Going to the Dark Side

[doctorJ]

"risk and chassis performance loss just for more treadlife"

What is the extra risk? I ride my bike the same as I did before. It is different, but now I don't think about it. So I really must have missed something. If I truly felt I was compromised with excess risk or handling, I had a PR2 ready to put on, but I didn't so sold the MT. Maybe I need "special help" then .

doctorj

 

[charismaticmegafauna]

"risk and chassis performance loss just for more treadlife"
What is the extra risk? I ride my bike the same as I did before. It is different, but now I don't think about it. So I really must have missed something. If I truly felt I was compromised with excess risk or handling,...

If the FJR rider is only using (like 20~30% of the bike's capabilities? -- well, then, I guess? -- not much?

But, what about when 'the fit hits the shan' and you're caught outside your 'comfy zone'...?

Things like this are why motor vehicles are more & more being forced to have on-board electronic 'nannies' like "electronic stability control".

The riders/drivers just don't want to be bothered with learning what it takes to control all their vehicle's capabilities... :blink:

Begs the question: have they written a riding check they may be un-willing to cash...?

 

[exskibum]

"risk and chassis performance loss just for more treadlife"

What is the extra risk? I ride my bike the same as I did before. It is different, but now I don't think about it. So I really must have missed something. If I truly felt I was compromised with excess risk or handling, I had a PR2 ready to put on, but I didn't so sold the MT. Maybe I need "special help" then .

I don't give a damn what anyone else decides to ride on. I have a pretty well honed routine for making those decisions for myself, which is all that counts to me. But to answer your question:

Even assuming that everyone with a CT on their MC finds that it performs, in every way, as well or better than a MC tire, there's another issue for me. IF you are ever in an accident in which the handling of the motorcycle is an arguable issue in determining liability for that accident, whether due to the performance of the motorcycle or the rider, there's a risk. That risk is the diminishment of an insurer's willingness to pay money and of your chances in prevailing in a lawsuit with any other injured party.

Rightly or wrongly, they will almost certainly claim that you lost control of the bike or were unable to take necessary evasive action, at least in part, due to the CT on the rear. As an expert for your side, you can try to call other DarkSider proponents with experience riding on the CT, who will say that it is wonderful, safe, good and cheap to ride on a CT.

Now, to provide the counter to that powerful evidence, where will the other side find an expert??? Maybe MC tire manufacturers? Maybe motorcycle manufacturer design representatives? Maybe motorcycle riding course instructors? In fact, CT manufacturers won't even be on your side, and may be expected to testify that the tire you put on your bike was neither designed nor marketed for MC use and could be unsafe for that purpose. So, count on your expert getting laughed off the stand** in the face of what the other side can put on. Even without the experts testifying against the use of CTs on MCs, most jurors and judges are going to be pretty easily persuaded that the CT is an almost "obvious" cause of the accident and that your judgment in putting it on your MC is suspect. And all that (whether there ever is a trial or not) is exactly what goes into the decisions made by attorneys and insurance claims representatives in evaluating a case, whether for trial or in negotiating settlements early or late in the process.

So, the risk, even assuming that CTs perform as well as MC tires for DarkSiders? In exchange for saving some money on tires due to the CT's superior longevity, you give up many times more than you save in the event of an accident for which you want to be indemnified, or in the event of a claim against you by someone who is seeking to be indemnified.

Again, I don't give a **** or have a tire based ego issue in this game. For me and me alone, even if I thought the CT was a MC tire's equal in handling, I would forego the savings on tire costs just to avoid having one more problem to worry about in the event an accident occurs. I certainly don't want to see anyone involved in an accident, and I'm not saying that CTs on the back of MCs cause accidents. But once upon a time, I spent a lot of time both prosecuting and defending civil lawsuits arising from vehicular accidents, including motorcycles, in addition to insurance coverage and bad faith cases.

** Actually, it's unlikely that anyone from the apparent pool of such pro-CT experts would even get to testify, due to their probable inability to "qualify" as an "expert" under the rules of evidence.

 

[user 213]

But hopefully these speculations will give a new forum member pause about this CT silliness.

Lets remember that this thread has always been about sharing information so people can make an informed choice to do this, or not. "Silliness" describes a lot of the posts in this thread. The real value is with the first hand experiences shared here, which includes Doug's tire damage from running on a flat tire and the crack, which can't be shown to be a result of CT use, or a meaningless event that had nothing to do with CT use. The individual readers are left to make that assumption on their own, lacking further information, testing or developments.

 

[user 213]

I don't give a damn what anyone else decides to ride on.

Great, move on then, nothing to see here.

Even assuming that everyone with a CT on their MC finds that it performs, in every way, as well or better than a MC tire, there's another issue for me. IF you are ever in an accident in which the handling of the motorcycle is an arguable issue regarding liability for that accident,<snip>

You can stop there. IF that occurs, THEN you will have difficulty proving the RIDER was not at fault.

Again, I don't give a **** or have a tire based ego issue in this game. For me and me alone, even if I thought the CT was a MC tire's equal in handling, I would forego the savings on tire costs just to avoid having one more problem to worry about in the event an accident occurs. I certainly don't want to see anyone involved in an accident, and I'm not saying that CTs on the back of MCs cause accidents.

So move on and stop posting in this thread. You're not contributing anything new, just re-hashing the same issues that have been posted before, multiple times. Now, if you had prosecuted a case directly involving a CT on a motorcycle as an issue, THAT would be some new and interesting info that I'm sure many folks would enjoy reading and would add a first hand data point to the thread.

 

[user 213]

"risk and chassis performance loss just for more treadlife"
What is the extra risk? I ride my bike the same as I did before. It is different, but now I don't think about it. So I really must have missed something. If I truly felt I was compromised with excess risk or handling,...

If the FJR rider is only using (like 20~30% of the bike's capabilities? -- well, then, I guess? -- not much?

Unsure is correct. :lol: Your false assumption of 20-30% of the bike's capabilities is laughable. You've not been paying attention apparently. There is no "performance loss" as Warchild puts it. In fact, the CT performs better in many conditions where a moto tire slips and loses traction. There is a different feel, but unlike moto tires, which start out with very light bar pressure to initiate a turn, then slowly progress into poor handling tires requiring more and more bar pressure to initiate a turn, the CT requires more pressure to initiate a turn in the beginning, but stays consistent throughout it's life. Sometimes actually improving in the first 1000 miles before becoming consistent for the rest of the tire's life. And you're using all of the tread, no matter how you ride.

As has been said many, many times before, it's not for everyone and you shouldn't do it if you have any doubts about your riding style or discomfort in any perceived liability issues.

Jeeze this gets old. How many "off road only" or "for race only" parts do you see on bikes & cars that are only labeled that way for liability reasons? Most of the people on this forum probably have at least one item like that on their bikes. :blink:

 

[rushes]

"risk and chassis performance loss just for more treadlife"
What is the extra risk? I ride my bike the same as I did before. It is different, but now I don't think about it. So I really must have missed something. If I truly felt I was compromised with excess risk or handling,...

If the FJR rider is only using (like 20~30% of the bike's capabilities? -- well, then, I guess? -- not much?

Unsure is correct. :lol: Your false assumption of 20-30% of the bike's capabilities is laughable. You've not been paying attention apparently. There is no "performance loss" as Warchild puts it. In fact, the CT performs better in many conditions where a moto tire slips and loses traction. There is a different feel, but unlike moto tires, which start out with very light bar pressure to initiate a turn, then slowly progress into poor handling tires requiring more and more bar pressure to initiate a turn, the CT requires more pressure to initiate a turn in the beginning, but stays consistent throughout it's life. Sometimes actually improving in the first 1000 miles before becoming consistent for the rest of the tire's life. And you're using all of the tread, no matter how you ride.

As has been said many, many times before, it's not for everyone and you shouldn't do it if you have any doubts about your riding style or discomfort in any perceived liability issues.

Jeeze this gets old. How many "off road only" or "for race only" parts do you see on bikes & cars that are only labeled that way for liability reasons? Most of the people on this forum probably have at least one item like that on their bikes. :blink:

I'll pay for the tire and give $100 cash to the guy that mounts and rides a ct on the front.

500 miles minimum trial ride, and I want pichers an video.

This could be record setting r&d....

A damn car tire on the front should last forever.

We could get famous.

edit:

Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebraska riders are not eligible. Prolly Florida too.

Yeah, Florida too...

 

[exskibum]

So move on and stop posting in this thread. You're not contributing anything new, just re-hashing the same issues that have been posted before, multiple times. Now, if you had prosecuted a case directly involving a CT on a motorcycle as an issue, THAT would be some new and interesting info that I'm sure many folks would enjoy reading and would add a first hand data point to the thread.

:lol: :lol:

You know what, Eric -- I believe I'll read and post in whatever thread I please, subject only to the moderators deciding it's inappropriate. That apparently conflicts with your sense of thread ownership, darksider leadership, or need to tell me or others what to do or what is important on the internet. For that, I'm sorry.

You've decided that I lack the specific, identical "car tire on a motorcycle" accident case experience to provide useful information about a risk that may be inconsistent with a cause you champion. You're entitled to make that decision . . . for yourself. Others among us (including claims reps, who are pretty sophisticated about this sort of thing) have broader and different perspectives and bases for evaluation, however.

Hope your day gets better.

 

[beemerdons]

"risk and chassis performance loss just for more treadlife"
What is the extra risk? I ride my bike the same as I did before. It is different, but now I don't think about it. So I really must have missed something. If I truly felt I was compromised with excess risk or handling,...

If the FJR rider is only using (like 20~30% of the bike's capabilities? -- well, then, I guess? -- not much?

As has been said many, many times before, it's not for everyone and you shouldn't do it if you have any doubts about your riding style or discomfort in any perceived liability issues.

Jeeze this gets old. How many "off road only" or "for race only" parts do you see on bikes & cars that are only labeled that way for liability reasons? Most of the people on this forum probably have at least one item like that on their bikes. :blink:

I'll pay for the tire and give $100 cash to the guy that mounts and rides a ct on the front.

500 miles minimum trial ride, and I want pichers an video.

This could be record setting r&d....

A damn car tire on the front should last forever.

We could get famous.

edit:

Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebraska riders are not eligible. Prolly Florida too.

Yeah, Florida too...

You screwed up big time Ya Goober, you did not exclude Michigan, I just PM'd Bustanut joker up at CFO and you just know that goofy fuker will chase down that Benjamin! jes' sayin' and nuff' said'

 

[Warchild]

charismaticmegafauna has pretty much nailed it.

You don't have to have an extensive engineering/mechanical background and training to understand the obvious increased risks here: using a CT on a motorcycle is the very definition of a "component mis-application". You are using a tire that is NOT designed, engineered or manufactured for this application. When the bike is heeled over sufficiently enough to where the outside sidewall lifts off, your resulting contact patch isn't going to be the same as with a proper motorcycle tire.... that's not helping to mitigate risks.

Another scenario: now let's say you are on Day 9 of the Iron Butt Rally, and you've been running so hard the past nine days, at this point you barely know your own name. Let's say it's 2am and you are descending down from the bonus at the summit of Pike's Peak, because you have to get north of Denver for a 4AM bonus window. You start down the mountain, initially on dirt/gravel, so the sliding sensations you detect as you begin your descent, you think it's due to dirt or gravel, but it's not... it's because your cracked rim has finally deflated your CT. Mind you, you don't have the same sharp wits Doug still had as he started down Hwy 38 from Big Bear, and neither do you have a riding partner to point out your flat.... you just think it's cause you're on dirt/gravel. You glance at the clock and realize you had better be moving right on down the road to make that Denver bonus window, so you pick up the pace even further.

Then you hit the paved portion of the road.... and realize something is indeed amiss with the rear of the bike. Can you get stopped in time before Something Way Bad happens? :huh:

There is no "performance loss" as Warchild puts it.

Oh c'mon, my brother.... puh-leese! No performance loss?

Compared to motorcycle tires, the ******* bike handles like a truck after a car tire mounted on the back... you know more effort is needed to get the bike to turn than the same bike with correct tires. You've told me this yourself several times.

Now I will agree that if one never rides the machine to explore the performance envelope to begin with, then, hey.... perhaps you indeed won't notice the performance loss from the car tire. But to claim a car tire doesn't decrease chassis handling because you never explore the envelope is simply specious; and surely doesn't mean others will not see the degradation.

 

[rushes]

You screwed up big time Ya Goober, you did not exclude Michigan, I just PM'd Bustanut joker up at CFO and you just know that goofy fuker will chase down that Benjamin! jes' sayin' and nuff' said'

Here's his chance to be famous....

Seriously. Why are they not putting car tires on the front?

edit....

I'll pay $250.....

Somebody'll do it...

It'll be a youtube hit.

Come on crazy bastages....

I jus wanna watch...

 

[Warchild]

Seriously. Why are they not putting car tires on the front?

edit....

I'll pay $250.....

Somebody'll do it...

It'll be a youtube hit.

Come on crazy bastages....

I jus wanna watch...

I'll add $100.00

That's $350.00 - which should really appeal to the frugal nature of the Cheapsider - to slap a CT on the front and show us the wondrous longevity. As it is now with proper tire, many get twice the mileage on the front that they do the rear. So you oughta get close to 100,000 miles from that front CT!

:lol:

edit: to qualify for the $350.00 in this R&D exercise, you must mount the CT on your two-wheeled FJR..... you can not mount it using the sidecar configuration as seen below:

 

[wheatonFJR]

"risk and chassis performance loss just for more treadlife"

What is the extra risk? I ride my bike the same as I did before. It is different, but now I don't think about it. So I really must have missed something. If I truly felt I was compromised with excess risk or handling, I had a PR2 ready to put on, but I didn't so sold the MT. Maybe I need "special help" then .

I don't give a damn what anyone else decides to ride on. I have a pretty well honed routine for making those decisions for myself, which is all that counts to me. But to answer your question:

Even assuming that everyone with a CT on their MC finds that it performs, in every way, as well or better than a MC tire, there's another issue for me. IF you are ever in an accident in which the handling of the motorcycle is an arguable issue in determining liability for that accident, whether due to the performance of the motorcycle or the rider, there's a risk. That risk is the diminishment of an insurer's willingness to pay money and of your chances in prevailing in a lawsuit with any other injured party.

Rightly or wrongly, they will almost certainly claim that you lost control of the bike or were unable to take necessary evasive action, at least in part, due to the CT on the rear. As an expert for your side, you can try to call other DarkSider proponents with experience riding on the CT, who will say that it is wonderful, safe, good and cheap to ride on a CT.

Now, to provide the counter to that powerful evidence, where will the other side find an expert??? Maybe MC tire manufacturers? Maybe motorcycle manufacturer design representatives? Maybe motorcycle riding course instructors? In fact, CT manufacturers won't even be on your side, and may be expected to testify that the tire you put on your bike was neither designed nor marketed for MC use and could be unsafe for that purpose. So, count on your expert getting laughed off the stand** in the face of what the other side can put on. Even without the experts testifying against the use of CTs on MCs, most jurors and judges are going to be pretty easily persuaded that the CT is an almost "obvious" cause of the accident and that your judgment in putting it on your MC is suspect. And all that (whether there ever is a trial or not) is exactly what goes into the decisions made by attorneys and insurance claims representatives in evaluating a case, whether for trial or in negotiating settlements early or late in the process.

So, the risk, even assuming that CTs perform as well as MC tires for DarkSiders? In exchange for saving some money on tires due to the CT's superior longevity, you give up many times more than you save in the event of an accident for which you want to be indemnified, or in the event of a claim against you by someone who is seeking to be indemnified.

Again, I don't give a **** or have a tire based ego issue in this game. For me and me alone, even if I thought the CT was a MC tire's equal in handling, I would forego the savings on tire costs just to avoid having one more problem to worry about in the event an accident occurs. I certainly don't want to see anyone involved in an accident, and I'm not saying that CTs on the back of MCs cause accidents. But once upon a time, I spent a lot of time both prosecuting and defending civil lawsuits arising from vehicular accidents, including motorcycles, in addition to insurance coverage and bad faith cases.

** Actually, it's unlikely that anyone from the apparent pool of such pro-CT experts would even get to testify, due to their probable inability to "qualify" as an "expert" under the rules of evidence.

Well reasoned argument I think...

 

[Fred W]

You guys are having way more fun than I did dissing the video starz...

So, sorry to dampen your levity, but I would hazard an uninformed guess that there are no CTs that will either fit inside the forks, or onto the skinny rim of the front wheel of an FJR.

 

[rushes]

You guys are having way more fun than I did dissing the video starz...

So, sorry to dampen your levity, but I would hazard an uninformed guess that there are no CTs that will either fit inside the forks, or onto the skinny rim of the front wheel of of an FJR.

Is that a dare?

I'm pretty sure I could make it work.

But just because you can, should you?

 

[user 213]

You know what, Eric -- I believe I'll read and post in whatever thread I please, subject only to the moderators deciding it's inappropriate. That apparently conflicts with your sense of thread ownership, darksider leadership, or need to tell me or others what to do or what is important on the internet. For that, I'm sorry.

You've decided that I lack the specific, identical "car tire on a motorcycle" accident case experience to provide useful information about a risk that may be inconsistent with a cause you champion. You're entitled to make that decision . . . for yourself. Others among us (including claims reps, who are pretty sophisticated about this sort of thing) have broader and different perspectives and bases for evaluation, however.

Hope your day gets better.

<sigh> Not big on reading comprehension, eh? I didn't even suggest you can't post. I simply said you didn't have anything to say, so you might as well stop posting here. Something you still haven't figured out. Post away. We have lots of post whores on this forum, no problem with more. :thumbsup:

As to Rushes - Dood, that's funny! Good one.

WC - I know it's not your bag, just don't quite know why you are on such a mission all of a sudden? I don't believe you've actually taken a ride on a CT equipped bike, but no matter. Actual experience is apparently over rated. Bet any old scooter girl could ride the IBR, it's just another ride, right? :sarcasm:

It's been proven, and demonstrated, multiple times. You can ride just as hard with the CT as with a moto tire once you are accustomed to the differences. Yep, it takes more effort to initiate a turn, than a new MC tire. Then you get used to it and it's 'normal' to the rider and stays consistent.

If you're that concerned about the dangers of CT use, just pull the plug on the whole thread and delete it completely. Do me the courtesy of letting me know before you delete the FAQ so I can copy it first is all I ask. There's a reason there are 84k view to this thread. Well, other than Bustanut and Manatee boy's love affair, that is.

 

[rushes]

As to Rushes - Dood, that's funny! Good one.

Wadn't tryin to be funny.

Let's build sumpthin.

Might change the world....

Who knows?..

 

[Fred W]

You guys are having way more fun than I did dissing the video starz...

So, sorry to dampen your levity, but I would hazard an uninformed guess that there are no CTs that will either fit inside the forks, or onto the skinny rim of the front wheel of of an FJR.

Is that a dare?

I'm pretty sure I could make it work.

But just because you can, should you?

Absolutely. If it can be done, it should be tried. How else are you going to know if it works or not (for certain)?

All of the sky-is-falling guys would have been great to have around back in the days of the "world is flat" arguments...

 

[Patriot]

How many "off road only" or "for race only" parts do you see on bikes & cars that are only labeled that way for liability reasons? Most of the people on this forum probably have at least one item like that on their bikes. :blink:

Oh my gawd...now I'm worried my aux lights will explode throwing glass into my eyes...how come they haven't fallen off completely into the front wheel killing me

I mean, they are mounted on flimsy bent pieces of sheet metal under the mirror mounts which have no business being there...and I heard someone had a crack in theirs

even though my chosen lights are different then theirs, mine surely will fail

oh crap, gawd knows what running oil made for diesel engines will do...

oh my

pleeeeze just agree to disagree

mount one up or not

 

[rushes]

You guys are having way more fun than I did dissing the video starz...

So, sorry to dampen your levity, but I would hazard an uninformed guess that there are no CTs that will either fit inside the forks, or onto the skinny rim of the front wheel of of an FJR.

Is that a dare?

I'm pretty sure I could make it work.

But just because you can, should you?

Absolutely. If it can be done, it should be tried. How else are you going to know if it works or not (for certain)?

All of the sky-is-falling guys would have been great to have around back in the days of the "world is flat" arguments...

Yes.

Lets do it.

I'll help in any way I can.

But I'll never put a car tire on my motorcycle. Your motorcycle? Sure. I ain't skeered...