Tyre trouble

[Possu]

On my '86 K100.

Ordered a pair of Metzelers (online) recently - ME550 rear & ME330 front in correct sizes.

Tyres arrive, rear is correct, front is an old ME33. Returned it immediately. Received phone call on Monday stating that the ME33O has been discontinued & replaced by the Metzeler Lasertec & that it's pretty much identical to the ME330. I tell them that's fine & to post it ASAP.

Tyre arrives today & the Lasertec is nothing more than an ME33 with Lasertec on the sidewall

I'm not keen on running a radial rear & non-radial front - I'm sure one combination of this is illegal - can anyone confirm this?

Getting them to collect both tyres & to hopefully replace them with the Pirelli equivalent - Sport Demons (100/90V18 front & 130/80V17 rear) - anyone have experience of these tyres?

I'll only name & shame the outfit concerned if they dick me about. At the moment it looks like they've been given duff information by their supplier & have only acted in good faith. To be fair, they've behaved well in sorting it out so far.

 

[MIKE R]

In the 'car' world, if radial and non-radial tyres are on the same vehicle, the radial must be on the rear. I therefore think your bike would be legal by the letter of the law. Whether or not I'd be happy to ride it is another matter.

Mike R

 

[Pondboy]

Pirelli Sport Demon's

Steve,

I used Sport Demon's on my UK coastal trip. Very road biased tyre with outstanding grip. Worked well in the wet as well.
Due to my excessive caning, the rear was knackered within 4,500 miles and the front is now up for renewal at 7,000 miles.

Quite a V shaped profile compared to a Tourance etc. which seems to give loads of grip on corners. The rear still had loads of grip even with the centre worn to the bone.

PB

 

[Mzokk]

Cross Ply front Radial rear = Legal
Cross Ply front Bias Belted rear= Legal
Radial front Crossply rear Illegal
Bias Belted Front Crossply rear Illegal
Same type front and rear (even from different manufacturers) = Legal