemia, VA | Personally, the investigation is over for me. With over 150,000 miles on both bias and radial E3s, they win. Reading every word of what other people say about other tires convinces me that I've got what I want. |
|
| |
|
Cruiser
Posts: 157
| ScoreBo - 2012-05-01 4:41 PM
donetracey - 2012-04-30 2:29 PM
Turk - 2012-04-29 8:05 AM varyder - 2012-04-28 11:30 AM I'm sticking with the Dunlap E3s. They run great, exceed my expectations, never seen anything yet in print that disproves that, and it requires a lot less thinking... Go ride, go ride, go ride, or watch SOA... +1 Agreed. Winter is just too long for some people??? ? Life's TOO short .... ? ?
And it may be shorten more (for some) if we don't investigate this more thoroughly. To me, this is about safety. Plain and simple.
I, too, like the E3s. They perform well, but I hate the noise after a few thousand miles. What I dislike the most is not knowing if I have another choice without sacrificing safety.
Hopefully Ronnie will be able to get the magical data some of us need to make a safe & sound decision.
That was my problem I would like something else but I will not drop down in load rating to get it.If it was just me on the bike that is one thing but if the wife is on the bike and I'm towing the trailer that's the load.
|
|
| |
|
Visionary
Posts: 1229
Rancho Cucamonga, CA | varyder - 2012-05-01 6:44 PM
Personally, the investigation is over for me. With over 150,000 miles on both bias and radial E3s, they win. Reading every word of what other people say about other tires convinces me that I've got what I want.
and Ma Vic would never put out a bike with a front tire not rated for a load the bike is rated for.... |
|
| |
Tire Load Enlightenment
