I’m using the original 1990 tires on my bike. Bought with 6,321 original miles, now, at close to 9k and am replacing them.

When you have money it’s easy to get upset about old tires.. when you have little money you look at the condition and not their age. I know.. I’m wrong.. but I’m not too. I have more money now at 52.. but I certainly learned a lot of lessons when my wallet was thinner and youth kept me naïve.

 

That's hard to imagine!!

 

I know in my youth I cut a lot of corners due to low funds..... The majority of corner cutting didn't bite me in the butt.. a couple times, one in particular, it cost me plenty...

Life is risk... we all get to choose the level of risk that we are comfortable with... sometimes we consider the odds, and other times we consider what is at stake. I always knew which I was giving more weight to, and the chances I was taking. I also always accepted the responsibility for my poor decisions.

But rarely did I ever choose against the odds, and with very high stakes.

That's what you've been doing every time you rode on those tires since the year 2000.....

Those tires, by any standard, should have been replaced in 2000 at the latest. Luckily you only drove 3K miles in that high risk scenario....

I'm glad you survived, but please don't fool yourself into thinking your incredibly good luck somehow invalidates the recommendations that a tire's age is every bit as important as a tire's wear.

Your experience was anecdotal, and far outside the norm. The tire aging recommendations are based on science. Had you ridden your bike more, with each additional mile, the odds that your outcome would have been different would have increased..

Ride safe....