Michelin Commander ll mileage ??

[starvy40]

Just installed the Commander ll rear on the front 150/80/16 I chose not to run it in reverse. not sold on that theory,( yes I know what michelin's websight says ) I mean come on am I gonna brake hard enough on the front to make a difference ? NOPE!!! is the tire that poorly made to make a difference ? I doubt that very seriously. car tires have the same process and does it make a difference the way you run them ? and they at time brake a lot harder with more weight in force on them. anyway, I am running it so IF I get caught riding in rain I would rather have the water travel out of the center rather than channeling it right in the center in a possible hydrplane. not new to rears on the front this is my 4th

[dholmer]

Yes Stan they did come out with the ME888 Ultra's, but can you find the right size tires to fit your Nomad?

[pastorgumby]

Michelin Commander II --
7748 miles on my front 150/80-16 (77H) New "Rear Tire" Installed to the front.
I was hoping to put on DARK SIDE tire, but decided not to - i have one for sale still new
(Dunlop SP Sport 5000) http://cnj.craigslist.org/pts/3673718405.html.

7490 miles on my rear tire 180/65-16

I like them! Rode to Montana and back from NJ last summer (6220 miles).
They're starting to cup a bit as i did a lot more straight, flat riding - but looks like it still has a lot of life left! The rear tire in the front took a bit to get used to as it feels heavier, and made more noise, but a lot sturdier... and now, not an issue at all.

Rode in all sorts of conditions... did not fail me! Recommended!!!

[starvy40]

Is that a 2 ply sidewall ? sorry on the Dunlop SP 5000 ?

[Jared]

Originally Posted by starvy40

Just installed the Commander ll rear on the front 150/80/16 I chose not to run it in reverse. not sold on that theory,( yes I know what michelin's websight says ) I mean come on am I gonna brake hard enough on the front to make a difference ? NOPE!!! is the tire that poorly made to make a difference ? I doubt that very seriously. car tires have the same process and does it make a difference the way you run them ? and they at time brake a lot harder with more weight in force on them. anyway, I am running it so IF I get caught riding in rain I would rather have the water travel out of the center rather than channeling it right in the center in a possible hydrplane. not new to rears on the front this is my 4th

As I'm sure you know the primary reason for the tread patter is for water dispersion.

Just take a look at this front and rear tires side by side. The tread is the exact same, but going the opposite direct. If you chose to mount a rear tire on the front wheel, reversing the direct makes it match what a front tread pattern would be . I can't imagine the tread pattern designed from the front is flawed. At least that's my take on it.

[usranger74]

Originally Posted by Utah Motorcyclist

As I'm sure you know the primary reason is for water distribution.

I just look at this front and rear tire side by side. Their tread is the exact same, but opposite. Reversing the rear makes it match the front. I can't imagine the tread pattern designed from the front is flawed. At least that's my take on it.

I got a little confused reading this link. Sorry, but I do not know the primary reason for water distribution???

And, what are the safety concerns for running a rear tire on the front? And, why would I want to reverse it or not??

[Jared]

Originally Posted by usranger74

I got a little confused reading this link. Sorry, but I do not know the primary reason for water distribution???

And, what are the safety concerns for running a rear tire on the front? And, why would I want to reverse it or not??

I got a little confused re-reading it too. Does it make sense now?

[usranger74]

Originally Posted by Utah Motorcyclist

I got a little confused re-reading it too. Does it make sense now?

Not really. Whre is Mac Mac!!!

[Loafer]

He is out hiking trying get himself back into a healthy shape. Seems that when
he saw me he decidied he didn't want to go there.

[starvy40]

Originally Posted by usranger74

Not really. Whre is Mac Mac!!!

What is there to be confused about ? look at the tread direction and imagine it rolling in water, where do you think the water will travel ? now look at it reverse and picture the same thing.

I know Metzler 880 runs opposite of eachother, I don't know why for sure. don't look right to me. if it has anything to do with matching the rear, my case would make no difference because I run a car tire.

You can also look at it this way, if your leaning in a curve in water picture where the water will most likely be at that point of the tire.

[starvy40]

Just take a look at this front and rear tires side by side. The tread is the exact same, but going the opposite direct. If you chose to mount a rear tire on the front wheel, reversing the direct makes it match what a front tread pattern would be . I can't imagine the tread pattern designed from the front is flawed. At least that's my take on it.

[/QUOTE]

If that be the case, do you think the rear direction is flawed ? it is opposite! why would one be right and one be wrong when they are going the same direction ?

Also the reason for turning it in the first place is the way it is made by the lapping process. they expect the torque of the rear wheel going forward and the braking force on the front. the lapping is opposite. make sense ?

[siriusjoe]

Just take a look at this front and rear tires side by side. The tread is the exact same, but going the opposite direct.

Assuming the guy who took the picture knows or cares which way the tires are supposed to be mounted...

[starvy40]

Originally Posted by siriusjoe

Assuming the guy who took the picture knows or cares which way the tires are supposed to be mounted...

Those Metz 880 pictures are the correct direction as shown.