While nobody offered to tell me who the Bozo is, I think I managed to find the
article in question. Due to my limited attention span I was unable to read it in its entirety.I do wonder who appoints or elects these "industry leaders". I would like to cordially invite them to kiss my ass!
Hey Chuck:
Thanks for the link. I read the article. My soul, check out all the responses below it. WOW. Anyway, one of the things I do as a reading teacher is help kids to analyze a text... to understand how to analyze an author's support for his arguments. I tell them that in order to determine the validity of anything they read, they have to be able to evaluate the evidence that an author provides to substantiate his claims. In the above article, the first thing that stood out to me was the total lack of any direct testing, statistics or numbers generated by qualified, trustworthy sources. For example, one of his strongest arguments utilized the testimony of an industry insider saying that his brand of CTs aren't designed for cornering angles. I quote, "durability can be affected by operating at such high camber angles, which can lead to tire failure." Notice he says, CAN BE. I get that. This in no way proves anything. Hey a tire CAN explode if it hits a sharp enough and deep enough pot hole. Which proves what exactly? Nor did he say that there was one shred of evidence to support his claim. No evidence = invalid argument. Simple rules of debate. So therefore what does his opinion, his guess, his concern, prove? If this is true, where then, I would ask, is the evidence of a single CT that failed on a motorcycle? Is there any evidence? If there was, I would remove my CT immediately. You see my point. I'd be willing to risk my life on that. As a matter of fact, I do every time I ride.
Then the author used an analogy between darksiders claiming no problems after zillions of miles and those refusing to wear helmets and their zillions of miles. Again, not a valid comparison as tire failure is something that can only be evaluated by thorough testing: failing to wear a helmet requires no test. The results are automatic, predictable, and just about guaranteed. So for me, the author's claims hang on the testimony of those who've never tested, measured, or even studied a CTs performance on a motorcycle. They generate general advice to the masses in an understandable attempt to protect those who would respect their opinion. This advice is of course the safe and prudent thing to give, but it still falls far short of providing any convincing evidence. An opinion, is after all, just that. Claims can only become facts when they can be tested and proven. And since the authorities he claims to quote haven't testing anything, he only has their opinion.
On the other hand I would argue that much testing has indeed been done. Motorcyclists are a passionate bunch. We are quick to warn others when something doesn't work or could pose a hazard to others. I have NEVER heard this from anyone of the many who ride the darkside. Our collective knowledge spans not only the 77 (at the moment) darksiders on this forum, but through the testimony of a couple of our members, we have learned that our results are consistent with darksider groups much larger than our own. Common sense tells me we would have indeed heard plenty if there was any sort of an issue. I believe this to be WELL documented and the evidence speaks for itself. In defense of some of our most respected former darksiders, the worst that can be said might be that the extra weight affects acceleration a little, and the extra sprung weight of a CT hampers suspension compliance. I should add that the extra width affects slow speed handling over VERY rough pavement at very low speeds (think: parking lot). For this reason, darksiding indeed isn't for everybody, but I would argue that the decision NOT TO DARKSIDE should not be based on any fears of the tire itself failing on the job. And you can take that to the bank.
Gary
darksider #44
