get some miles on them and let u  know
sounds TGTBT

i'm at 3k+ on the conti motions and still holding strong, nowhere near the ware marks yet. 65-70% comuting to work and back home. twisties on the weekends.  not saying their the best but a good bang for the buck..

I tried one on the back. 3350 and the cord was showing.

So I just had a set of these slipped on for less than $200, any feedback on what to expect? I'm coming off a set of pr2s which got about 6500 miles on em. I do a mix of riding, pending on if I'm waiting on the wife to catch up or not( cx650). I've run just about every tire imaginable on various sportbikes and thought I would try a set of these. I guess I'll report back if no one has any input.

Good ridin'

Already been there -- done that and they don't last.  The rear will be toast by 3000 miles.  The front Motion lasts better however, I got about 5k out of it.  You get what you pay for.

Well got em on the bike and they look good although the rear profile looks more like a 180. I'm going to try and get a ride in tomorrow so I'll report back with results.

For a 100 bucks more, you can buy a pair of PR2s that will last more than twice as long as the Conti Motions.  I thought these tires were going to be my rubbers of choice, but after "smoking" a rear tire after just two regional rides (3000 mi) I decided that I didn't want to have to pay for mounting new tires so often.  In terms of "real" tire cost, you are better off buying more expensive, longer lasting tires and saving the additional price of mounting by half.  With shops charging upwards of $40 per wheel to mount and balance -- this is a significant cost.  Watch:

25000 miles of riding:

Conti Motions:   8 sets of tires lasting 3-4000 miles = $170 per set plus $60 mounting per set = $1840

Michelin PR2s:   4 sets of tires lasting 6-7000 miles = $280 per set plus $60 mounting per set = $1600

See?  Penny-wise and dollar foolish......... Not thrifty

Good point on the real cost difference.

And even if a the tires are changed by the rider, for 'free', it is still a lot of additional effort.

Motorcycle tires are expensive relative to auto tires and I think all of us tend to look for the cheaper way out, at least those of us who ride a lot and use a lot of tires. Just about every time I buy tires I think about getting a less expensive type and then buy Michelins or Pirellis for the C-14, at least so far. But it does seem that I have to at least consider Shinkos every single time just because they are so much less expensive. Others who have used them seem to find the same thing as you mentioned regarding lifespan though so they may not be a bargain after all (it seems this way from the posts of others, I have not tried Shinkos myself).

Brian

For a 100 bucks more, you can buy a pair of PR2s that will last more than twice as long as the Conti Motions.  I thought these tires were going to be my rubbers of choice, but after "smoking" a rear tire after just two regional rides (3000 mi) I decided that I didn't want to have to pay for mounting new tires so often.  In terms of "real" tire cost, you are better off buying more expensive, longer lasting tires and saving the additional price of mounting by half.  With shops charging upwards of $40 per wheel to mount and balance -- this is a significant cost.  Watch:

25000 miles of riding:

Conti Motions:   8 sets of tires lasting 3-4000 miles = $170 per set plus $60 mounting per set = $1840

Michelin PR2s:   4 sets of tires lasting 6-7000 miles = $280 per set plus $60 mounting per set = $1600

See?  Penny-wise and dollar foolish......... Not thrifty