BMW K1600 Forum banner

61 - 80 of 82 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
183 Posts
I have about 300 miles on my 5GTs...... I have a lot of clearance on my 2018gtl...Hopefully i will not have a problem...i love these tires
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
957 Posts
Did you call Michelin? They gave me a case number which my dealer then used to order and install a PR4 at no cost to me.
yes, called mich, they took my name and tire dot and told me to call my BMW dealer and have them contact the mich rep. done and done. My bmw dealer showed me the mich doc where it says they will replace the tire but customer is responsible for the tire change.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
469 Posts
yes, called mich, they took my name and tire dot and told me to call my BMW dealer and have them contact the mich rep. done and done. My bmw dealer showed me the mich doc where it says they will replace the tire but customer is responsible for the tire change.
Great. Michelin screws up on a tire you purchased in good faith, and you’re left having to take money out of your pocket.

I don’t care how good the tire is. I’d kick the company to the curb as far as future business.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
957 Posts
Great. Michelin screws up on a tire you purchased in good faith, and you’re left having to take money out of your pocket.

I don’t care how good the tire is. I’d kick the company to the curb as far as future business.
So should I be a BMW detractor or a Michelin detractor? The are literally pointing their fingers at each other.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
437 Posts
Great. Michelin screws up on a tire you purchased in good faith
being we are riding on their tires that are defective.
To be clear, I have no association with either manufacturer, but the view that Michelin have "screwed up", or that they have produced tyres "that are defective" is 100% wrong.

Michelin have produced a product that conforms to accepted published global standards, and BMW have confirmed that. The issue is with BMW, who have manufactured bikes that cannot and will not work with the size of tyre they specify if that tyre's width is near the maximum permitted by the standards. However, for pragmatic reasons it's easier and cheaper to fit a different tyre rather than fix the bike.
So should I be a BMW detractor or a Michelin detractor?
Personally, I would be knocking on BMW's door.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,283 Posts
To be clear, I have no association with either manufacturer, but the view that Michelin have "screwed up", or that they have produced tyres "that are defective" is 100% wrong.

Michelin have produced a product that conforms to accepted published global standards, and BMW have confirmed that. The issue is with BMW, who have manufactured bikes that cannot and will not work with the size of tyre they specify if that tyre's width is near the maximum permitted by the standards. However, for pragmatic reasons it's easier and cheaper to fit a different tyre rather than fix the bike.
Personally, I would be knocking on BMW's door.
The idea that BMW would redesign the swing arm to fit a specific tire is bit ridiculous IMHO.

The PR5 has actually been available for over a year, but Michelin only produced a GT version that was load and speed rated to meet BMW’s specifications for the K1600 late last year. Obviously not enough testing was done Michelin but, as we have seen on this forum, the problem with the rubbing on the swing arm is not universal.

BMW have done the right thing by no longer approving the PR5GT for the K1600. My personal experience with Michelin replacing the tire at their cost has been good, if a bit frustrating.

I shall continue to enjoy riding KBiK well past 100K miles on Michelin Pilot Road tires.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
469 Posts
To be clear, I have no association with either manufacturer, but the view that Michelin have "screwed up", or that they have produced tyres "that are defective" is 100% wrong.

Michelin have produced a product that conforms to accepted published global standards, and BMW have confirmed that. The issue is with BMW, who have manufactured bikes that cannot and will not work with the size of tyre they specify if that tyre's width is near the maximum permitted by the standards. However, for pragmatic reasons it's easier and cheaper to fit a different tyre rather than fix the bike.
Personally, I would be knocking on BMW's door.
I was a software developer by trade. That world is filled with standards and protocols for different networks, products and databases that are "supposed" to seamlessly work together. Most of the time they did, but sometimes not. That's why we unit tested, system tested, stress tested and quality assurance tested every hand shake multiple times before giving a go. In the industry I was in, zero downtime was the standard. It was the only standard any of us could take to the bank. There was no room for simply trusting that everything would automatically work..

Apparently Michelin didn't do that level of due diligence. Since the BMW swing arm existed long before the GT5, it seems reasonable to put the problem in Michelin's lap. Especially if Michelin is publishing advertisements of GT5s on K1600s. For the consumer, there is an implied assumption that their tire is 100% compatible. We now know that isn't true.


The idea that BMW would redesign the swing arm to fit a specific tire is bit ridiculous IMHO.

The PR5 has actually been available for over a year, but Michelin only produced a GT version that was load and speed rated to meet BMW’s specifications for the K1600 late last year. Obviously not enough testing was done Michelin but, as we have seen on this forum, the problem with the rubbing on the swing arm is not universal.
This. (y)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,972 Posts
Bikes are not built around the tire manufacturer. Tires conform to the bike, even if you try to dark side it.
No, bikes are built to tire specs...or they should be. Assuming the tire industry spec's we've seen here are accurate and valid, this is on BMW. This bike doesn't have the necessary clearance for a tire size that is within industry standards for the specified size regardless of how sloppy that spec is in allowing a tire to vary that much.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
437 Posts
For the consumer, there is an implied assumption that their tire is 100% compatible.
That, in a nutshell, is the reason for there being published global standards: Vehicle manufacturer designs and builds vehicle to accommodate a tyre of given specification, tyre manufacturer manufactures tyre in conformance to that specification and they are guaranteed to work together in harmony.

In the instant case we know that Michelin have produced a tyre that conforms to the published global standard, so the notion that it's Michelin's problem that BMW have manufactured an unknown number of (and we know it's not all) K1600's that do not conform to the standard is absurd.

Now I'll add some speculation:

I believe that BMW designed the K1600 to conform to the ETRTO standard with respect to tyre fitments, as there's no advantage to them to do otherwise (and in fact, there's a significant disadvantage in doing so). Until this issue reared it's head in service, I suspect that BMW had no idea that some K1600's that they have built do not conform to the specification, and they have since determined that, on some examples, manufacturing tolerances stack up to put the final drive components outside the intended dimensions. The reasons for this could be a failure of design (i.e. a failure to properly account for tolerance build-up), or a failure of manufacturing conformance to specification (e.g. a component - perhaps the swinging arm - has a dimensional error on a feature that is not normally subject to QA checks). Faced with the issue, BMW and Michelin have agreed a least cost / least disruption solution which is to withdraw the tyre as a recommended fitment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
469 Posts
That, in a nutshell, is the reason for there being published global standards: Vehicle manufacturer designs and builds vehicle to accommodate a tyre of given specification, tyre manufacturer manufactures tyre in conformance to that specification and they are guaranteed to work together in harmony.

In the instant case we know that Michelin have produced a tyre that conforms to the published global standard, so the notion that it's Michelin's problem that BMW have manufactured an unknown number of (and we know it's not all) K1600's that do not conform to the standard is absurd.
I never worked in the Manufacturing world. What I assume should take place in the testing of a new product may not actually happen. If it's my ignorance that leads me to the conclusion that Michelin is the main culprit, then my bad.

However, I find it unfathomable that Michelin doesn't know the minute specifications of the BMW swing arm, and any variances that exist by model/year. And Michelin should certainly understand the expansion dynamics of the GT5 under any and all conditions. So if the tire manufactured to "published global standards" shows questionable K16 specific space tolerances, you'd think they'd raise a big red flag. The goal is to produce a tire that works, and if for some reason it doesn't (for the K16 in this instance), keep it off the bike's approved list. It doesn't seem that hard.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
437 Posts
I never worked in the Manufacturing world.
Perhaps that explains our different thinking: I spent my career as a hybrid Manufacturing & Engineering / IT professional, so I’ve always had a foot in both camps. I certainly recognise the situation of “close to” adherence to standards in the world of software & IT equipment :)

In developing the tyre, I would have expected Michelin to verify with BMW what the particular characteristics of the K1600 are, including, but not limited to, confirming that dimensionally it adhered to the ETRTO standards for tyre sizing. I fully expect that BMW would have responded in the affirmative to that question. (As an aside, but I don’t know for certain this would be the case, I would expect that adherence to such a standard would also form part of the vehicle's Type Approval certification.)

Michelin would then go ahead and design the tyre, respecting the ETRTO standards. I don’t know why they elected to size it close to the maximum permitted width in service at 201.9mm (max permitted by the standards is 203mm), but there must be a reason because material costs money so logic suggests that it gives some performance advantage.

In the testing phase, Michelin would have run the tyre on multiple K1600's. In that respect it’s just dumb luck that all those test bikes actually were manufactured to permit the full width of tyre allowed by the standards and, if my speculation in the post above is correct, neither BMW nor Michelin would have been aware that there were any K1600's built on which the tyre wouldn’t fit. Bear in mind that this tyre / bike combination went through the very stringent German approval process, which it could never have done if either manufacturer was aware there was a potentIal dimensional issue.

The tyre comes to market and people start fitting it to K1600’s at which stage it becomes apparent that some bikes are dimensionally defective with respect to the ETRTO standard, and the balloon goes up in both Munich and Clermont-Ferrand.

From a commercial perspective I completely understand why the tyre has been deleted as a recommendation rather than BMW having a major campaign to correct the rear drive components of an unknown number of bikes. However, it does lead to reputational damage to Michelin as people are inclined to the view that “everyone else's tyre fits, ergo it’s a tyre problem”. Which, of course, is not true.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
I was a software developer by trade. That world is filled with standards and protocols for different networks, products and databases that are "supposed" to seamlessly work together. Most of the time they did, but sometimes not. That's why we unit tested, system tested, stress tested and quality assurance tested every hand shake multiple times before giving a go. In the industry I was in, zero downtime was the standard. It was the only standard any of us could take to the bank. There was no room for simply trusting that everything would automatically work
...and still we get faulty software... I'm in the business too, and I know that you can test until your face turns blue, but that one bug will remain hidden until the customer discovers it.

To say that Michelin f'd up or didn't test (enough) is too easy to say. They produce great tyres for ages already, so now there's one type with a problem. These things happen. It's not a catastrophic failure where your tyre blows up, it's just rubbing. Maybe Michelin could have done a bit more to reimburse their clients better and also pay for the tyre swap, but they didn't.

This will not prevent me from buying Michelin (Road 4GT) when the time comes.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
368 Posts
Perhaps that explains our different thinking: I spent my career as a hybrid Manufacturing & Engineering / IT professional, so I’ve always had a foot in both camps. I certainly recognise the situation of “close to” adherence to standards in the world of software & IT equipment :)

In developing the tyre, I would have expected Michelin to verify with BMW what the particular characteristics of the K1600 are, including, but not limited to, confirming that dimensionally it adhered to the ETRTO standards for tyre sizing. I fully expect that BMW would have responded in the affirmative to that question. (As an aside, but I don’t know for certain this would be the case, I would expect that adherence to such a standard would also form part of the vehicle's Type Approval certification.)

Michelin would then go ahead and design the tyre, respecting the ETRTO standards. I don’t know why they elected to size it close to the maximum permitted width in service at 201.9mm (max permitted by the standards is 203mm), but there must be a reason because material costs money so logic suggests that it gives some performance advantage.

In the testing phase, Michelin would have run the tyre on multiple K1600's. In that respect it’s just dumb luck that all those test bikes actually were manufactured to permit the full width of tyre allowed by the standards and, if my speculation in the post above is correct, neither BMW nor Michelin would have been aware that there were any K1600's built on which the tyre wouldn’t fit. Bear in mind that this tyre / bike combination went through the very stringent German approval process, which it could never have done if either manufacturer was aware there was a potentIal dimensional issue.

The tyre comes to market and people start fitting it to K1600’s at which stage it becomes apparent that some bikes are dimensionally defective with respect to the ETRTO standard, and the balloon goes up in both Munich and Clermont-Ferrand.

From a commercial perspective I completely understand why the tyre has been deleted as a recommendation rather than BMW having a major campaign to correct the rear drive components of an unknown number of bikes. However, it does lead to reputational damage to Michelin as people are inclined to the view that “everyone else's tyre fits, ergo it’s a tyre problem”. Which, of course, is not true.
Phil
Do you know the ETRTO published Michelin Road 4 GT wide dimension that hasn’t been posted as rubbing the K1600 swing arm, could it be it is less 201.9 mm spec used for the Road 5 GT?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,972 Posts
...and still we get faulty software... I'm in the business too, and I know that you can test until your face turns blue, but that one bug will remain hidden until the customer discovers it.

To say that Michelin f'd up or didn't test (enough) is too easy to say. They produce great tyres for ages already, so now there's one type with a problem. These things happen. It's not a catastrophic failure where your tyre blows up, it's just rubbing. Maybe Michelin could have done a bit more to reimburse their clients better and also pay for the tyre swap, but they didn't.

This will not prevent me from buying Michelin (Road 4GT) when the time comes.
There is no way any manufacturer can test for all the conditions. They sample by picking what they think are the likely extremes. Yet, new circumstance can still occur.
 
61 - 80 of 82 Posts
Top