So my new (2006) purchase has arrived after a week long trip freighting from Tasmania and not without a few disappointments against what I thought I was getting. The risk of buying sight unseen I guess. Oh well, In time she will be all sorted.
One of these is that as a result of the revelations found in the service book (or not as is the case) I determined that the bike sat idle for what I appears to be the most recent 4 years, and only recently given a routine service which included replacing a perished fuel hose in the tank (the reason for it apparently not starting when delivered to the service agent as noted on their invoice.). The other is that the “tyres are great with plenty of tread” claim made when I asked long distance before committing to the sale, neglected to also state that they had been on the bike since mid 2013, with the front a week 19 2012 and the rear a week 18 2013 production date. So the rear (Pirelli Diablo) is 6 years old and the front (Pirelli Angel GT) 7. They are about a quarter worn and the tread on both feels hard. There is no sign of cracking and I haven’t ridden it yet to see if there are any flat spots.
I’ve never balked at forking out for good quality rubber and I’m not shy in riding on wet Melbourne winter roads, so my question to the audience is, which I believe I have already answered myself, am I being pedantic in thinking I should fit new?
BTW, this isn’t a which tyre should I buy question so please no recommendations on make, the Michelin PR’s are awesome and I have run them across many bikes and many years through their evolution. This is a question of am I over reacting, or is this a sensible contingency based on others experience. Manufacturers claim that 5 years onwards is the point to consider replacing regardless of wear due to the degradation of the compound through exposure to the elements.