Where's Dunlops apology

This guy does. He seems to know what he's talking about.

 

Interesting how the Suzukis and Ducs had problems with the front. Did anyone on a R6 have front tires issues?

 

We were on an R6. Our tire showed some irregular wear, but nothing to the degree of what I saw on some of the bikes running up front. It's worth noting that our pace was a few seconds off theirs.

We ran the same rear for two practice sessions (Friday afternoon and Saturday morning I think. Maybe it was Thursday and Friday; 30+ laps in all on one rear. I'd have to look at my notes to see exactly how many.) And we had some odd wear on the outer sipes as well as a very distinct line (joint?) every 8" or so horizontally on the tire.

As was previously mentioned, the tires were very hard/stiff. Checking them with a durometer yielded much higher numbers than I've seen race rubber before. They showed very little wear, which (and this is just a guess on my part) is what led to the chunking. Perhaps they were too hard. Again, that's just a guess on my part as someone who spends a lot of time looking at tires on club racing weekends and track days. I'm not a tire engineer. I consulted with one of the Penske techs on the wear we had and we agreed it wasn't a suspension issue. Rider confirmed that there was no suspension issue as well.

I'd say wait for Rick to comment on the condition of Jake's tire since he was (one of?) the fastest R6 out there, but he seems to be smart enough to keep out of this thread, unlike me.

 

What did I do?

Okay ... "Sorry". Geez it's like you're my wife and we're married as I have no idea what I am apologizing for yet.

 

Dude, ya just killed the thread.

 

No need to Apologize, I see nothing wrong



Not a damn thing!

 

nothing at all....

 

damn!!

 

Our R6 was very similar to what you describe. Mid to back pack so times were slower than the fron trunners. Wear was minimal, but horizontal lines on the rear.
We followed the Dunlop pressure recommendations, but heard rumors of others using less pressure to obtain higher temps to aid in the grip. We choose to sitck to the recommendations and had no problems.

 

I know, what tire testing?

That puts my friends lives, their entire programs and livelihood at risk.
How happy would YOU be about that?

 

So, to dig up a dead and buried horse, I raced this past weekend with the other org at Daytona. It looked like Dunlop had the tire issues worked out as it was hot, sunny and there were guys running 1000's on the big track without problems. We ran an R1 for the entire 44 laps of the endurance race with the same DOT front and rear, the rear was my SS take off from the AMA races in March that had about 20 laps on it already. Tires both looked great after the race.

They also had a new GP-A rear available (for about $80 less than the UK tire) and I ran it in 3 sprints on Sunday. It was tearing a little on the right side by the end, but the left side looks great. I ran the same front tire on my R6 for Friday practice, Sat 3 sprint races and Sun 3 sprint races without issue, it still looks new.

I saw a bunch of chunked up Michelins and some badly worn Pirelli's after just a couple of laps, Bridgestone and Conti were not represented by a vendor that I saw.

With all of the testing on the new surface this year and the results of this race, seems like Dunlop made a real effort to shore up their Daytona tire and they seem to have it under control.

 

So what's the word on the tire they've been testing for the 1000's to run the big track, so that we might possibly see a return of the 200 on bike bikes again?

 

If they make the US NTEC slick the spec tire for SBK then yes since it's a 200/55 (even though the 200/55 is the same dimensions as the 195/65).


Wait, was that ever Dunlops intentions? To make the US slick the spec tire for SBK as the GP-A is the spec for the 600's and boot the UK tires out completely?

 

I still want an apology for not having 160s all fucking year!!!

 

Haha, maybe they need to make an American 160 DOT and they wouldn't have that problem. I'm sure they wouldn't have a hard time selling them. They've even got endurance teams to test them out.

 

No kidding. There's a pretty decent sized market for them and they do kinda have the 2010 and likely 2011 LW Endurance champions based 15 minutes from the Easter U.S. distributor.

 

I don't think any of the tire manufacturers worry too much about the 160 rear tires (or other small bike sizes, for that matter). Not enough of us and we don't use as many tires, either.

 

Exactly.
I don't think we're even a blip on their marketing dept.'s radar.

 

yea, but still not a good idea to piss off any part of your market, no matter how small. Two things...

1.) When we (little bike guys) bring new riders into the sport, not all of them necessarily will be on little bikes and they will look to us for help and suggestions, including tires.

2.) All those new up and coming young guns dont just start going blazing fast on 600s. They all start on small bikes first and when they move up to big bikes, they will likely want to stick to the tires they know. If they can't use Dunlops on the little bikes, they probably won't be looking to make the switch for no reason when they already know a tire brand they like. Although, this also only makes up a small portion of the market as well, it makes up for a good portion of marketing resources. Just my .02. :crackhead:

 

After talking to Dunlop Friday, I believe you two might be incorrect.