"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 shit 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.