A few Tuesday mornings ago, getting ready to ride. Check the tyres - front good, back appears to have no air. Not under pressure anyway. Bum!, or words to that effect. Couldn't see any cut greater than its neighbour and no evidence of anything embedded. Hmmm - shove some more air in, use water spray to look for leaks. Nuffink. No significant loss in one hour on centre stand. I reckon I can ride this to the tyre bloke. They are just about due to be replaced anyway. 16K km.
Get on the phone, talk to Bruce and Karen. Sure, they've got front and rear, In Pirelli Angel GT. Cool, I think, Pirelli are now making a tyre to suit (160/70 17 73W). Let's do it I say, I'll be there soon.
No dramas getting there. Tyres on, money paid. Rode away.
After 80 km, starting to feel good. I notice that the bike has more punch. Why, I ask myself. Bum! Again! It's a 160/60 17 on the rear, a lower profile tyre, therefore a smaller diameter. Like having more oomph on tap. I didn't know the tyre fitted was a non-standard size until this time.
Google. People do that, fit non-standard tyres, coz Honda, in one of their finer moments, decided to use an odd-ball tyre size on the CBS ABS/TCS ST. The Google wisdom appears to be that if an emergency alternative is needed, best it be 170/60 17 72W. It is closer in diameter to the 160/70 and has a higher weight rating, at 72W, than the 160/60 at 69W. I read that the extra width is not an issue. Still short in the weight rating though, but by much less. YRMV.
The weight rating. Therein lies the problem. In the words of the state gummint, if "Tyre load ratings are less than the minimum ... blah ... originally ... blah ... manufacturer", then it is a reason for rejection when being examined for a safety certificate. It also has the potential to invalidate any insurance policies. The RACQ mention that. And other stuff too.
The next day, the tyre was (very graciously, although with a $150 contribution from me) replaced with a Bridgestone T30 160/70 17 73W. Thank you very much Bruce and Karen.
Whose fault was it? Probably mine, but not solely. When I first rang, I may have said the size I wanted was 160/60, that is certainly what Karen wrote down in her notes, so that is what she heard. My notes show the correct size, 160/70. So did I say 60, not 70? I cannot see why I would, it isn't as if I was entertaining running that size. Hadn't entered my mind. Why would I have said it? A slip of the tongue? Dyslexia?
Is it possible to "mis-hear" somebody? A slip of the ear?
In the future, please question me if I ask for a non-standard tyre size!
All good now.
