I had the Mich. Comm. II's (200/55R-17 & 80/90-21) put on my night train this year just before heading out on my annual trip out west (5k+ miles). Rode the rockies in Colo. on the million dollar hwy. which just happened to be in the rain that day. I never felt more confident with these tires on the switchbacks & hair pin turns. 2 days later I was headed to the N. rim of Grand Canyon on hwy.98 & hwy 89 in a full on downpour where I needed to cut my spead down to 30 mph & still felt very comfortable riding in the rain-even though I was desperatly trying to find a pulloff.After those 2 experences I can say these are my #1 tires.Oh ya the tire tread looks very good yet with approx. 6k miles on them. One other thing is that I ride the rear at 45psig. & it is a radial tire (not all comm. II's are)

 

That pressure sounds way low...i would be running close to 40 on the rear...

 

Well it finally rained here!! I got to ride a in some hard rain for about 30 miles yesterday!! The tires performed flawlessly....I guess my earlier grips they just had not been scuffed in well enough, or it was just the roads were really slick those first few hundred miles...

 

OK, so instead of starting another thread...

I have decided to give the Michelin Commander II's a shot. Always been on Dunlops D402's like everyone else and their brother... tired of changing them sometimes almost twice a year...

Bike in question is a 2007 Road King FLHRS

So I have a couple questions, that I'm hoping current Michelin Commander II owners can help me with...


First, Radial versus Bias ply. I know the diff between Radial versus Bias in general... Whats the specific difference (handling, profile, anything...on a touring bike?

Second, recommended on Michelin website is:

Front: 130/90B16 73H
Rear: 140/90B16 77H

I was thinking, (aside from the Radial /Bias issue) , that I might go up a size, as I heard these are slightly narrower than the Dunlops. I like a slight fat fender filled up look...and seems like there's some room in there.

So I was thinking about putting in:

Front: Michelin Commander II 140/75R-17 67V
Rear: Michelin Commander II 150/90-B15R

Again, these are Radials, so if its just a higher V speed rating etc, I'm OK with that...I don't mind paying more for too much tire as long as its some tech advantage...

(Don't believe in gyping myself on tires after having had a cheap Chinese one shred at speed some years ago... don't think I didn't almost crap my pants either...70 on the interstate when it happened.)

So if anyone has some thoughts on these 2 questions, I wouldn't mind hearing about it...

Thanks, in advance.

 

If you use a pair of radials, or a bias front and radial rear you shouldn't notice any difference. For some reason a radial front with bias rear is not recommended. Any change to new tyres will make the bike feel different, but in my experience, other than that, you will be fine.

As for sizes, I don't recommend going up a size on the front, although I have used a 150/80 on the rear, which was also 77H. The rear size you quote is a 15", not 16" which your bike has.

I haven't used Michelins, being an Avon fan, but what you will find is that the actual width of a tyre when fitted is likely to be different to what the manufacturer says. When fitting non-standard width tyres there is always a slight risk of things rubbing. I have an 07 rear end on my Glide and clearances with my 150/80 Avon were fine.

 

Errrp...I copied the wrong tire size...had a few saved...thanks though, I may have actually just clicked "buy".

I guess I can go up one in the back if nothing else...I did find another post on this forum and its possible I may end up trimming the belt guard . But I think I'll do the 2 radials then anyway.

Thanks for taking the time to respond!
Merry Christmas!

 

With an 07 you should have the later spec narrow belt, which will be fine. The earlier wide belt won't allow a 150 to fit, even trimming the guard. I have used a 140/90 and MU on my bike with the wide belt, but went to a narrow belt to fit a 150/80.

 

I've got close to three hundred thousand miles on my Harleys over the years and used factory Dunlops on my '93 and '03 Ultras. I switched to Metzeler ME880's due to terrible handling on tar snakes and rain grooves with the Dunlop 402's early on in '03. I continued to use the Metzeler's on my '07 Ultra which has 85,000 miles on it now with 10,000 of those on the newMichelin's.

As long as you used the proper ME880 tire (MU85-90/16 rear and MT90-16 front rather than 140/90B-16-rear and 130/90-16 front), you would get outstanding handling and pretty good mileage with the Dunlops.

The 140/90 and 130/90 series isn't designed for the heavy touring bikes, so they get terrible mileage; I'm talking 5000-6000 miles with heavy riding as opposed to 10,000-11,000 with the MU series.

I was very excited when I heard about the Michelin Commander II's and the potential for excellent mileage. I thought since they were Michelin's, I would get outstanding wet weather handling as well.

I had a set installed at the end of this past summer and boy was I disappointed with them when winter arrived and the rains hit. I've had the rear end slide out several times and even found myself hydroplaning a bit a couple of days ago moving through a gentle curve on the freeway.

I graduated from CHP motor school in '80, so I've got a pretty good background in motorcycle riding over quite a few years and am very familiar with the pitfalls of street and freeway riding as an enforcement rider.

I can't wait to move back to the Metzeler ME880's even if I have to part with the Michelin II's prematurely. My safety on the road is far more important than the potential for better mileage.

I'm not familiar with the newer Dunlop 408 series of tires, but I know for sure the Metzeler's ME880's did an outstanding job for me over the years. Just my 2 cents worth.

 

I've got close to three hundred thousand miles on my Harleys over the years and used factory Dunlops on my '93 and '03 Ultras. I switched to Metzeler ME880's due to terrible handling on tar snakes and rain grooves with the Dunlop 402's early on in '03. I continued to use the Metzeler's on my '07 Ultra which has 85,000 miles on it now with 10,000 of those on the newMichelin's.

As long as you used the proper ME880 tire (MU85-90/16 rear and MT90-16 front rather than 140/90B-16-rear and 130/90-16 front), you would get outstanding handling and pretty good mileage with the Dunlops.

The 140/90 and 130/90 series isn't designed for the heavy touring bikes, so they get terrible mileage; I'm talking 5000-6000 miles with heavy riding as opposed to 10,000-11,000 with the MU series.

I was very excited when I heard about the Michelin Commander II's and the potential for excellent mileage. I thought since they were Michelin's, I would get outstanding wet weather handling as well.

I had a set installed at the end of this past summer and boy was I disappointed with them when winter arrived and the rains hit. I've had the rear end slide out several times and even found myself hydroplaning a bit a couple of days ago moving through a gentle curve on the freeway.

I graduated from CHP motor school in '80, so I've got a pretty good background in motorcycle riding over quite a few years and am very familiar with the pitfalls of street and freeway riding as an enforcement rider.

I can't wait to move back to the Metzeler ME880's even if I have to part with the Michelin II's prematurely. My safety on the road is far more important than the potential for better mileage.

I'm not familiar with the newer Dunlop 408 series of tires, but I know for sure the Metzeler's ME880's did an outstanding job for me over the years. Just my 2 cents worth, so I too join the NOT IMPRESSED!

 

Harleys don't lean far enough to reach the limit of cornering traction.