Originally Posted by erkmania
That all just seems so darned reasonable.
Right or wrong, I think I'll just continue to stick with the 5-year since made rule. I had a friend give me some new slicks for my race bike once that were at least 5-years old. I scuffed them in on the street near our shop and I never got comfortable with them. They just didn't provide any confidence. I mounted new tires and the bike returned to normal.
Another experience was with a tire that was shipped to me recently. It was just more than 5-years old. I hemmed and hawed about returning it. I checked the tread with my Durometer and didn't really see much difference between the used and the new tire. But, the rubber's suppleness just didn't seem good to me or the friends of mine that looked at it, too. The rep for the distributor had heard the same rule-of-thumb and he didn't argue in the least when I asked him to exchange the tire.
These are just the anecdotal experiences that come immediately to mind. YMMV.
Yeah, but you're dealing with race slicks, not the tires on some guy's Shadow. I remember bicyclists used to and may still age their tires in dark rooms to affect the tread compound, no ozone source. Does it do anything? I don't know.
I figure these guys know far more than I do and probably everyone that has posted in this thread when it comes to generalities with tires.
As for the later post by someone about mold release agent, is it used for motorcycle tires or do they release just fine as is since the compound has oils and waxes in the mix. The rep was talking motorcycle tires and said no coating. Who do I believe? The guy who's there, sees the process and has no reason to lie about it. In fact if they did use something they would certainly want to reveal it for liability purposes. To get riders to scuff the material off the tires if it actually was there.
Again, I'd rather make the mistake to be too careful with new tires than not. Far cheaper end results.