Tire age

[Jerry]

Back in the day when I was young(er) and foolish I bought my XJ. Tires looked OK, but were old. I got on the road for a long ride (Wisconsin to upstate NY) and by the time I got there the front tire had cracks in the tread area. I didn't have an accident, but replaced both tires before the trip back.

As has been mentioned, you might get lucky, then again, you might not. And how the tire looks now is not how it may look after it heats up when you start putting miles on the bike, flexing the sidewalls and tread areas. I come down on the conservative side; change them out for new rubber. "An ounce of prevention..." and all that, you know.

[crazy steve]

Ok, I'm curious.... How many of you that believe that a tire magically becomes defective at 6 years, 1 day, also change your brake lines every four years and replace all brake seals every two years, as per the factory recommendation? Brakes are at least as important as tires....

[cywelchjr]

Ok, I'm curious.... How many of you that believe that a tire magically becomes defective at 6 years, 1 day, also change your brake lines every four years and replace all brake seals every two years, as per the factory recommendation? Brakes are at least as important as tires....

Notice I said I thought the tire was probably fine, but to be careful of getting in a situation where an insurance company had an excuse to look at the age of them.

That said, at 6 years I would start evaluating them. That means how hard the rubber has gotten etc, and go by that, not the date.

[bikerphil]

My general rule with anything of this nature is "When in doubt, throw it out".

[natemoen]

Also, even if just the couter layer has dried up, 50 miles might scrape that layer off and they would be great then, but you could crash and die in those 50 miles. Too hard to evaluate them online.

[crazy steve]

...That said, at 6 years I would start evaluating them. That means how hard the rubber has gotten etc, and go by that, not the date.

At last! A common-sense reply! (I'm not picking on you Cy, I agree with you..).

This has been my point all along; blindly using these 'expiration dates' as the main reason to decide that a tire is 'good' just doesn't tell the whole story. Remember, these are 'recommendations' based on a worst-case, not a requirement. Any insurance company that tried to deny coverage for simply failing to heed a recommendation would be facing an uphill battle IMO, and I suspect that even the tire company would be willing to defend their product in this case.

If you're actually monitoring your tire condition (and you should be), you should see any problems develop. And age may or may not have anything to do with it; I recall some Avon tires I had in the past that developed sidewall cracking after as little as two years (one reason I'm not an Avon fan...).

I'm not saying these guidelines are wholly wrong; if you live in a sunbelt state, they're probably reasonably accurate. But if you don't, then the tires will age much slower if not exposed to high average temps or a lot of UV, which was stated in the NHTS report. Here in the northwest, average temps run at least 30% lower and my bikes spend a lot of time in the garage (out of the sun) during the rainy days, so the effects of aging appear much, much slower.

I can be as cheap-azz as anybody here on occasion, but I won't compromise my safety unneccesarily (hey, I'm not that crazy) by running sub-standard parts. But just because a tire (or any other part for that matter) is past it's 'recommended' life doesn't automatically mean it's bad...

[cywelchjr]

At last! A common-sense reply! (I'm not picking on you Cy, I agree with you..).

This has been my point all along; blindly using these 'expiration dates' as the main reason to decide that a tire is 'good' just doesn't tell the whole story. Remember, these are 'recommendations' based on a worst-case, not a requirement. Any insurance company that tried to deny coverage for simply failing to heed a recommendation would be facing an uphill battle IMO, and I suspect that even the tire company would be willing to defend their product in this case.

That has been my point as well. I have seen tires as little as two years old also that I would not ride on. I have also seen IN THE SUN BELT that were older that were still in good shape, but they were kept in good controlled conditions most of the time, not out in the weather or out in the sun. And humidity has some to do with it as well, so storing in controlled conditions helps there as well. There are also products that revitalize rubber, but they MUST be used before it has dried out significantly. They are used primarily in printers and such on rubber wheels and tires and platens in them to revitalize the rubber, I sure the stuff would work on tires, but frankly, unless you have a whole bunch of bikes, and given how fast big heavy bikes go through tires, I can't see it being a problem except for one that's sat, and then it's a matter of how it was stored, and that's where the age of the tire is not the question at all, it's the condition, and you can't go be cracks, you MUST be able to compare the feel of the rubber of the tire to a new or close to new tire of the same make and model for hardness and stickiness. If it's significantly harder and less sticky than the new tire, it's very likely a bad tire at this point.

Case in point, when I put my 400 back on the road, now in fairness, these tires were 13 years old, but they LOOKED like new. No cracks whatsoever. But, they were hard as rocks. Why no cracks? When it was stored 10 years before, I let the air out and dressed them with rubber revitalizer which is also a protectant. I'm sure it helped, but they still dried out. When I took them down to be replaced, the tire guy almost couldn't get them off the rim they were so hard. Now this is an extreme case, but is an example of what I'm talking about. This same idea is true of any of the rubber parts on the bike as well.

[crazy steve]

Again, it really depends on the environment the tires have been in. Where you live, I can see that tires will age faster due to the higher average temps and more sun.

Case in point? When I bought my '93 sporty in late summer '00, it still had the OEM Dunlop tires on it (the bike only had 2200 miles on it!). Tires looked fine, the dealer had no problem with them. I rode the bike briefly that summer until my back went bad, then the bike sat for over a year after having back surgery/recovering, as I missed the whole next 'season'. I finally got back up on two wheels in '02; at this point, the tires were nine years old.

Did I have any issues? Well, in all honesty, they did seem to be less 'sticky' than I like, but I went ahead and wore the rear out. I replaced it with another Dunlop, but it wasn't much better IMO. I could still get the rear to 'move around' on some road surfaces if I rode aggressively, so at that point I changed brands. Interestingly enough, the 'new' Dunlop didn't last any longer than the 'old' one did, a bit less if anything (so maybe 'aged' tires are part of the answer for mileage? ).

I also think that the kind of roads you ride make a difference; in my case, the last fifteen miles to my house were (until just recently) macadam (AKA oil/gravel) surfaces, which is like riding on sandpaper. This will quickly scrub off any 'dead' rubber and markedly reduce tire mileage. So it's not a one-size-fits-all scenario ('those tires are too old and your gonna die if you run them'), a owner needs to make an informed decision. Why spend money if you don't need to?

I still have a 4.50H-17 Conti (the last rear tire I bought for the '78 before I wrecked it in '85) that has to be at least 27-28 years old now. It still looks good; no cracks at all. But it is hardened badly, and I wouldn't dream of using it now except to maybe putt around slowly (very slowly ). But when I checked it in '00 (I briefly had the '78 running then), it still seemed fine, and I would have used it if I could have kept the bike running.

[Elevener]

Ya know, this guy posted a PICTURE of a specific tire, He wasnt asking about ALL tires. I personally cant believe the number of people here who encouraged him to ride on it!

As I said, I dont care how OLD that tire is. Judging by the pic it is dry and hard Tires arent that much for how important they are, If you have to ask the internet for bad advice then you had your own doubts, Im not doubting my tires.

[Elevener]

Of course I have learned who here actually USES their tires.

[skids]

I don't really know for sure, but it seem that if your tires are mounted on the bike (mine are garaged) and you regularly use your bike, the tires stay plyable and relatively sticky. I have had some checking around the Bridgestone Splitfire along side tread which makes me nervous however. I will not buy those again.

[motoman]

If you have to ask the internet for bad advice then you had your own doubts,/////////Wow! must be the heat and the need to ride...........

[cywelchjr]

Of course I have learned who here actually USES their tires.

I've been lucky so far to get two years out of a front tire and a bit over a year out of a rear, which comes out to about 9k on the rear and about twice that on the front.

[LoHo]

Another factor is whether the bike is rideable. In 2002 I bought a new tire for a "project" bike because the old tire was holed badly. That project still has less than a mile on it. My wife never fails to mention how great the "new" tire looks on the still non-op project....

A short, easy ride will tell you if the tire is useable. When she's running right, take a short ride and see what's what. If it rides hard and slick, the tire's out.

[Jerry]

One point here...

This is a new-to-me kind of bike. Yes, if it was your bike, and you have ridden it for a while, know how it handles and all that, then you will have a pretty good idea if the tire is still useable. In this case the history is unknown and the current owner has not ridden the bike. Those factors, as well as the age and appearance, are contributing factors to those of us who are encouraging new rubber. I agree there is nothing magical about 6 years, but if there is doubt, replace it with a new one. Lot cheaper than hospital bills.

About brake pads and age, or bake lines and age...

Yep. I check my pads about once a year for deterioration as well as wear. When I bought my XJ the pads were thick but disintegrating, so I replaced them. I put on SS brake lines even though the brakes still worked with the original hoses. Why? More experienced pilots told me how lines can deteriorate from the inside. Seals not so much, but they are not as critical to safety as are brakes and tires.

Can you guys tell me that age is not a factor in tire safety? Sorry, but I don't think you can go on observed condition only and not factor in the tire's age in a buying decision, particularly if you have never ridden the bike and have no idea how the tire handles.