BMW K1600 Forum banner

Michelin Road 5 GT

18K views 47 replies 23 participants last post by  d martin 
#1 ·
Just got back from vacation and look what finally arrived. Since I have only run the OEM Bridgestones that came on the GA, I will not have much to compare them to but none the less I will keep everyone up to date on the wear and performance.
 

Attachments

See less See more
2
#2 ·
Hey Mega, without wanting to start up the age old debate.... if you were one of the lucky people who have experienced the shimmer and shake in dirty highway air, would love to hear if you notice any improvement with the new 5GTs.
 
#9 ·
Ok even though this first impression will be based on a 40 mile ride home from the dealer and a front that was only inflated to 35 PSI :frown: and a rear that was inflated to 53 PSI. :surprise: They seemed to be a nice stable tire. I was not getting quite the same amount of movement at highway speeds around the larger vehicles as I did with the OEM Bridgestones which is good. I did not have the opportunity to hit any twisties but the few corners that I did have the chance to hit the tires felt good. Oh and of course I had to fix the PSI problem as soon I got home. More to come next weekend when I get a chance to go out on a longer ride.
 
#11 ·
Ok even though this first impression will be based on a 40 mile ride home from the dealer and a front that was only inflated to 35 PSI :frown: and a rear that was inflated to 53 PSI. :surprise: .
I hope that the dealer was informed.... This is inexcusable.. Seems like good practice to do what I've had local car tire dealers do and they have a second person re-check lug nuts torque and tire pressure.. or me do it...I've had lug nuts fall off less than 3 miles from the dealer on an SUV.

On another note, my dealer told me that as the 5s wear, they become very simular to the 4s. Can't explain it and maybe her was just jerking me around. I just had 4s installed because the 5s were not available....
 
#10 ·
In today’s times, no tires are really bad. There are, however, differences enough to distinguish a hierarchy, good, better, best, for optimists or worst to best for those less cheery, when it comes to rating new moto tires.. In this context, it is the case that the first rides on a new set of the worst tires will always feel better than riding on a set of the best tires that have been worn to the end of their lives. Riding on new tires, even ones that replace the same brand of tires that had been on the bike, feel magical. Handling is great, stable and true. The question is, for how long will they stay that way, and how will they do when ridden hard in different circumstances. I expect that there will be rave reviews of the PR5s because they are new. They will feel better than any tires that they replace just because they are new.
I am one who hated the PR4s. They felt great when new, but quickly lost their profiles. The front tire cupped and the sides wore faster than the center, which, of course, made the bike fall in on turns. They did give great mileage, but all that meant was that one had to ride on out of profile tires longer. Until enough people ride the PR5s to the end of their useful lives, reviews of them will be of little value.
 
#12 ·
Ok update time. After a few hundred miles these new tires feel good to me so far. Now I am by no means an extremely aggressive rider but these tires seem to do well going into and out of the corners. The turn in feels great and it seems to just flow right through the corner. I still have the slight left pull as with the original Bridgestones. Maybe a little less than before. The road noise from the 5 gt is comparable to the Bridgestones also. I am also trying to objectively compare these tires as new to my Bridgestones while they were new. I hope this is good information for everyone.
 
#13 ·
1,000 mile report: I have the Road 5 on the front. PR4 on the rear until it wears out.

I've gone through several PR4s before the 5, so I think I can compare them.

As to the front, which I think drives most of the handling, I'm happy with it.

None of the cupping is showing that would have been apparent by now on the 4..

I haven't run it in any hard rain yet. I'm sure it'll be fine though. No issues at all with the 4 in the water.

On the 4s I was getting a shimmy in moderately high speed (105 mph) sweepers that has completely gone away on the 5. I can leave it in Road when I had to go to Dynamic to dampen the tail wag. That's completely gone.

So far so good. I'll report more as I pile some miles up and get a 5 on the rear.
 
#17 · (Edited)
So, I ordered up a set of RP5 and didn't realize until I mounted them that I didn't get the GT version (my mistake)... short of having a shorter lifespan (like we really need shorter lifespan on GTL tires), any concerns about running non-GT vs standard Road Pilot 5s?

BTW, I will say, this bike is a PIA to change tires. I've never had a bike that was as difficult to change tires on. I suspect mostly due to the heavy engine in the front as opposed to the boxer of my older RTs and GSA, which were always a snap to change tires on.

-Wayne
 
#19 ·
From everything I have read the GT tires are made with stiffer side walls for our heavier touring bikes. That being said there are some people on this forum that have installed the standard tire road 5 tires and have not had a problem. but They would need to answer this question as to how the tires performed for them. As for changing the tires I have not yet had that privilege since this was my first set of tires since new I have just bought. My tire changer is next on the list to purchase.
 
#20 ·
I put a set of Road 5's on not the GT's as a replacement for the stock BS tires that came on the B. Even with the supposed softer sidewall they handled very well and wore really well. PSI 42 and 42
 
  • Like
Reactions: wbrisett
#21 · (Edited)
[Edited for accuracy]

Both the PR5 and PR5GT 120/70-17 have a load rating of 520 lbs.
Both the PR5 and PR5GT 190/55-17 have a load rating of 852 lbs.

When fully loaded and running two-up with a full load of fuel, my 2012 GTL would just slip under these load ratings.

Just one of the reasons I went Double-Darkside. Now my total tire load rating is a scoatch over 2,000 lbs.

:grin:
 
  • Like
Reactions: wbrisett
#23 ·
The functional difference between the two is the load rating.

The PR5 120/70-17 has a load rating of 467 lbs.
The PR5GT 120/70-17 has a load rating of 520 lbs.

Both the PR5 and PR5GT 190/55-17 have a load rating of 852 lbs.

Technically, when fully loaded and running two-up with a full load of fuel, my 2012 GTL would exceed the total load of the non-GT rating by about 50 lbs and just slip under the GT load rating.

Just one of the reasons I went Double-Darkside. Now my total tire load rating is a scoatch over 2,000 lbs.

:grin:
According to the Michelin website, both the Road 5 and Road 5 GT 120/70-17 have a load index of 58, i.e. 520 pounds. I have not seen an indication of a load rating of 54 for this tire, which would be the aforementioned 476 pounds. Despite there being two different versions of the Road 5, they would appear to have exactly the same load rating.
 
#22 ·
Thanks guys... I wasn't a fan of the Bridgestones that came on the bike. Apparently the Canadian market got different tires because when I was in Montréal in September and needed a new rear, the dealer was shocked I had the Bridgestones on the bike (I was hoping to change them out when I got home, but they didn't quite make it). Still need to scrub in the tires better, but just after a few miles the bike felt much more stable than it had previously. I'm sold on the Pilots. Next time I'll just make sure I order up the GT versions (although since I solo ride it, I'm not anywhere near the max load capacity).
 
#25 · (Edited)
I'm guessing 95% of the riders on the road are going to be fine just with the regular Road 5's load ratings of 1372lbs combined. My B weighs roughly 740Lbs fueled and ready, i'm 225lbs and the wife is 135lbs which puts me at 1100lbs. That leaves 272lbs for luggage. If i need more luggage then i need to be driving a car, lol. Realistically most of my riding is not 2 up fully loaded so i actually plan on getting the standard Road 5's. I'm ok with shorter life of the tire since i will get more traction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Troy1690
#26 ·
...so i actually plan on getting the standard Road 5's. I'm ok with shorter life of the tire since i will get more traction.
Is that true (more traction)?

I would have thought the lower load carrying capacity would result in more heat in the tyre (and hence the more rapid wear), but I wouldn’t expect that to result in greater traction too. I'm happy to be corrected, though.
 
#29 ·
The Michelin website has both the R5 and the R5GT rated the same as far as speed and load. I am a little surprised because in the past the GT tires have had a stiffer carcass. For me its not an issue as i plan on running the standard R5 on the B.
 
#30 ·
I'm running the PR5 standard non GT version. I run at 43 psi or so and I'm extremely happy. I can't find a shred of evidence that shows that the 5GT is any different than the standard 5. Michelin says the GT has a thicker sidewall, but what the **** does that even mean? Thicker by how much? Does it change the wear characteristics?

I'm starting to think they just slapped a GT rating on the 5 and its all hype. I'd like to see someone cut both apart side by side brand new and take some measurements.

Nate

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 
#31 ·
Tire Approvals by manufacturers

There is more to a tire than just load, speed and wear rating. The K1600 is a rare combination of weight, torque, speed and handling requirements that need to be considered when designing a tire. Over here the tire manufacturers test bike and tire combinations and issue an approval if the tests are positive even though it is not strictly required from a legal point of view. Personally I only run tires that a are approved by the tire manufacturer for the specific use. If you are interested I can post the approvals for the K1600 from major tire suppliers as an orientation. (German only, but it doesn't really matter).
 
#32 ·
There is more to a tire than just load, speed and wear rating. The K1600 is a rare combination of weight, torque, speed and handling requirements that need to be considered when designing a tire. Over here the tire manufacturers test bike and tire combinations and issue an approval if the tests are positive even though it is not strictly required from a legal point of view. Personally I only run tires that a are approved by the tire manufacturer for the specific use. If you are interested I can post the approvals for the K1600 from major tire suppliers as an orientation. (German only, but it doesn't really matter).
I know Michelin specifically approves of use of the PR5GT for the K1600 and does not approve of the standard version. Its just odd that they have the exact same ratings that everyone uses to judge whether a tire is appropriate for a given machine.

Personally I go with a motorcycle manufacturer recommended size and weight rating for a tire, because there is just way too many tire manufacturers to go seeking their individual approval of a certain tire on a certain machine. Im obviously not saying disregard a manufacturer, just that I dont necessarily need their recommendation for a tire on my machine.....

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 
#34 · (Edited)
The biggest difference i can see is that the GT is more money. Just as an example the rear tire for my bike.

Road 5 - 190/55ZR17 - $218.93
Road 5 GT - 190/55ZR17 - $246.70

Only thing i have come across that states any kind of difference is on Revzilla. They added the line below to the GT description over the regular 5.

: Stiffer carcass to better support heavier touring and sport-touring bikes
 
#36 ·
Several manufacturers offer GT or HWM versions of a tire that is recommended for the K1600. Load and speed ratings are identical, but the tire has a stiffer sidewalk to enable the tire to deliver that performance given the combination of weight and power that the bike possesses.
 
#42 · (Edited)
The difference is beyond specs. The GT versions rear tires typically have a stiffer side wall to account for stress on the rear tire of a heavy- weight, fast and high torque touring bike.The certification tests over here are done with a certain protocol that covers a range of extreme conditions and the tire has to comply. When was the last time that you were going beyond 120 mph fully loaded above 90 F for through a long sweeper on the Autobahn? Any instability inducing weaving will be revealed and could lead to a failed test.
As to differences in design let's have a quick look a the weight by the example of Metzler Roadtec 190/55/17 HWM vs the standard tire. HWM 8,065kg vs.standard 6,76 kg. I assume there are similar differences for other standard vs GT (HWM) tires.



Lighter bikes with less torque do not need stiffer sidewalls, actually their handling would suffer from the rebound characteristics of a tire too stiff for the purpose.



I agree that under 90% of the riding conditions a non GT tire is sufficient and safe and you will never experience its limitations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: st13phil
#43 ·
The difference is beyond specs.
^ This is the critical bit that people miss.

For example, the typically stiffer sidewalls on the GT spec tyres may not change the maximum permissible load rating for the tyre, but they certainly change how the tyre deforms under load and therefore the shape and size of the contact patch. This will define both wear and stability performance and is why the GT version is rather more than “marketing BS”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#44 ·
1-800-346-4098 is the number for Michelin tech line in Greenville NC. In case anyone is in doubt. My question to the tech was "what is the difference between the 5 and the 5 GT". Answer was, "No Difference" and i would be fine running either on the K1600B. My guess is that the tech was short and sweet because the difference, if any was so minor and not something he was prepared to discuss being it had no ill effect on my situation. Combining what Michelin has rated the R5 at and what the Michelin tech told me on the phone i am feeling more than confident in running the non GT. For those of you taking sweeping corners at 120mph + while fully loaded i would go with the GT.
 
#45 · (Edited)
1-800-346-4098 is the number for Michelin tech line in Greenville NC. In case anyone is in doubt. My question to the tech was "what is the difference between the 5 and the 5 GT". Answer was, "No Difference" and i would be fine running either on the K1600B.
I too had nothing better to do, but I am no so old that I would actually call someone on a telephone.:eek:ld: You use a land line for that!:wink:

So I googled. On the Michelin website, they say they use a different compound to make the Road 5 GT's sidewall stiffer. It doesn't say it is exclusive to the Road 5 GT, and it doesn't say the same compound is not used on the Road 5, but...

And as Jeff noted, Revzilla describes the GT as having a
Stiffer carcass to better support heavier touring and sport-touring bikes
Revzilla leaves that off the non-gt version description.

I think if the ratings are the same, which will be the basis of my heirs' lawsuit should I stress the tire out during my Atlanta commutes, I'll get the less expensive ones.
 
#47 ·
K16gt thought to be used in a more sporting fashion thus stiffer side walls. The compromise is ride quality being harsher and none adjustable with tire pressure. The standard tire having softer side walls rides better. As to wear that is where tire pressure comes in. The higher the pressure the less the outside edge of the tire slaps the road. On other sport touring rigs I have run 50 in the rear and 45ish in the front. As a everyday pressure.
Reason being Reno BMW's go fast guys. Cutler, Lasofski, Fast Frank, the Nevada 1100 crew all said that is what they run at speed. In the 1100 we would burn off a set of tires in 24hrs. So that was the limit. Rock hard road hard. Drop the pressure more forgiving tire.
The gt tire is harder at stock pressure with the stiffer sidewalls. The GtL tires are more adjustable do to you can play with the pressure. My guess is tire wear is about the same and the ride is much better. Were I live we like to say, there is one set up for Rt12 and one set up for the rest of the world. Gt suspension is pretty **** harsh around here.
Until I read this thread I knew what the problem was I just had not thought about the standard tire vs the gt. Thank you for making me run this thru the Bozo computer.
Jim
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top