Is is normal for the rear tire on a cruiser to wear out much faster than the front?
1) front - Bridgestone Excedra G701, mfg 06/24/08
2) rear - Bridgestone Excedra G702, mfg 04/27/08
The rear is worn almost to the tread wear indicator, the front is not. That being said, I plan to replace both of them around the first of 2013.
Bike has almost 6K miles, had 1800 when I bought it.
Just wondering if I should buy a different brand of tire(s) to get more even wear between front & rear. I keep air pressure at recommended level, and ride "sanely".
Tire mileage, as you know, is dependent upon variables such as pressure, temperature, road conditions, driving/riding habits, mechanical condition etc. etc. etc. and the manufacturing processes used to make the tire. One type of tire is better quality than the other but it does seem normal considering the weight distribution of the bike. The only thing that wouldn't be normal is if there are wear indicators showing problems with the swingarm or other suspension components and those are noticeably different than regular tread wear. Give her a good thorough inspection to ensure all is within specs and that will give you your answer.
It ain't about where you live; it's about how you live. So, ride to live, Bruh.
That mileage sounds about right from my riding experience. I get about 14k on a front and 5-8k on a Bridgestone rear. A Dunlop 491 Elite II would last 15-18k but at twice the cost. Currently I run a car tire on the rear. They have been lasting about 15k miles with little handling issues.
'97 EN500LTD 'Hidalgo'
170,000+ miles so far
SlipStreamer Enterprise II, Vista Cruise,
Fiamm air horns, Cobra Spots, Drifter solo seat,
Pro-Tac backrest, 17/42 sprockets, Darkside rear,
ScottOiler, F&S luggage rack ,Throttle Rocker,
Viking bags, Victory Vegas handlebars,
Kuryakyn grips, LED & HID lighting,
4-gal AUX fuel tank
On my 800 classic, my rear wears about twice as fast as the front. Running Dunlop 402s, I get around 18,000 on the rear, and around 35-38,000 on the front. I try to keep the air at 40 psi. most always 2up. Bike is rear weight biased, putting more weight on the rear tire, this being one of the reasons the rear wears so much faster.
I swear by the michelin Commander II tires...Have nearly 4000 miles on a rear
tire on my Honda magna cruiser and it has no visible wear at all.....Just installed two on my Vulcan 500....They cost very little more than other tires...
The rear on my 500 is 10 MM wider than stock but that seems to be no issue.
My rear wears faster as well. About 5,000 miles ago I replaced my rear, and I'd say I've got another 1,000 to go on the current front. Both tires were replaced at the same time last time.
Bike has 20,000 miles on it, it's on rear number 3, front number 2. It's about to have front number 3, but then shortly after it'll be on rear number 4.
Others report the front wearing faster, I suspect that might be due to not accelerating hard, and using the clutch more often when stopping and using the front brake almost exclusively. None of these are bad or anything, but, they are going to accelerate wear to the front and reduce wear on the rear. Those of us that like to open it up every now and then, engine brake, and frequently use the rear brake in conjunction with the front, are going to go through rear tires quicker and save some wear on the front!
That's the thing about motorcycles, every single one is different and every rider is different! Average MPG down in the 900 section seems to range from 35 mpg to 60 mpg. I get 45~55mpg two up with a tour pak, windshield and hard bags, while others struggle to get above 40mpg solo. Everyone rides differently and how you ride is going to affect your bike differently than how I ride!
"8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
I think the rear tire normally wears faster than the front because of unequal weight distribution, as indicated by the Kawa recommended tire pressures of 28 psi for the front and 32 psi for the rear, and, especially, acceleration and deceleration generated friction coming exclusively on the rear tire. I can't imagine what normal riding circumstances would make the front wear faster than the rear.
Thinking about rear vs front tire wear, we all know this but may not fully appreciate the immense part friction plays in the comparision...The front tire is always coasting...the rear tire rarely coasts, even when decelerating, as the engine braking is occurring then...This seems to me to be a major cause of rear tire wearing faster, along with the extra weight on it as already pointed out....A biking buddy told me that the speed of twisting my right hand when accelerating also has a major effect..
Once again, I cannot praiser the Michelin Commander II tire enough for very long wear..