Boss Hoss has had CT's for years. That's the first bike I rode with one back in the mid 90s.
Attachment 8555
Printable View
Boss Hoss has had CT's for years. That's the first bike I rode with one back in the mid 90s.
Attachment 8555
Personally, the DS is nothing new to me, or to MC's either. I've been there, done that, years ago,,, not going back.
This is not some 'new frontier' either. No one needs to feel like they are Columbus, a Viking, a Cowboy in the Wild West, a 'Pioneer in the field' or anything remotely close to 'an explorer' by slapping a CT on their 6. CT's on MC's have been around since the start, and the evolved tire / motorcycle technology of today is exactly why we don't equip ALL MC's with 'car tires' anymore.
The thought of 'trying something different' for yourself will always be there. The emotion of 'getting one over on the system' has it's pull, but the 'rationalization' used for CT's on MC's is, like it or not, 100% limited to 'armchair experts'. There is NO support for CT use by anyone involved in Tire or mass produced MC manufacturing. (If it wasn't for having 2 wheels, the Boss Hoss wouldn't be considered a motorcycle, and it's not what most would consider as a 'mass produced' bike either)
But, hey, if it makes ya feel good, what can I say? You can equip your bike as you please.
I actually saw an old Valk with a CT on the way home yesterday,,, Kinda got a chuckle out of it! He's happy, I'm tickled, and life goes on! :yes:
Yep, and those big fat rear MC tires affect the geometry of a bike in the corners much the same way as a CT does.
Once you wrap your mind around 'why' the bike handles different with a CT, the changes in geometry, the under-steer it creates, eh, well they don't look so 'appealing' after all. Of course, if you drive in a straight line most of the time, you'll might not mind the trade-off.
Draggin pegs more, wearing out front tires quicker than before,,,, Some say this is '100% proof' they are going faster,,,
Uh, if you REALLY think that's the 'cause/effect', more power to ya!!!.
I've said it 100 times, I never knew how much I missed a MT till I went back to one.
I really don't care about the cost/mileage. (Over $1200 for 4 tires on my RAM that should last 60k+,,, About the same as 2 tires totaling $320 lasting for ~15k~)
I understand the difference in sidewall/tire construction, and why the cushy ride isn't there, but that same difference provides a 'surgical precision' in cornering that can't be beat.
But hey,,, everyone can equip their bike as they want. :yes:
Folks who do not design M/C tires or Car tires for a living would be a good start. :icon_wink:
***************************
Anybody here work for a MC tire manufacturer as a Designer, an Engineer? :shrug:
Anybody here work for a Car tire manufacturer as a Designer, an Engineer? :shrug:
Anyone have more to bring to the discussion than "It fits/I like it/I haven't had any problems?" :shrug:
Someone who would actually know as a result of professional-level technical training each individual component of either a MT or CT, what each individual component does, how they work in unison, and what results when one or more of those components are changed /altered?
These are the same folks saying ya need to use MC tires on a MC.
The rest of us are all 'armchair experts'.
Its not new but it is forward thinking Scot. I don't see anyone twisting arms. But its an opinion that deserves consideration. And Bob you're right. I have an M109R and you have to really work that 260 rear MC tire to get around a corner. I can drag the pegs with it but it's like riding Moto GP. Takes a lot of body English to get results. Even with the CT on the B it out handles the 9 easily. I can't tell a whole lot of difference.
See my post above.
To have any of us 'armchair expert's' experiment with CT's is not true 'forward thinking' at all.
Maybe for that individual and/or on an extremely 'elementary/Bubba likes it' level it is, but the real world 'experimentation/forward thinking' done at the manufacturing level is light years ahead of what any 'armchair expert' does when he grabs a CT off a shelf and slaps it on his bike.
If folks can't or otherwise refuse to understand that, well,,, I can't help 'em. :icon_biggrin:
I, like you, had a 2006 Suzuki M109. It came shod from the factory with a 240 rear tire. After 6000 miles the tire was replaced with a 250 Venom R. That tire, like the OEM tire, was great for conversation at local "Bike Nights" and other cycle gatherings but was worthless in good cornering and rain riding. Had a experience in a rain storm where my a$$ puckered as I thought I was wave surfing. The 109 was all over the road from hydro-planing.
I'm, by no means a pioneer in Dark Siding, nor am I a Tire Engineer. My experience is based solely on a personal accumulation of approximately 80,000 "dark side miles" on three different "heavy cruisers" with three different tires. Each of those experiences were different which would be considered reasonable due to tire and bike design. Guess that makes me a "Armchair Expert".
One thing about cycle manufacturers! They will re-write the rule book to suit themselves and their "bottom line". A perfect example is Yamaha's "Raider" which sports a "bias front tire and radial rear". Here we have a manufacturer contradict the long held belief that radials and bias tires should never be mixed. For whatever reason they have thrown caution to the wind or a Yamaha Engineer has done some extensive testing to support this division. Sure hope he checked with the "legal folks" and had the blessings of top management:shock:
Unlike Scotrod, my personal "Dark Side Experience" has been a good one without any "drama", hence I'll continue to use what is best for me. I don't promote or endorse what I do as the "norm" or as a "maverick". I simply choose to do and enjoy the handling and performance the CT provides for the type of riding I do:icon_wink:
My personal safety and well-being are paramount! I'm a stickler for detail and specifics and document every event with my CT experience. I like to do "tire autopsy" be it CT or MT and get to the heart of the matter on how its constructed. I do the same with "oil filters". Knowing how it "Ticks" provides some clear evidence and eliminates conjecture:icon_doh:
Ride Safe
Bob we may be related. That was a well written post.
[QUOTE=Scotrod;46724]Personally, the DS is nothing new to me, or to MC's either. I've been there, done that, years ago,,, not going back.
QUOTE]
I've got two rear wheels, I'm going to mount up a C/T on one of them and draw my own conclusions.
I don't agree with that at all. As an ASE Certified Master Technician I work on defective pieces of shyt that the "manufacturers" put out every day. If you think that our safety is paramount when it comes to manufacturing practices then you truly were born last night. Their bottom dollar is what drives them and is absolutely the most important thing. And when you get what they give you its not necessarily what's best for you or even what you should have. Its what they can give you for a set dollar amount.
I was at my new powder coater's home last night picking up some parts. He had a Valk on a lift and we got started talking Valks and the like.... he had made a statement at he shop where we first met that the D.S. would never be on one of his bikes because insurance companies would not pay the bill if wrecked. I asked him them what HIS agent said. He had no answer . I suggested again that before he draw conclusions he needed to try it to have an opinion. I left with him saying he should at least try it!
Hey! it ain't for everyone...I do believe you should try something in order to have an opinion .... having said that....safety is not your governments first concern nor is it the manufactures either.... it is ALWAYS the dollar..... and IMHO most engineers I know are educated idiiots...just sayin....
Scot's point was that the engineers who design the components are working with a LOT more information than Joe Customer who simply buys the tire, rides on it, and forms an opinion. That is indisputably true.
Regarding the bottom dollar being more important than safety... what do you think happens to the bottom dollar when safety is not there? People stop buying those products and profits suffer or the company goes under. History is littered with such cases. You're on the service side of a products lifecycle; my hat's off for being Master Certified. But if you spend time on the design side you would quickly realize that safety is in fact a very high priority. Ask me how I know :icon_biggrin:
If we believe vehicle manufacturers are driven solely by the dollar, why would we not believe insurers do the same. Discovering a car tire on a bike would be a pristine reason to refuse a claim.
Your powder coater friend could very well have turned the table and asked if you ever had a claim paid after crashing on the darkside. I assume the answer is no. I know very little about insurance but I do understand there's some discretion given to the adjuster. *Some*, not a lot. I tend to believe the insurance argument is not clear cut one way or the other... but the risk of a refusal exists and should be considered.
The same could be said or implied for riding a bike without a helmet and have a head injury and have your claim denied for that fact!
The same could be said or implied for folks who are "vertically impaired" and operate a cycle on their tippy toes!
The same could be said or implied for anyone lowering their cycle so they can flat foot (only applies to vertical impaired folks)!
The same could be said or implied for driving a 840 lb. cruiser like a sport bike!
The same could be said or implied for towing a trailer with a motorcycle!
The same could be said or implied for driving on a rear tire with the cords showing!
The above, like your statement on using a CT as a excuse to deny a claim, are all assumptions and conjecture!:shock:
Unless one has definitive proof that a insurance denial has occurred (News Paper Article etc.) we add nothing to a debate except "what ifs":icon_wink:
About insurance companies! They operate on the business practice of " The losses of the few are covered by the premiums of the many"
Ride Safe
So, assuming insurance would be ok with it, would warranty service? Can Honda refuse to fix a motor problem or a trans problem because the found a CT (or for that matter you use 15W40 when their manual states 15W30?)
This is my first ever bike that I bought with 0 miles. I do all my work myself, and always have, but got to admit the warranty idea is appealing, I'd just hate to shoot it all to hell cause I have a CT on the bike when I roll it in. Anyone know for SURE what Honda would do?
2~kewl
Doing your own maintenance will not void your warranty! Keep all your receipts for oil, filters, hypoid gear oil etc. I make a note on each receipt of the date the items were used with the mileage recorded.
Living in Pennsylvania I have a requirement for yearly vehicle inspections. Be it car, truck or motorcycle, the vehicle has to be submitted to a local inspection station for mechanical inspections which includes brake linings, horn, lights and of course tires. The Pa. Inspection Criteria states a DOT Approved Tire on a DOT Approver Rim! I carry a copy of that criteria on my motorcycle. I have never had issue at inspection time with my Car Tire. I've have read of one account where a motorcycle dealership mechanic refused to inspect a cycle which had a car tire. He stepped beyond his authority in doing so. If that were the case simply take the bike to another inspection station and "getter done":icon_wink:
With the addition of many aftermarket non OEM parts added to motorcycles, especially lowering kits and trailering kits the bikes are traded and sold by the dozens at Honda Dealerships! I've traded bikes at my local dealership and they would only accept the bike if I removed the CT and installed a cycle tire prior to doing the deal. That saves them the cost of tire replacement which they would add to the resale cost anyway!
Obviously the smart thing to do, then, is to add one more reason for a possible claim denial :icon_biggrin:
Interesting; I wonder if they were being honest.
Not sure if you were implying that I have an opinion on the topic, because I don't. My only opinion is that folks become educated before making the plunge.
I've been seeing some mention that motorcycle rims have a different bead design than car tires. What is this difference and how does it impact CT fitment (rhetorical). Maybe most here understand such nuances but I don't and I assume many other new readers don't either.
Along with my F6B and my Valk I have a 1978 GL1000 with a California Sidecar mounted. I will say the Sidecar is an accepted non OEM addition to my Old Wing but that Sidecar sure is a much larger alteration to my Motorcycle than the car tire is on my Valk.
My point is that many of us make changes that an Insurance Co or Good Lawyer can exploit if push comes to shove in a court room. A chance we must except with our changes!!
While i'm into it I will throw my Car Tire thoughts into the mix...............
For years I wanted to try a car tire on my Valk. It is a 2000 Interstate and as of late 2012 I had a bit under 90 thousand miles on the bike. The Valk is not my only bike, but the one that makes the larger trips as it is set up for long haul two up riding. I decided for this trip to take a friend up on his offer to throw a car tire on. He has 3 Valkyries all with Car Tires and had an extra mounted new tire on a Valk rim ready to go. I had done my researching and reading over the years and started adding up the pros and cons of a car tire on a road trip.
As in the past, our Sturgis trips take in 7000 miles in two weeks so this will be a great test.
I have found the extended highway speeds in the July/August heat, along with the bike tipping the scales at 1200lbs once loaded with gear and riding two up, sure does tear up tires fast. Sooo I mounted the NEXEN 205/60Ri6 tire
NOW after running the CT for well over 10 thousand miles and a years time...
I will say for anyone that thinks they a car tire doesn't handle, just look at what's left of my pegs... You will still corner just as hard and lean just as far as you always had. NO CHANGE. I had thought I would sacrifice cornering with a car tire but that was a non issue. No change from Bike to Car tire in the twisties. This year to Sturgis we took the Northern route from New England thru Canada down into North Dakota. Three days of rain gave a good wet road test. Straight up stopping is awesome with the car tire, and even leaned over I still had good traction on the wet roads.
BUT I think the Bike tire has a bit better traction leaned over on dry roads. That may change with your car tire choice. The NEXEN has very small tread blocks on the sides and I think the larger surface area of the bike tire gives it an edge . Although I never felt any slipping until I was accelerating a bit harder that I should have while leaning in a hard corner up hill...
PRO...
Flat repair much easier and can be run with a plug
Better at heavy load handling
Better wet traction Much better tread life
No Cupping to deal with.. (a big problem with bike tires)
On the Bearthooth Pass we ran into construction and rode 10 miles of dirt in the rain... I was glad I was on a Car Tire for that!!!
Con...
Low speed handling on uneven pavement
Motorcycle dealers don't like to deal with them (but small tire shops have no problem)
Pro or Con depending on how you look at it...
Slightly higher RPM (very slight, maybe 200rpm at 70mph)
That last "Pro or Con" is due only to geometry, yes?
Another size CT would have slightly lower RPM, or if you go with OEM diameter RPM would stay the same.
Thank you for your simple but eloquent description of your Dark Side Experience.:icon_biggrin: I don't believe I've ever read a more informative post on the subject:clap2: You covered all the bases and hit a Home Run:icon_wink: I could almost "Swear" that your post was written by Daniel Meyer, author of "Life is a Road":shhh:
Do any of you DS'ers actually know WHY the bike handles different with a CT than a MT, or do you just shrug it off as an anomaly? :shrug:
Can any of you explain (and/or understand) exactly why more counter-steer is required? Can you explain exactly what happens differently on your bike when you use a CT?
Or is it "don't know, doesn't matter, don't care?" :shrug:
Scraping hardparts and reduced front tire life (the latter more prevalent on aggressively ridden bikes) are direct clues, but I'm afraid 'cheap price/extended wear intervals/cushy ride' are talking the forefront of you decision making process, with 'haven't had any problems' as your sole justification/proof of redemption.
Each individuals decision making process / sense of values / is different. When you don't understand, don't have an opinion, don't care about 'an anomaly', your decisions may be different than those who do.
:stirthepot:
Hope these video work:icon_biggrin:
https://video.search.yahoo.com/video...hspart=vz&tt=b
https://video.search.yahoo.com/video...hspart=vz&tt=b
It wasn't horrific, by any means, but as I'm sure I've said before,,, I never knew how much I missed a MT till I went back to a MT.
Stiffer ride? Yep, but the 'muddy' handling I'd "adapted to/learned to accept" with the CT after fiddle-fartin around with different air pressures was replaced with near effortless, crisp, precise handling whne I went back to a MT. Instead of 'carving a wide line', it felt like I could ride the white line with complete confidence...
That same precise handling is something that's never discussed as an issue with ANY MT at ANY 'close to normal' pressure, but with a CT, the very first thing you'll hear is 'adjust the pressure' to find that 'sweet spot',,, Up 2, down 4,,,, Break in the tire/loosen up the sidewalls,,, That 'fine tuning' is never needed for handling purposes on a MT, but it's 'step number one' with CT's,,,
Yet folks new to CT's seldom question 'why' all that fiddle-fartin around is necessary. Sooner or later, in the search for the 'sweet spot', you forget what the MT was like, and focus only on the characteristics of the CT. "Adaptation and Acceptance'
On my CT experience, I never questioned why all the fiddle fartin around was required, as I was certain there was some Holy Grail of "CT Superiority" somewhere,,, All I had to do was find that 'sweet spot',,,
Then I slipped on a MT,,, and the rest is history. :icon_wink:
And NEXT,,,, I wanted to know the 'science' behind exactly WHY there was such a difference in handling,, after all, if a tire is a tire is a tire***, why the difference? Why the understeer? Why am I draggin pegs all of a sudden? (*** We hopefully all know better, but for the sake of discussion, we'll consider CT and MT's 'equal')
If everything is equal,,, what is that CT doing to the bike that a MT doesn't that makes the difference in handling?
EXACTLY how is the CT affecting cornering,,, WHY does it require more counter-steer? Why does it create understeer?
THAT is the question so few DS'ers seem to be able to answer,,, (Those who ride MT's don't have to worry about it, so why should they bother with 'understanding' it?)
The Mic is open,,, Lets hear from the DS crowd exactly why CT's handle 'differently'? What do they do to the bike?
:stirthepot:
Scotrod...do you happen to remember what CT you had?
What's your point here; that tires undergo testing, or CT's can carry a heckuva load, or something else?
We can be certain that CT's mounted on CT rims can handle higher loads but what load can a CT handle when mounted on a MT rim?
Construction, materials, and geometry. Not only is a CT shaped differently than a MT, its' construction is different using different rubber compounds than a MT.
EDIT: The question remains, how do these differences work to produce the difference in handling.
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you on the valid concerns/observations you raised. In a attempt to answer your questions I had to take some pictures of my 6 with the General G-max. Hopefully they will be of assistance in demonstrating what occurs with a CT when at rest, leaned etc.
First and foremost beyond the obvious difference in a MT's rounded thread/tread profile and the flat thread of a CT, the radial construction is different. My reference to a CT for this discussion is a non-run flat radial which in my case is the G-Max, having a single ply sidewall. The MT have extremely stiff sidewalls which are required to support and hold the curved tread profile in place while cornering and eliminate any sidewall "squirm" which is the first noticeable difference between it and a standard radial CT. The OEM G704 Bridgestone has the following! Thread/Tread 2 Aramid + 4 Nylon....Sidewall 3 Nylon. In comparison the G-Max has Thread/Tread 1 Polyester, 2 Steel, 2 Polymide....Sidewall 1 Polyester.
The extreme "stiffness" of the MT 3 ply sidewall makes the tire ride hard in comparison to the soft 1 ply sidewall of a normal non-runflat.
Herein is the key to the difference in handling. The MT simply rolls off tread center when cornering with zero resistance because of its stiff sidewalls and curved radius. The G-Max in this case relies on the soft 1 ply sidewall to actually "squat" which allows the thread edge to flatten. This actions is what some refer to as "tire squirm" and in reality what is occurring is "sidewall squat" for the lack of a better term.
Most normal non-runflat radial car tires exhibit sidewall bulge. Just take a good close look at any auto or truck which has conventional radials and you will notice the lowest portion to the sidewall protruding beyond the thread edge. It is this normal function of a radial CT which allows it to work on a motorcycle. When cornering with the CT you are actually making the sidewall bulge enlarge in the direction you are turning and the opposite side of the thread which is now "unloaded" has no bulge showing. When uprighted the normal sidewall bulge on both sides of the tire returns. Turn in the opposite direction and the same sidewall action occurs. This action allows the use of the entire width of the thread/tread without ever riding on the sidewalls!
I have some personal preference regarding CT's. First is thread design with a symmetric, directional thread with sufficient sipes for water channeling. As CT carry a Tread-wear Rating a 400 or above is a good start. Maximum Pressure rating should be at least 50 PSI.
One of the most important functions when equipping a cycle with a CT is discovering the "sweetspot" for air pressure. Too high and the tire will tend to break loose in hard cornering! Too soft and the tire will exhibit unacceptable "squirm"! After scrubbing off the mold release agent which usually occurs within the first 50/100 miles I'll adjust the pressure from a starting point of 36/38 lbs. in 2 lb increments. My current G-Max started at 38psi and I finally settled at 41/42 for the "Holy Grail".
I'm attaching some pics of my bike on the side stand. I'm sure if my 250lb. a$$ was in the saddle the "radial tire bulge" would be a bit more pronounced:yikes:
Attachment 8593Attachment 8594Attachment 8595Attachment 8596
This G-Max has just over 20K of wear. You can note the tread wear is even across the tire face and there is not a sign of any sidewall wear:icon_wink:
[QUOTE=Scotrod;46987]Do any of you DS'ers actually know WHY the bike handles different with a CT than a MT, or do you just shrug it off as an anomaly? :shrug:
Can any of you explain (and/or understand) exactly why more counter-steer is required? Can you explain exactly what happens differently on your bike when you use a CT?
Or is it "don't know, doesn't matter, don't care?" :shrug:
I am no expert by any means, but understand how and why. I don't know if I could explain it very well though.
Tire and Motorcycle designers put much effort into tire size, rake and trail to get a Motorcycle to handle well. BUT as many orther aspects of a motorcycle they are very general (such as seat and windshields) The OEM is looking for a good well rounded handling Motorcycle that will fit everyones needs. Tire size and the difference in size front to back changes handleing. Larger tire in the rear will change rake and trail and change the steering effort. So will lowering the rear. Everthing makes a difference.
With two rounded tires, or M/T front and back, as you lean the tire diameter gets smaller and the bike rolls into a corner but slow ever so slightly, which is why riders are always told to ease on the throttle in corners. But a C/T does not get smaller in diameter as you lean so you need to ad input (counter steer) to help the bike lean and go through the corner.
As I reread this I just don't think I can get my point across well. I will have to see what may be written on the subject to help me get my poin across...
Good efforts so far at 'the difference',,,, :yes:
It all boils down to keeping the front and rear contact patch's in line relative to the centerline of the bike.
The front stays relatively 'close' to the CL regardless of lean as its a narrow, 'very rounded' profile tire.
As, for all intents and purposes, the front tire seldom get a huge modification in width/rounded profile,,, It remains a ~constant~ in this explanation
Changing the rear (most common) is where the imbalance is created.
The contact patch on CT (or some 'look at me!' fat azz MT's) will move farther away quicker from the bikes C/L when camber (lean) is added than a OEM sized/shaped MT. In essence, you have the rear tire's contact patch following a tighter line around a corner than the front,,, requiring more counter-steer /, more lean / more 'push' on the front tire than if the rear was 'in line' with the front. Crab steer. All of a sudden, your draggin hard parts,,, not because you are going faster, but because you're leaning farther to correct the understeer.
The worst possible tire with the least amount of lean required to move the rear contact patch the farthest away from C/L the quickest would be a wide, stiff-walled tire with a flat tread face (Example would be a RF CT),:icon_frown: :no:
A 'soft wall' CT requires more lean before the 'outside' sidewall starts lifting the tread than a RF,,, but in the meantime, the 'inside' sidewall is deforming/being compressed as the inside rim bead bears down against the tire.
This is where the 'sweet spot' you hear about can come into play,,,, You want just enough air to keep that inner sidewall from turning 'limp' in a corner, but no so much air it remains rigid/lifts the outer sidewall too far. The 'goal' is to get that CT to corner like a MT, by keeping roll/lift to a minimum, and keeping both the front and rear contact patch's as close to in line with each other and the centerline of the frame,,,,, regardless of camber. Something that folks who use OEM sized MT's typically don't have to worry about,,, (We ain't talking about Big Dog bikes, WCC, or other store-bought 'choppers',,,)
Sidewalls on MC tires are stiff as wood. CT sidewalls are limp. Go down to the local Wally World and push in a sidewall with your finger on any display tire. Then go to a Stealer and try to do the same with a MT. No comparison. Much stiffer SW on the MT, which results in consistent tire shape regardless of lean. Combine that with the rounded profile of the MT tread, and you are as close as you most likely will ever be with the rear contact patch following the same line as the front contact patch while cornering.
Skinny front tires and 'look at me' jumbo-wide rear MT tires are equally 'mis-matched',,,, Looks good sittin still at the local bar, but corners like an old pickup truck,,, :icon_doh:
Once you wrap your mind around the 'cause/effect' of the CT, RF or NRF, and what it does to the suspension geometry of your bike while cornering, it isn't quite so appealing,,,
So to change the discussion up a little, what the heck is going on with my front tire? 11k miles running 40psi, monitored closely. Seems like a weird wear pattern to me.
HONDA dealer did my Progressive suspension install and did not mention the CT on the rear? As far as warranty, take it off before you go in if you feel there will be an issue... I did have an idiot at a dealer tell me because I had drilled the pipes on my Rune, that was the reason the throttle body went bad..... kinda like when I was a child and put shocks on my 1967 Firebird... My Dad asked if it was faster??? Hell Ya!!!
I have only run two CT's on bikes... The first was a Bridgestone Potenza , The second, is the Michelin Alpine RF..... With the Potenze you did have to counter steer the bike...I did not really like this tire or the feel. With the Michelin, there is no difference that I can feel between it and a MT.
As far as Sweet Spot.... this was explained to me..... get some white shoe polish and mark a line across your tire...drive for 100 feet as vertical as possible...stop and see if the white mark is worn evenly if not adjust accordingly ...
At the risk of :icon_deadhorse: this discussion will never end or change anyones minds...we are to old to change our minds.....just sayin