Hi,
I have a question. (New to me - old bike)
If a bike has new tires fitted and then has been sitting for 2 years in the garage with brand new tires and not ridden a total of more than 40 miles... are the tires damaged in any way? Are they still as good as new?

Thanks

 

The tires are definitely not as good as new.
1. Tires (rubber) deteriorate over time even if they are brand new and have 0 miles on them. The tire rubber is affected by environmental conditions (heat, exposure to the elements, UV) and can harden the rubber over time
2. If the bike sat stationary in the same position for a prolonged period of time, a flat spot can develop in the tire

If a tire is over 5 years old it should be replaced regardless of the remaining tread or the miles on them.

Look at the DOT date code on the sidewall of the tire. That will tell you the tires age. It is a 4 digit number. The first two digits is the week and the second two digits is the year it was manufactured.


In this example, the tire was manufactured the 21st week of 2018.

In your case, the new tires were put on the bike and then the bike sat for 2 years but how long were the tires sitting on the shelf before being put on the bike? Report back with the DOT date code on the tires.

 

I have ridden Harleys here in Australia with tyres fitted that were "8 years old".

I ride until the tread is no longer in spec.

Perhaps just me, but best value for money that way.

And I often wear "classic/vintage" motorcycle helmets, Easy Rider types and such.

Again, maybe just me BUT some sources of info are just too anally retentive.

 

I grew up in "the colonies" a 3rd World country, where motorcycle tyres or parts or anything else imported from a 1st World country at a crippling exchange rate, will cost the customer an enormous proportion of their disposable income. Trying to keep a motorcycle on the road there is a daunting prospect!

 

The two things I don't go cheap on are tires and brakes. Maybe it is just you. YMMV.

 

The tires are 2 years into their 5 year lifespan - IF they were manufactured that year they were put on - check the date on the tire.
Don't let anyone tell you about flat spots that's stupid.

 

I have never bought into the 5-year rule. Just my 2 bucks opinion.
Elements are what kill tires / rubber. Your environment will be the factor. Tubes - you should be far more concerned with tubes. Tubes blow, and down you go.

 

It's not necessary to buy into the five year rule if your motorcycle isn't a garage queen.
If you ride at all, even 5,000 miles a year, the tire milage will add up to getting new tires before 5 years.

I bought my older Electra Glide former garage queen with beautiful looking tires, zero wear on the tread - still had the little nubbies on from manufacturing. Dated 9 years ago
Changed them right away.

 

As with everything in the world, facts are often clouded by liability. We live in a litigious society, and all manufacturers want to limit their liability.

It's a fact that motorcycle tires are cured and formed in a mold. As soon as tire comes off the mold, it starts to age. Even if the tire is kept in a climate controlled garage, out of the sun, it is aging as it sits on the rack... There will come a time when that tire, even if never mounted on a rim, will be dangerous to use. Prior to being dangerous to use, tires will lose elasticity, and become hard. This affects ride quality and performance in curves, rain, cold, etc. These are fact, and not a matter of debate.

The debate begins when putting a safe use time limit on a tire.

On one side, you have manufacturers wanting to limit their liability. On the other side, you have consumers wanting the most bang for their buck... especially with the cost of tires today.

Over the years, the goal post for changing a tire because it has become hazardous to use has moved. Was it moved due to current tire technology and scientific testing? Or was it moved to minimize liability on the manufacturers? The average person, will never know.

I remember when they said all motorcycle tires should be replaced at 7 years regardless of wear? Now everyone seems to be saying 5 years. I'm sure tires have gotten better over the years, so what has changed?

I am an RVer, campers, trailers, and now a Class A motorhome. The world of class A motorhomes is unique, in that the Class A vehicles require six (some have eight tires and some super "C" Rvs have ten), high load commercial tires, in a 22.5" diameter. Most RVs don't put on the mileage to wear out those commercial duty tires. There are more Class A RV tires changed due to age factors versus mileage, than probably any other vehicle.

Those RV tires run from $300-$700 EACH...

You can imagine the debate about this issue on the RV forums.

Currently, there isn't an RV tire manufacturer (or any tire manufacturer I am aware of) that will advise using a tire over 10 years old. Most say that at five years, the tires must be inspected by a tire expert annually, if you want them to remain safely in service up to a max of ten years. One manufacturer (I believe it was Michelin) says the inspection should include demounting the tire to inspect the inside. Imagine the cost of demounting, inspecting, and remounting six-plus 22.5" tires annually..

I recently replaced my 6 tires at a great deal costing me only $4000. Before spending that money, I did some research. There are more than a few tests out in the cyber world, that show the risk of a tire blow-out, based on statistics gathered. They generally show a low incidence of blow-outs from 1-5 years. From 5-10 years, the incidents increase rapidly each year, almost exponentially.

I inspected my RV tires myself, on the rims from years 5-7, then changed them at 7. That was my decision, based on all the information I gathered. I was content to accept the risks for that application.

I believe my motorcycle tires are a little different. While car, truck, and RV tire blow-outs can be bad to catastrophic, IMHO, a blow-out on a motorcycle is a much higher level of risk.

On my motorcycles, I start shopping for tires on their 5th DOT code anniversary unless worn out before that time, and I have new tires on my bikes by the tire's 6th DOT code anniversary.

I feel comfortable with my procedure, based on all the research I have I done.

There are anecdotal stories all over the internet, and around the various vehicle communities, about tires older than 10 years that haven't failed. While I don't doubt them, neither will I make my decisions based on them.

Whatever procedure you adopt for your tire changing decisions, I urge you to take some time and do some actual research. Look for independent testing and data. Please don't base your decisions on the 'word of a friend" , internet posts (even this one), or the many anecdotal stories floating around about older tires that haven't failed...

The risk and the decision are both eventually all yours...

Be safe...

 

That would suck with RV tires as you can be using it a lot without wearing the tires so to have to replace them just because of age.
But with a motorcycle if you're not really using it to the point you have to get new tires because of age rather than milage why have a motorcycle?
Replacing tires you didn't even use is the bitch