Evening Nutty,
You would be sticking even more with the PR4...............
Regards
Not on the gravel tracks and fire roads I ride on!

Evening Nutty,
You would be sticking even more with the PR4...............
Regards

I must admit though, I am tempted by the PR4's as the likelihood of my going anywhere substantial off road is probably zero!
![]()
I really don't see this is an insurance issue myself - surely, the only thing that could make an insurer make a fight of it would be if the tyres were illegal? The rest is only recommendation. It's not illegal to fit a PR4 GT rear with a Trail front so I fail to see how an insurer would win a case on that basis. There are certain legal parameters you should stay between with tyres but other than that I would be happy to mix them up.
Michelin will only recommend Trail's front and rear, anything else and you've stepped outside of the manufacturers recommendation. The Nutter you specifically asked if your insurance will be invalid, if you ever have to make a claim you can bet your arse it will be at least as far as your insurer is concerned - they always check the tyres! Get it in writing (see my previous entry) or tell the dealer to sort it.
The simple truth is, it's incredibly hard to invalidate a policy of motor insurance, even by undertaking acts that break the law, like drink driving.
Did you just dream that up or did your mate tell you?
The motorcycle's manufacturer recommends the fitment of an EU compliant exhaust and catalytic converter and not taking the motorcycle motorcycle to Hilltop to be breathed on. They probably also recommend taking it to nowhere but an authorised dealership for regular services through its lifetime, returning to a dealership to change the indicator bulbs and using only Castrol oils. Their recommendations will all be listed in the owners handbook or given verbally.
As to the invalidation of insurance? It is certainly very illegal to be in charge of a vehicle drunk or to drive one that does not have an MOT or current road tax. None of these three acts (or even all three at once, as is sometimes the case) invalidate the insurance. Given that drunk driving is accepted as a major - and not uncommon- cause of accidents, resulting in death, please find me one example where either:
(A) The driver's policy was invalidated, due to the driver failing a drink drive test, whether as a consequence of an accident or not
(B) The police launched a separate prosecution of 'driving whilst uninsured', in addition to the prosecution for drunk driving
The simple truth is, it's incredibly hard to invalidate a policy of motor insurance, even by undertaking acts that break the law, like drink driving.
Did you just dream that up or did your mate tell you?
The motorcycle's manufacturer recommends the fitment of an EU compliant exhaust and catalytic converter and not taking the motorcycle motorcycle to Hilltop to be breathed on. They probably also recommend taking it to nowhere but an authorised dealership for regular services through its lifetime, returning to a dealership to change the indicator bulbs and using only Castrol oils. Their recommendations will all be listed in the owners handbook or given verbally.
As to the invalidation of insurance? It is certainly very illegal to be in charge of a vehicle drunk or to drive one that does not have an MOT or current road tax. None of these three acts (or even all three at once, as is sometimes the case) invalidate the insurance. Given that drunk driving is accepted as a major - and not uncommon- cause of accidents, resulting in death, please find me one example where either:
(A) The driver's policy was invalidated, due to the driver failing a drink drive test, whether as a consequence of an accident or not
(B) The police launched a separate prosecution of 'driving whilst uninsured', in addition to the prosecution for drunk driving
The simple truth is, it's incredibly hard to invalidate a policy of motor insurance, even by undertaking acts that break the law, like drink driving.
Hi Guys, To get some official clarification and recommendations on the above postings, I emailed the question with some anonymous extracts from the forum postings re PR4 tyre mixtures to the main tyre technical man at Michelin earlier this afternoon.
This is his reply....
Hello Kev,
Thanks for this. Hopefully I can clarify the situation for the benefit of the forum.
In the example below the dealer has fitted a mixture of tyres that Michelin do not recommend.
The Pilot Road 4 GT tyres feature a different carcass construction, tread compound and tread compound distribution to the standard version and the Trail version of the Pilot Road 4 tyres and the GTs are designed for a limited number of specifc bikes such as the BMW K1600GT and the Honda Pan European. The GT version of the Pilot Road 4 should not be mixed with a non GT version, (specific fitment recommendations for the Yamaha TDM 900 tested and validated by Michelin are the only exception to this rule).
The Pilot Road 4 Trail in the appropriate sizes is our recommended fitment for the BMW GS series.
The most common requests for Michelin tyre fitment recommendations come from consumers, dealers and police accident investigators and the information is freely available on our website for anyone to check.
Consumers in the UK can legaly fit and use tyres that do not correspond to tyre manufacturers recommendations as long as the fitment chosen conforms to relevant UK law and the tyres are appropriate to the use and vehicle, but any court of law, enquiry or investigator would take into account that the tyre manufacturers recommended fitment had been ignored in the event of an accident or claim. (This sentence should always be quoted in full.)
Best regards,
Tony
Michelin
Tony Charlton
2w Product Technical Manager
UK & ROI
So what are BMW's current recommendations, as the PR4 Trail wasn't out for the bike's launch was it?
How about using Michelin's recommendations?