Jump to content

Wet Race Tyres On The Road?


srad34

Recommended Posts

Hi, I did about 60 miles on damp and cold Lincolnshire roads yesterday on my old Fireblade. I run S20 front and BT16R on the back, they are okay but not something I would push too much on the damp stuff.

This got me thinking about wet or inter race tyres, for general road use, other than the risk of a thrapping from the police if they spotted them, is it worth it?

Everyone raves about how confidence inspiring they are on a wet track, but for road, then you throw in white lines, diesel, shite tarmac, gravel and beige Austin Maestros, are they still significantly better?

I tend to ride all year so any pearls of wisdom would be appreciated.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought it was because they melt unless it's wet enough to keep them cool. Possibly you'd get away with it on really cold, frozen roads though?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are great. They work really well. The only downside is you won't get many miles out of them. Apart from that a massive thumbs up.

+1

I've used the Avon road legal version on a couple of bikes (CBR600 and Aprilia Falco) through winter in the past. Fronts last ages, rears are ok around town but mileage is in the hundreds rather than thousands if you use them on the motorway.

This year I'll be trying a Goldspeed on the front of the SZR:

wet_front-01.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can get old stock (2011) Avon Pro Extreme road legal wets in 120/70, 160/60 and 180/55 if that's any help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty sure they would invalidate your insurance

Only if you killed a pack of wild nuns carrying 500 kittens. In the event of a normal spill there's not an insurance engineer in the land who would A. notice and B. even give a flying fuck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But they wouldn't be able to because how exactly would they prove that a tyre with perfectly usable amounts of tread caused an accident (the tyre would have to be shagged - therefore no different to a road legal tyre) However I've even seen a complaint on a case whereby a car with next to no visible tread rear ended a car in the dry, and the insurance engineer could not prove it was a contributing factor because the conditions were dry and therefore the lack of tread meant nothing as water displacement was not necessary.

I've highlighted the poor states of tyres before on vehicles which have gone on to be repaired and claims gone through. It's all bollocks, on the engineers report forms all that it asks for is a tread depth (measured with a gauge). In the past I've worked with numerous cases involving "road legal" *cough* supermotos, and never had a problem due to complete lack of knowledge and experience on the case of the insurance company.

I'm by no means advocating anyone to break the law (cos we're all honest and above board sticktonationalspeedlimits road users on here) but the risk of getting your insurance invalidated due to a tyre being in perfect condition is very, very slim indeed, whether it states not for road use on it or not - unless it was bald, that, like I said makes it no different to a fucked tyre that IS allegedly for road use.

However I'd have to agree with your last note - for general all round winter use a proper winter tourer would be a better choice because they're designed to not totally shit themselves in the dry as wets would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always remember reading in a car magazine years ago about someone who had fitted tyres with the wrong speed rating to their car, and when he was involved in an accident his insurance refused to pay out. It broke the terms of his policy (anyone ever read all the terms and conditions, and understand all that they mean?), so despite it not being in any way a factor in causing the accident the insurers didn't pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always remember reading in a car magazine years ago about someone who had fitted tyres with the wrong speed rating to their car, and when he was involved in an accident his insurance refused to pay out. It broke the terms of his policy (anyone ever read all the terms and conditions, and understand all that they mean?), so despite it not being in any way a factor in causing the accident the insurers didn't pay.

Do you know if the tyres fitted to your car or bike are not the correct "speed rating" Cos I'm fucked if I do, along with the majority of the UK population I would imagine.

A very rare case indeed - sounds like the individual in question either A. had other 'larger' problems, and this was just the feds adding to the list or B. being a total twunt towards his insurance company, or of course, both.

Seen a claim thrown out before on a bike we were repairing, the guy was a total asshole, he insulted the wife of the independent insurance engineer (she was his secretary). So he marched into our workshop, asked me if his can was legal or not (was not previously checked nor would it have mattered)- it wasn't so he used that to throw his claim out, "go on, fuck off...!"

It's all not as black and white as everyone thinks it is. Especially when it comes to anything other than a car.

The problem is, (well for the insurers) is that the 'engineers' they employ (who by the way are by no means engineers in it's literal term) are just panel beaters and painters who worked up to bodyshop manager and went on from there - all car experience. The minute you put a bike in front of them they shit their pants and you may as well be talking to the milkman about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i was always under the impression that if you had a policy regardless of what you did they would always pay the third party out

my son came off at about 90 in the dry on a corner his rear supercorsa was under legal tread depth and the investigations into it only mentioned that it wasnt a contributing factor as in theory a slick would offer more grip than a tyre with enough tread

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i was always under the impression that if you had a policy regardless of what you did they would always pay the third party out

Your insurer might then come after you to recover the cost of the third party pay out, if they believe that something you have done to the vehicle contributed to the accident.

I had a conversation with a member on here about this which will make you wince.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...