Continental Conti-Milestone

[trmn8r]

Had the local Indy put me some new skins on today.

I pulled the wheels and just brought them in that way had him mount and balance them.

------------------
had never pulled the front wheel off before today and didn't realize the caliper bolts were metric, a red alert pm call went out to just about everyone who showed online this morning asking what I needed to get them off.... I thought it was a 12 point socket but none fit... thanks to all for replying and offering help... special thanks to "The Knower of Things" Littlebear for being first with the suggestion that it might be metric.

------------------

He had Dunlops on back order, all he had in stock to fit was Continentals. I could have bought the same tires online for around $232 plus shipping... would have probably been around $265 or so I'm guessing to get them here total. Bought them and had them mounted and balanced for $337 so basically paid him around $72 for the mounting and balancing... no to bad IMHO.
I have mounted the last 2 rear tires and its a pain, having to take them to a friends house with a tire machine, trouble him to use it etc. etc. so $35 per tire doesn't seem out of line really.
Next time I might check on bringing in my own tires and see what he would charge to mount them for me.

Took them out and put about 50 miles on them, hitting all the grooves, tar snakes, uneven pavement, and highspeed corners I could find... (not a lot of high speed corners around the flat wide open Texas Panhandle). So far they seem to handle and feel great, no pulling or anything on grooved pavement etc.

Indy says they are probaby a lower mileage tire than Dunlops... I hope not, the factory tires only gave me 7500 mile rear, next came a Metzler ME880 got 8000 out of it, last was a Michelin Commander, hated it on wet pavement... felt like grease, thought maybe, just because its a hard high mileage tire why it felt so greasy on wet pavement so I lived with it. It gave me the worst mileage of any tire so far... only 6500 miles and it was GONE, BALD flat worn out. A member (SeaHag) had said elsewhere he was getting good mileage out of the Michelin, so I tried one and it sure didn't live up to what I was hoping for, maybe I just got a bad one or something but it sure didn't last.

[route66paul]

Originally Posted by trmn8r

Had the local Indy put me some new skins on today.

I pulled the wheels and just brought them in that way had him mount and balance them.

------------------
had never pulled the front wheel off before today and didn't realize the caliper bolts were metric, a red alert pm call went out to just about everyone who showed online this morning asking what I needed to get them off.... I thought it was a 12 point socket but none fit... thanks to all for replying and offering help... special thanks to "The Knower of Things" Littlebear for being first with the suggestion that it might be metric.

------------------

He had Dunlops on back order, all he had in stock to fit was Continentals. I could have bought the same tires online for around $232 plus shipping... would have probably been around $265 or so I'm guessing to get them here total. Bought them and had them mounted and balanced for $337 so basically paid him around $72 for the mounting and balancing... no to bad IMHO.
I have mounted the last 2 rear tires and its a pain, having to take them to a friends house with a tire machine, trouble him to use it etc. etc. so $35 per tire doesn't seem out of line really.
Next time I might check on bringing in my own tires and see what he would charge to mount them for me.

Took them out and put about 50 miles on them, hitting all the grooves, tar snakes, uneven pavement, and highspeed corners I could find... (not a lot of high speed corners around the flat wide open Texas Panhandle). So far they seem to handle and feel great, no pulling or anything on grooved pavement etc.

Indy says they are probaby a lower mileage tire than Dunlops... I hope not, the factory tires only gave me 7500 mile rear, next came a Metzler ME880 got 8000 out of it, last was a Michelin Commander, hated it on wet pavement... felt like grease, thought maybe, just because its a hard high mileage tire why it felt so greasy on wet pavement so I lived with it. It gave me the worst mileage of any tire so far... only 6500 miles and it was GONE, BALD flat worn out. A member (SeaHag) had said elsewhere he was getting good mileage out of the Michelin, so I tried one and it sure didn't live up to what I was hoping for, maybe I just got a bad one or something but it sure didn't last.

What is the weight rating on those meats?

[trmn8r]

130/90/16 front
675# @ 42 p.s.i. load rating R

140/90/16 rear
760# @ 42 p.s.i. load rating R

The Ultra per H-D sight in running order (I guess that means with gas and oil) is 819#.

I tried unsuccessfully to figure out how tires are rated a tire or two ago... that 760# rating is that the heaviest bike that tire should go on? Or is that the max that tire of the two tires should carry? .... thats what I'm thinking... if you put a scale under each tire, how much weight is on each tire... so long as the rating is over that I'm guessing I'm ok.

With that thinking I'm probably pushing 1400# two up fully loaded with gear on the highway. I suppose the only real way to find out whats on each tire is to find a scale small enough to put under each tire and weigh it...

Just guessing that there's about 70% on the rear but I know there must be more than 30% on the front tire so I think they must "share" some of that 1400# maybe like 70%/60% or something... I know the bike doesn't weight 1820# but if 70% is on the rear weighting 980# and 60% is on the front weighting 840# then the total is 1820#... that doesn't sound right either though... maybe its more like 55%/45% that would make it 770#rear/630#front... makes my head hurt trying to figure out how the weight balances out

so anyway with the ratings given on the tire you think they are heavy enough?

I think next tire I try is going to be this one whether I let my indy order it for me or get it myself and let him mount it. No doubt about it being rated heavy enough I think.

[trmn8r]

can someone out there explain the nomenclature of how harley describes their tires?
Tire Size

Front MT90B16 72H

Rear MU85B16 77H

thats from the harley websight for my '06 Ultra

americanmotire.com where I have bought my tires online list closest for the front MT90HB-16 it has a H before the B whats that mean?

for the rear looks like the closest they get is MT90HB-16 or MU90HB-16 is the 90 in that size like the aspect ratio of a 140/90? whats it 90% of if so? again these have an H before the B .... agggghhh they make this so complicated it seems.

We have all the tire data up as stickies in the tires section:

Tire Conversions and Codes

Avon - Dunlop - Metzeler Tire Charts

Basically, the stock touring tires are Dunlop 402 series.

Front MT90B16 72H----783 lbs load at 40 psi (H = 130 mph)

Rear MU85B16 77H----908 lbs load at 40 psi (H = 130 mph)

Edit: I think your tires are way under rated... !!! The Avons meet or beat HD specs.

Your tires:

130/90/16 front
675# @ 42 p.s.i. load rating R

140/90/16 rear
760# @ 42 p.s.i. load rating R

H stands for 130 mph tire.

B is bias ply... I think...

[trmn8r]

ok thanks

so the 72H and 77H are the speed and load ratings.

the way americanmototire lists their tires I guess they are putting the H before the B but that H is probably still the speed rating. but they dont list the 72 or 77 or whatever for the load rating, but by comparing their sizes to the dunlop sight the rear MT90HB-16 is a 74 or rated at 827# and their MU90HB-16is a 78 rated at 937#. so that would be the one to go with I guess next time.



by the way, I see your edit that you think mine are way underated... I think way underated may be a stretch... I'm shooting for a little underated probably be ok, just my be like indy said, low mileage .... we'll see.

I just looked up their info online...

R is used to designate REAR

F is used to designate Front You use R for both tires.

Again, you may be screwed...

130/90 -16 (73H) 73 = 805 lbs (H = 130 mph)
140/90 -16 (71H) 71 = 761 lbs (H = 130 mph)

[trmn8r]

no the R on my tire specifically calls that the load rating ... its by the load rating in #'s ... its not the speed rating...

the R for speed rating is using the alphanumeric system.. my tires are sized in metric 140/90/06 etc...

the speed rating on mine is elsewhere on side of my tires... I forget what it was... will look tomorow.

Conti website:

http://www.conti-tyres.co.uk/contibi.../milestone.php

[trmn8r]

I dont have the rear tire you reference on the front the load rating on my front is 675# as I said not 805# as the one you mention.... so I am sure its a front... or at least I think it is I dont know now you got me curious...

not really worried about it... if they last 5000 miles they didn't do much worse than anything else has for me so far... and they ride and feel good so I'm gonna keep em and see how they last.

Again, I'm just going with what you posted:

Your tires:

130/90/16 front
675# @ 42 p.s.i. load rating R

140/90/16 rear
760# @ 42 p.s.i. load rating R

If your rear tire is 150 lbs under what is recommended... I wouldn't call that a little under rated!

[trmn8r]

you know the least you could do when your telling me I got screwed is use a smiley

[trmn8r]

maybe if I get the right oil filter my tire load rating will be increased by 150#!

Originally Posted by trmn8r

you know the least you could do when your telling me I got screwed is use a smiley

true.....