Tires again, and again...

The Battlax 46's in 110/90/18 were delivered today. I mounted the tire and reassembled the whole mess. The tread is definitely deeper than the Avon RR universals. I also think the Battlax tire width is slightly narrower than the Avon of the same size. Just from looking at the gaps between the swingarm and the tire, I think I could have mounted a 120/90/18 battlax. I thought the battlax looked a little rounder shape than the Avon too, so I think it might have a slightly bigger circumference. The battlax rubber felt sticky but not quite as soft as the Avon RR. I'll come back here and update my impressions once I get a few miles on it..

thanks for all the comments
 
I have a BT46 100/90-19 on the rear.
Great performance, run them on the RZ & H2.
 
I run Avon RR mk2 on my Kawasaki W800 Cafe and boy were these a revelation compared to the OEM Dunlops which frankly freaked the hell out of me.

I’ve never ridden Battlax but my soon to arrive, my cNw is a standard spec for Matt’s bikes, 120/90/18 on the rear.
Might look a bit too modern for some but suits the cNw imo

Tires again, and again...

That’s water underneath after a wash👌
 
First impression of the Battlax 46 after a 1 hour ride through the foothills and B-roads. The Avon RR has a much better grip and is more confidence inspiring than the Battlax... It's supposed to be a nice weather weekend so I'll add more later
 
Here in the U.K. the Bridgestone and Avons are pretty much the same price, £120-30 each. Sounds like the Avons are going to get the gong; explains their popularity with Classic and modern classic owners; Millyard swears by them too.
 
o0norton0o said:
First impression of the Battlax 46 after a 1 hour ride through the foothills and B-roads. The Avon RR has a much better grip and is more confidence inspiring than the Battlax... It's supposed to be a nice weather weekend so I'll add more later
Click to expand...
That's unfortunate.

The skinny Continental Go Conti tires on my Norton were scary in the cold when new if any moister was on the ground. They were definitely better in the warmer dryer weather after I got some miles on them.

Might be in the high 50F degree temp range today. Enjoy the ride.
 
Schwany said:
That's unfortunate.

The skinny Continental Go Conti tires on my Norton were scary in the cold when new if any moister was on the ground. They were definitely better in the warmer dryer weather after I got some miles on them.

Might be in the high 50F degree temp range today. Enjoy the ride.
Click to expand...

My lifetime learning style is to make mistakes and learn from them. I try not to have confirmation bias, where I make a choice, then bend over backwards justifying that it's better choice to make myself feel better about it. Granted, I've only had 3 test rides on the new rear tire. On the 2nd and 3rd rides, I adjusted the air pressure down to 30lbs from 38lbs originally, and the tire felt better. I'm also scuffing off the surface rubber in these first rides and I could see that maybe they might be impregnated with some sort of mold release agent which needs to scrub off. (or maybe not)

I bought the battlax based on my impression from reading comments here that it was "just as good" as the Avon RR performance. So far, that's not the case. If I had to do it again, I would have bought the Avon, at the higher price and accepted that it's going to wear out in 2 season's worth of riding. It's not that I ride around dragging my knees or wear some armored race suit and ride to the limits of my tire performance. It was just incredibly reassuring to lay the bike into a turn knowing the tires had more ability to stick than I would ever use. So far, I don't feel that "YET" with the Battlax... but time will tell

The 110/90/18 battlax measure 4.25" wide mounted on a 2.15 rim. I think the same Avon RR tire measured close to 4.675". The battlax is visibily smaller on the bike than the Avon of the same size.

I bought the battlax based on 2 things. One was the Battlax is a dedicated rear tire, so it has more tread depth, and two was that I got the impression that they are "as good as" the Avon RR, based on my interpretation of the many comments I read here. So,... there it is... Once you ride on sticky tires, you gain a lot of confidence in laying into corners, and any tire with less grip instantly makes you wonder if you will reach that tire's limit or figure it out before you reach your own limit first... which is the worst possible scenario...
 
o0norton0o said:
My lifetime learning style is to make mistakes and learn from them. I try not to have confirmation bias, where I make a choice, then bend over backwards justifying that it's better choice to make myself feel better about it. Granted, I've only had 3 test rides on the new rear tire. On the 2nd and 3rd rides, I adjusted the air pressure down to 30lbs from 38lbs originally, and the tire felt better. I'm also scuffing off the surface rubber in these first rides and I could see that maybe they might be impregnated with some sort of mold release agent which needs to scrub off. (or maybe not)

I bought the battlax based on my impression from reading comments here that it was "just as good" as the Avon RR performance. So far, that's not the case. If I had to do it again, I would have bought the Avon, at the higher price and accepted that it's going to wear out in 2 season's worth of riding. It's not that I ride around dragging my knees or wear some armored race suit and ride to the limits of my tire performance. It was just incredibly reassuring to lay the bike into a turn knowing the tires had more ability to stick than I would ever use. So far, I don't feel that "YET" with the Battlax... but time will tell

The 110/90/18 battlax measure 4.25" wide mounted on a 2.15 rim. I think the same Avon RR tire measured close to 4.675". The battlax is visibily smaller on the bike than the Avon of the same size.

I bought the battlax based on 2 things. One was the Battlax is a dedicated rear tire, so it has more tread depth, and two was that I got the impression that they are "as good as" the Avon RR, based on my interpretation of the many comments I read here. So,... there it is... Once you ride on sticky tires, you gain a lot of confidence in laying into corners, and any tire with less grip instantly makes you wonder if you will reach that tire's limit or figure it out before you reach your own limit first... which is the worst possible scenario...
Click to expand...
Hi oOnortonOo,
FWIW I run 18 inch BT46 front n rear. Their tyre tech guys recommend 36 front n 42 rear… have you tried that?
tyres feel good at that set up - apparently due to multi material build however I’m definitely no racer.
 
I originally tried 41lbs in the rear tire and went down to 38, then 30, and it felt better (to me) Perhaps the lower inflation gave a bigger contact patch area or just made the tire less rigid so it felt more well planted which translated into a better feel. I'm continuing to experiment with it. I just came roaring down the highway between exits to see how it feels on the highway and it was fine. So far I only notice a difference leaned over in tight corners. Perhaps I'll get used to it and it will be fine. thanks for adding your opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TBW
The bike I tour on has a tyre pressure readout on the dash. Tubeless spoke wheels that seem to lose 2psi/week. So, I bought a lithium powered pump. That gave me all I need to play with tyre pressures to find my favourite. I found the higher pressure gave very responsive handling, but the jitters crept in on poorer road surfaces, especially on heavy braking for tight downhill bends. Lower pressures were smooth in a straight line, but it turned into bends like a slug.

I found my sweet spot and try to keep them there. Turns out it's pretty much what the factory recommended in the first place. :rolleyes:
 
o0norton0o said:
A few years back I bought the Avon RR's like everyone else did when reports of their performance became common knowledge. I'm 19/18, so I am 100/90/19 and 110/90/18 respectively. Go ahead a few years and my front has plenty of tread left..... (the crazy thing is I bought 2 fronts back then, so I even have a new one to back up the old one which is in very good shape) My rear tire is worn down the middle and the snake-like groove on the crown recently disappeared from wear, so I'd rather not take a chance and ride it much longer even though there's good tread pattern left on the sides.

I just bought a Battlax46 to replace the rear tire, because it was about $50 cheaper than the Avon RR, and it's a dedicated rear tire, so I assume it has more tread thickness than a universal tire like the RR.

Being that my tires are different width, I can't just move the front to the back every time the rear tire wears out. I guess when I had tires that were the same size,(K81's) I never noticed how much my front tire outlasts the rear. I just moved the front to the back and bought a new front.

Anyone have a thought on the comparative lifespan of a front tire versus the back tire? double? triple? something else?

From what I've read, I'm sure I'll like the Battlax46 but am open to comments about it since it's the first one I've ever tried...

Thanks in advance..
Click to expand...
Most mileage I have put on a single bike is my current HD Fat Boy, which is up to 110,000 miles. I kept a log of tire replacments since new, and like clockwork, my results have been pretty consistent (Dunlops, Continentls, Metzlers, etc. etc.)
Rear - 6,000 miles
Front - 9,000 miles
If i remember correctly I think that ratio of 2/3rds lifespan applied to my Commando as well, which I put about 28,000 miles on. Don't remember the rear vs front longevity on my various other ikes, but I suspect the ratio was similar.
 
pkeithkelly said:
Most mileage I have put on a single bike is my current HD Fat Boy, which is up to 110,000 miles. I kept a log of tire replacments since new, and like clockwork, my results have been pretty consistent (Dunlops, Continentls, Metzlers, etc. etc.)
Rear - 6,000 miles
Front - 9,000 miles
If i remember correctly I think that ratio of 2/3rds lifespan applied to my Commando as well, which I put about 28,000 miles on. Don't remember the rear vs front longevity on my various other ikes, but I suspect the ratio was similar.
Click to expand...
Pah!

That sir, is impossible.

It is well known that Harley Davidson’s are simply too unreliable to do that kind of mileage. Just ask anyone who has NEVER owned one !!

(I have a 2016 110” Fatboy S, but don’t tell the Norton Boyz ;) )
 
  • Haha
Reactions: TBW
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top