~
First off, I really don't have a dog in this fight... I don't own stock in any of the tire manufacturers, nor do I get any special "deal" on any of them!
And I certainly think each rider should pick what tire they think is best for them...
That said, I think it's important to consider a couple of points. First, it's rather dubious to accept any magazine or publication's "tests" as gospel. Just as some magazines have panned and ridiculed the Yamaha Super Tenere while others have given it positive reviews, so goes the same with tires. I do find it rather interesting (and somewhat suspicious) that a German publication pronounces the only German tire in the test as the "winner"... (Don't forget that Metzler is owned by Pirelli) Seems oddly similar to how German publications tend to always pick BMW as the winner in any comparison test. I also find it rather odd that the Metzler and Pirelli scored so differently in the testing posted above. After all, the Metzler and the Pirelli are essentially identical tires, with identical rubber compounds. Pirelli differentiates the two brands from each other with minor tread differences, but in all other aspects they are essentially the same tire. Why did they score so differently? Subjective bias? Testing protocol? A bad set of one brand? Who knows?
Another important thing is who were the riders? Some riders just don't like the *feel* of certain tires, while others love them... Witness Tony Elias never being able to come to grips (no pun intended) with the Bridgestones in MotoGP last year. I know when I was road racing I never found a Michelin I liked, while other riders excelled on them. I was most definitely a Dunlop guy (this was back in the late '70's and early '80's), and I liked the way they *felt* much better than any Michelin, and as such went faster on them. In some endurance races where the team I rode for had Michelin rubber I could adjust and turn competitive lap times, but I never really liked them. Here I like the Metzler Tourance EXP's, but in the past one tire I always *HATED* was the Metzler Z6. Again, one tire may *feel* great to one rider and *feel* horrible to another... It has everything to do with riding style, experience, how you ride, and where you ride (more on that in a moment).
By the same token some motorcycles react entirely differently to a given set of tires... Using the MotoGP analogy again, just look at how the current Yamaha M-1 according to all reports works wonderfully on the current Bridgestone tires available, while the Honda RCV's have continual trouble with chatter on the same tires, and the Ducati can't make the front Bridgestones *worK* and get up to temp. Likewise, I have had race cars that simply would not work, no matter what we did, on one tire yet work fantastically on another. And again, when I was racing both MX and road racing there were bikes that just didn't like one tire and excelled on another. Weight distribution, rake, trail, steering head angle, swingarm angle, suspension linkage rate, frame stiffness (in three different axes), spring rates, damping rates, etc., etc., etc. as well as even power characteristics all greatly influence how a given motorcycle works with a given tire.
Take another example... Where Ducati says their own traction control system on the new Panigalé only works correctly with specific Pirelli tires.
Regarding tire mileage and wear in that test posted above... What was the mileage criteria? Did they simply measure how much each tire wore in, say, 2,000 miles? Or did they run each one until the wear bars showed? Until cord showed? Until exactly the same point *YOU* would change your tire?
In my experience motorcycle tires tend to wear at wildly different rates across their tread life. Some wear a bunch right at first, then settle down to a more linear rate, while others (like a Metzler Z6) wear fairly evenly for a while, then, all of a sudden, when it *looks* like you have 2,000 miles left on the tire it wears itself away incredibly fast, hitting cords instead in less than 500 miles!
Then there is pavement/tarmac, or concrete, or whatever surface is most prevalent in your riding area... Even very subtle differences in pavement composition can have dramatic effects on tire mileage and grip. Most certainly skid pads, testing facilities, and race tracks, where a lot of magazine tire testing is done, have different surface compositions than your home riding area. For instance, concrete freeways are incredibly abrasive and wear tires at a horrific rate. On the other hand, not-too-old, yet nicely seasoned asphalt of certainly composition is very gentle on your tires. Oil content, rock aggregate, aggregate size, sand, etc. in the pavement mix all have a bearing on how your tires will wear, and this composition differs not just from country to country, but state to state or province to province inside a country, and often even varies across town. It often helps to learn a little bit about the pavement make-up in your riding areas in order to make a better tire choice.
Basically my point in all this is take *ANY* magazine comparison test, regardless of country, with quite a large grain of salt. And even if they have reasonably scientific testing protocol and criteria unless they are testing those tires on the very *SAME* motorcycle you own, with reasonably the same equipment, loading, and set-up, etc... then you still may have entirely different results than they do, and certainly the tires they love may *feel* very, very different to you. And where they tested the tires has a *HUGE* bearing on the results.
IMHO, the very best place to learn about tires is from the manufacturers themselves, second to that from forums such as these, and third from experienced riders and shops in *YOUR* own area. In very little time you will learn what works best around where you live, and on bikes like yours with riders who ride like you.
Of course... All that is just my opinion, nothing more. YMMV. (no pun intended)
Dallara
~
