Author Topic: Michelin Commander II  (Read 11153 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rel3rd

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 335
  • Country: us
Re: Michelin Commander II
« Reply #25 on: Sunday, March 25, 2012. 08:17:21 AM. »
Just got mine the other day also. Right around $250 shipped for both. I went with stock size 130/90/16 for the front, and 140/90/16 for the rear. I was on the fence about doing away with the wide whitewalls, but figured I'd give these a try. I scored a set of extra spoked wheels for a good price and just am waiting on the new tubes. For some reason, the place advertised the right size tubes, but sent me something completely different.
2000 FLSTC Pearly White 95"er
R.I.P. MOM 12.16.11 Cancer Sucks!!!

Offline tacojunkie

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 476
Re: Michelin Commander II
« Reply #26 on: Sunday, March 25, 2012. 11:30:31 AM. »
What kind of mileage can you get out of the commander tires?

Offline rel3rd

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 335
  • Country: us
Re: Michelin Commander II
« Reply #27 on: Sunday, March 25, 2012. 11:42:06 AM. »
I think they are claiming 25000? I thought there was another thread on here about them somewhere, but I can't find it?
2000 FLSTC Pearly White 95"er
R.I.P. MOM 12.16.11 Cancer Sucks!!!

Online Ozbernie

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 159
Michelin Commander II
« Reply #28 on: Sunday, March 25, 2012. 01:51:39 PM. »
Ive got a bridge to sell you all if you believe those mileage claims for wear. Too many variables. They feel to be a good tyre, but they are only that, nothing magic despite all the hype.
 The old rule still applies with tyres. Excellent mileage, excellent adhesion, excellent handling, pick any two!
2005 FXDL, 95", TW37N's, DTT, HSR42, Hallam Boyz Heads.

Offline rel3rd

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 335
  • Country: us
Re: Michelin Commander II
« Reply #29 on: Sunday, March 25, 2012. 05:37:19 PM. »
How much? For the bridge?  :nix:

 :wink:

I don't believe I'll see 25K miles, but as long as I get more than the 5,000 I got out of my Dunlop/Harley Davidson rear tire, which cost me nearly $100 more than the Michelin did, I'll be happy.
2000 FLSTC Pearly White 95"er
R.I.P. MOM 12.16.11 Cancer Sucks!!!

Offline Rags722

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 4635
  • Country: 00
Re: Michelin Commander II
« Reply #30 on: Sunday, March 25, 2012. 07:58:41 PM. »
I think they are claiming 25000? I thought there was another thread on here about them somewhere, but I can't find it?


If you go to the Michelin Commander II website, they are claiming 40,000 km ( 24,000 miles) out of a rear tire on a HD Touring bike and credit the new silica rain technology (SRT) for the extended miles but no compromise in grip.  http://www.michelin.com/corporate/EN/news/products/article?articleID=N20110823_cp_commanderII_EN  They also claim even greater wear out of the front tire.  Lets assume for a second they are only partially right and "only" get  18,000 miles out of a rear tire on a bagger and still have decent grip...... who is going to complain?

I want to give them the benefit of the doubt.  They know the original Commander kinda missed the boat, and if they want to be a player in the heavyweight bike class, this is probably their last chance to hit a home run.  I'm hoping they really put some research in this and got it right.


« Last Edit: Sunday, April 01, 2012. 09:08:38 AM. by Rags722 »

Offline 05HarleyBagger

  • Site Supporter
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 69
Re: Michelin Commander II
« Reply #31 on: Friday, March 30, 2012. 01:15:39 AM. »
So my question is............... will a 150 fit on the rear of a 2005 or 2006 Electraglide Classic without additional modifications ?
Or, what mods need to be done to make it fit ? ( If i need parts and you have part numbers would you please include them )  Thanks ........ and BTW, I want to stay with belt drive.......again Thanks.

Offline Deye76

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 6565
  • Country: 00
Re: Michelin Commander II
« Reply #32 on: Friday, March 30, 2012. 04:40:50 AM. »
" will a 150 fit on the rear of a 2005 or 2006 Electraglide Classic without additional modifications ?"

Yes. Been running 150's on my 2004 bagger since the OE 140 wore out.

East Tenn. : 2004 Roadglide 113", 2014 CVO RoadKing
Over 5' Tall

Offline 05HarleyBagger

  • Site Supporter
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 69
Re: Michelin Commander II
« Reply #33 on: Sunday, April 01, 2012. 04:56:26 AM. »
Okay,   If the 140 rear tire is small i bet i can run the 150 . My new question is .........is the front tire small also AND if so, should we consider running a larger front tire so that it will be atleast the same size as the original size front tire ?   Thanks....................

Offline Nooter99

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 514
  • Country: us
  • MOTORCITY
Re: Michelin Commander II
« Reply #34 on: Sunday, April 01, 2012. 08:20:12 AM. »
Okay,   If the 140 rear tire is small i bet i can run the 150 . My new question is .........is the front tire small also AND if so, should we consider running a larger front tire so that it will be atleast the same size as the original size front tire ?   Thanks....................

Here is some info from another thread regarding actual tire size. Granted this is for a rear tire. The Michelin website states the width is 150, Oz measured his at 142. Don't know if this helps you at all, but, based on this info, I went ahead and ordered a 150 for the rear of my '01 Softail. Stock size is only 130. Tire is supposed to arrive tomorrow, once I get it mounted and aired up, I'll let you know what I ended up with.


"Quote from: Ozbernie on Friday, March 23, 2012. 09:54:20 AM.

"I have a set of the Commander 2 tyres fitted to my 2005 FXDL. They replace the HD branded Dunlop 402. Commanders are excellent and bike rides great on them, not been in wet yet. Only disappointment the 150/80/16 rear is a much narrower tyre than the Dunlop. By a good 10-15mm. It looks skinny compared to the Dunlop but rides great. I suspect you could sneak a 160 rear on, anyone had a try yet?"

"Hey Oz, could you provide a measurement of the width of that 150? An overall diameter would be great to, if it's not too much trouble. I'm wondering if it will fit on the rear of a 2001 Fat Boy with zero modifications. I could compare your numbers with the tiny 130 I have on there currently. Thanks."

"Hey there
The width is 142mm overall diameter is 645mm.
Hope that helps!
Cheers"
« Last Edit: Sunday, April 01, 2012. 08:24:19 AM. by Nooter99 »
Better to die a million dollars in debt, than with a million in the bank!

Offline rel3rd

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 335
  • Country: us
Re: Michelin Commander II
« Reply #35 on: Monday, April 02, 2012. 05:25:40 AM. »
Put mine on the bike yesterday. The 140 on the rear of my Softail has PLENTY of room between it and the belt...a non-issue. Could have easily went with a 150....

My front 130/90-16, on stock laced wheels seem a little bigger, wider than the stock Dunlop/HD tire.

Overall, very happy with the whitewalls being gone, and so far, the ride and handling is improved feeling over the Dunlops.

Attached pic of Dunlop on front...Michelin looks to fill fender more to me.
« Last Edit: Monday, April 02, 2012. 05:32:03 AM. by rel3rd »
2000 FLSTC Pearly White 95"er
R.I.P. MOM 12.16.11 Cancer Sucks!!!

Offline Max Headflow

  • Site Supporter
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17263
  • Country: tr
  • Not Admin
Re: Michelin Commander II
« Reply #36 on: Sunday, April 08, 2012. 03:26:00 PM. »
Quote
Put mine on the bike yesterday. The 140 on the rear of my Softail has PLENTY of room between it and the belt...a non-issue. Could have easily went with a 150....

I finally got Commander IIs front and rear on the 07 FLHTC.. Man do those things smoke the E3s.. I'd swapped the E3 on the front with a commander II as it was worn out.. Sucker danced like a drunken camel until I swapped out the rear.. Now it's like its on rails. The bike does like to hunt a little going straight.  E3 did the same thing but E3s got better with the miles..  Might take some miles to slow the hunting but it doesn't bother me.. Bike steers real neutral in the bumpy fast stuff.  Well see how they stay that way.. The E3s seem to go squirrelly real early on.. Lasted well though.

Max

Add. Did 280 miles today and 50 yesterday on the new pair.. Mostly mountains..
Aka Mousinator, Another Wasted Minute With Max,
No Collar to the Bone

Offline Deye76

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 6565
  • Country: 00
Re: Michelin Commander II
« Reply #37 on: Monday, April 09, 2012. 05:15:06 PM. »
I have a set of the Commander 2 tyres fitted to my 2005 FXDL. They replace the HD branded Dunlop 402. Commanders are excellent and bike rides great on them, not been in wet yet. Only disappointment the 150/80/16 rear is a much narrower tyre than the Dunlop. By a good 10-15mm. It looks skinny compared to the Dunlop but rides great. I suspect you could sneak a 160 rear on, anyone had a try yet?

I don't see a 160/16 on their web site.
East Tenn. : 2004 Roadglide 113", 2014 CVO RoadKing
Over 5' Tall

Offline fourthgear

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 740
  • Country: us
Re: Michelin Commander II
« Reply #38 on: Monday, April 09, 2012. 05:53:17 PM. »
What , no WWW,  Its a conspiracy , damn it .

Online Ozbernie

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 159
Michelin Commander II
« Reply #39 on: Tuesday, April 10, 2012. 04:24:49 AM. »
I have a set of the Commander 2 tyres fitted to my 2005 FXDL. They replace the HD branded Dunlop 402. Commanders are excellent and bike rides great on them, not been in wet yet. Only disappointment the 150/80/16 rear is a much narrower tyre than the Dunlop. By a good 10-15mm. It looks skinny compared to the Dunlop but rides great. I suspect you could sneak a 160 rear on, anyone had a try yet?

I don't see a 160/16 on their web site.

Quite right, the widest tyre in the Commander 2 range in 16 inch is the 150/80/16
However I'm now actually quite happy with the narrower look. The up side is the handling is far superior. Looks don't get you around the twisties :)
2005 FXDL, 95", TW37N's, DTT, HSR42, Hallam Boyz Heads.

Offline troop

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 353
Re: Michelin Commander II
« Reply #40 on: Tuesday, April 10, 2012. 04:48:44 AM. »
I have a set of the Commander 2 tyres fitted to my 2005 FXDL. They replace the HD branded Dunlop 402. Commanders are excellent and bike rides great on them, not been in wet yet. Only disappointment the 150/80/16 rear is a much narrower tyre than the Dunlop. By a good 10-15mm. It looks skinny compared to the Dunlop but rides great. I suspect you could sneak a 160 rear on, anyone had a try yet?


I don't see a 160/16 on their web site.


There's one listed on the ad at motorcycle-superstore ?

http://www.motorcycle-superstore.com/3/31/401/41873/ITEM/Michelin-Commander-II-Cruiser-Rear-Tire.aspx?SiteID=SLI|Michelin%20Commander%202&WT.MC_ID=10010

Online Ozbernie

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 159
Michelin Commander II
« Reply #41 on: Tuesday, April 10, 2012. 05:02:00 AM. »
I have a set of the Commander 2 tyres fitted to my 2005 FXDL. They replace the HD branded Dunlop 402. Commanders are excellent and bike rides great on them, not been in wet yet. Only disappointment the 150/80/16 rear is a much narrower tyre than the Dunlop. By a good 10-15mm. It looks skinny compared to the Dunlop but rides great. I suspect you could sneak a 160 rear on, anyone had a try yet?


I don't see a 160/16 on their web site.


There's one listed on the ad at motorcycle-superstore ?

http://www.motorcycle-superstore.com/3/31/401/41873/ITEM/Michelin-Commander-II-Cruiser-Rear-Tire.aspx?SiteID=SLI|Michelin%20Commander%202&WT.MC_ID=10010


Not in 16inch diameter that I can see?
2005 FXDL, 95", TW37N's, DTT, HSR42, Hallam Boyz Heads.

Offline Deye76

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 6565
  • Country: 00
Re: Michelin Commander II
« Reply #42 on: Tuesday, April 10, 2012. 05:36:21 AM. »
Oz, if the 150/16 Michelin is 15mm more narrow than the Dunlop, that's a little over a half inch. On my 1/2" wider rim, bet no difference by looks alone. I agree handling over looks.  :up: Thanks for measuring.
East Tenn. : 2004 Roadglide 113", 2014 CVO RoadKing
Over 5' Tall

Offline metaliser

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 533
  • Country: 00
Re: Michelin Commander II
« Reply #43 on: Tuesday, April 10, 2012. 07:28:00 PM. »
I'm needing a 200 50 ZR17 75w Radial. I only see a 200 55 R17. Whats the difference between the 2 tire sizes?

Offline Nooter99

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 514
  • Country: us
  • MOTORCITY
Re: Michelin Commander II
« Reply #44 on: Wednesday, April 11, 2012. 05:10:31 AM. »
I'm needing a 200 50 ZR17 75w Radial. I only see a 200 55 R17. Whats the difference between the 2 tire sizes?

I'm no tire expert, but if I had to guess based on my limited knowledge, the 55 would be slightly taller than the 50. I believe the the 50 refers to the percentage of the height from the tread to the bead. In other words, 50% of 200 is 100, 55% of 200 is 110. So the 55 tire would be 20mm taller overall. Someone please correct me if I'm talking out my a$$.
« Last Edit: Wednesday, April 11, 2012. 05:15:43 AM. by Nooter99 »
Better to die a million dollars in debt, than with a million in the bank!

Offline coastie56

  • Site Supporter
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 254
Re: Michelin Commander II
« Reply #45 on: Wednesday, April 11, 2012. 06:15:50 AM. »
I put a set on last Friday and took a fairly long ride out to Grattan Raceway. As always it is difficult to judge the old Dunlops against the new Michelin because you are comparing an old, worn set to a new set. Initial impressions are the Commanders handle great. They seemed very smooth at speed and were quiet as well. Handling seemed very neutral, important as I had my removable tour pak on my Road King. I will be very interested to see how long before the rear tire flattens out. My old E-3 had 12,000 on it and it was noticeably flattened in profile. Two people had recently looked at it and remarked that it was pretty much gone. Interestingly the front D-402 outlasted 2 rears and did have 24,000 on it. I always seemed to go back to the Dunlops as in the past I have had some problems with the other brands. The real test will be to see the profile of the rear in 12,000 miles. All in all I am very pleased with my new tires. :gob: :bike:

Offline Rags722

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 4635
  • Country: 00
Re: Michelin Commander II
« Reply #46 on: Wednesday, April 11, 2012. 11:03:14 AM. »
I'm needing a 200 50 ZR17 75w Radial. I only see a 200 55 R17. Whats the difference between the 2 tire sizes?


Metaliser,

Not an easy question to answer, and here is the reason why...
What is the difference between a 200 55 17 and a 200 55 17?  Your first response would be no difference, they are the same damned size.

Here is a fact, taken right from the Dunlop Motorcycle Tire website. http://www.dunlopmotorcycle.com/tire-catalog/harley-davidson/dunlop-harley-davidson-tire-series/d407/

If you look at a D-401 Rear and a D 407 rear, in the EXACT same size, here are the specs you get

401                           407
6 inch                        6 - 6 1/4   Rim Size
26.12                         26.07   Diameter
7.00                           7.97     Width ( yup, a full inch wider)
8/32                           8/32     Tread depth

Now, that is two Dunlop tires rated the same size, and almost a full inch wider than the other

To ask the difference in a 50 and 55 aspect ratio, I think the ONLY ways to be somewhat sure is to either get the MFG specs on the tire or actually get a tire in your hands and measure it.  I tried ( not real hard, but I did try) to find a Dunlop in a 55 aspect ration to post it's specs as well, but didn't see any and gave up after about 5 min of looking.

Offline metaliser

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 533
  • Country: 00
Re: Michelin Commander II
« Reply #47 on: Wednesday, April 11, 2012. 02:04:14 PM. »
Rags I appreciate the effort. Someone else told me that the 55 would be taller, I dunno. I was just quoted a Metz for $300 installed and I lost it. I gave $200 last year. Surley tires haven't went up that much.  :gob:

Offline glens

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 3173
Re: Michelin Commander II
« Reply #48 on: Wednesday, April 11, 2012. 03:03:01 PM. »
I'm needing a 200 50 ZR17 75w Radial. I only see a 200 55 R17. Whats the difference between the 2 tire sizes?

I'm no tire expert, but if I had to guess based on my limited knowledge, the 55 would be slightly taller than the 50. I believe the the 50 refers to the percentage of the height from the tread to the bead. In other words, 50% of 200 is 100, 55% of 200 is 110. So the 55 tire would be 20mm taller overall. Someone please correct me if I'm talking out my a$$.

I'm sure that as with most things there's a certain amount of latitude available to the manufacturers, but the first number is the tire width in millimeters, the second number is the tire height (from bead diameter?) represented as a percentage of the width already stated, next comes the speed rating and construction, and finally the rim diameter.  "200 50 ZR17 75w" looks bogus to me.  I haven't a clue what the "75w" is supposed to represent.

Online Tsani

  • Site Supporter
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4284
  • Country: us
  • ᏣᎳᎩ ᎤᏕᏅ
Re: Michelin Commander II
« Reply #49 on: Wednesday, April 11, 2012. 03:10:46 PM. »
Not bogus at all.
200/50ZR-17 (75W) Dunlop Sportmax Roadsmart Sport Touring Radial Rear Motorcycle Tire for one,
Perelli makes one,
Metzeler,
and others.

The 75W is the load and speed index.
« Last Edit: Wednesday, April 11, 2012. 03:20:46 PM. by Tsani »
ᏣᎳᎩ ᎤᏕᏅ
ᎠᏴ ᎠᎩᎸᏗ ᏔᎷᎩᏍᎩ ᎠᏂᏐᏈᎵ