Metzelers?

Mine MEZ4 lasted as far as the tyre dealer. Shite tyres. 010s were
lovely on that bike.

 

I did a total of 79 miles on my MEZ4s. The BT010s rocked but as I am
doing a commute these days, I switched to BT020s. I really wish I hadn't
as they don't have the feel of the O10s and I just don't trust them.
I've got into minor slides 3 times so far.

 

I had a MEz3 on the front of the Sprint ST for a while, paired with a
rear BT57. Was pretty good initially, certainly gave more grip
(measured by ease of stoppies) than any of the Bridgestines I used
(BT57/020/010).

Handled OK too, with a much quicker turn-in, but once it started to
wear it got quite scary - would either go straight or cranked right
over but didn't like to be mid-way, IYSWIM.

Of course, this was almost totally due to the fact that a) it wasn't a
recommended tyre for the bike and b) it had a completely different
profile to the rear.

 

Lozzo wrote

No we're decided that MEZ4's are only marginally less of a widowmaker than Macadams.

HTH

Paul.

 

That's about the same distance I rode them.

I stuck with the 010s because on such a light bike the wear rate
difference between them and 020s wasn't worth the loss of grip and
feel.

 

(Zymurgy) burbled:

<checks to see what tyres are on the B12>

Oh dear.

If Macadams are that bad, why are they OEM fitment on Bandit 1200s?

 

Zymurgy says...

Macadams are worse that Avon SM MK2s

 

DR says...

Suzuki buy thousands of them dirt cheap, because retail punters won't
touch them.

 

Dunno, mate - they're shite. They do last a long time, but they don't
offer a lot of grip especially in the wet and cold.

Having the Macadams off my Bandit made me wince, for at 4,000 miles
the front was hardly worn and the rear had ~4mm left (1) but I didn't
trust them after they had let go on white lines, ironwork and wet
tarmac. The 020 replacements were much better.


1. The original owner had had both tyres plugged in the three
years/1800 miles of his ownership mind - the unlucky fucker.