Put the speculation and "I think" stuff here.
The Darkside.......
- Thread starter Checkswrecks
- Start date
Re: Car Tires - What people think are the negatives or want to debate
So tell us Fred, if Joe Blow wants to put a car tire on his motorcycle, what business is it of yours?
So tell us Fred, if Joe Blow wants to put a car tire on his motorcycle, what business is it of yours?
scott123007
Well-Known Member
Re: Car Tires - What people think are the negatives or want to debate
If the naysayers don't have the sack to try a car tire, so be it. Why can't it just be left at that?
EXACTLY!OldRider said:
If the naysayers don't have the sack to try a car tire, so be it. Why can't it just be left at that?
RIVA
Well-Known Member
Re: Car Tires - What people think are the negatives or want to debate
There are many, many delivery vans on the roads without incident or accident.FredBGG said:
Re: Car Tires - What people think are the negatives or want to debate
Now that the Debate Room is open, I want to have some fun too.
The tires specified and sold on new motorcycles are designed to give specific handling properties and neutral steering is a key goal, while CTs on bikes increase the needed effort to impart a maneuver away from straight up. I've had worse handling with an old square K60 motorcycle tire. Further, it's flat out illegal in many countries for a motorcycle owner to install many of the motorcycle tires which we take for granted, such as the Heidenau K60, simply because it is a non-OEM tire.
And in posting the photos you left out extremely relevant items.
1. In the first photo, the bike is near the point where similar cruisers drag hard parts, then you left out all the photos which might show sparks. There are numerous photos on Killjoy of CT Harleys and Wings creating sparks, which means that those tires had the capability to lean further than the bikes they were on. For example:
2. The accident happens two turns later, after a left and into the second right. How do you connect the two photos? See the long black skid mark below which is not in your first photo? Look at the where it goes. Those are clues about what really happened.
Now that the Debate Room is open, I want to have some fun too.
Ummm - You do realize that they are the only people with experience, right?FredBGG said:
Actually, the motorcycle industry will not make condoning use of ANY non-OEM tire.FredBGG said:
The tires specified and sold on new motorcycles are designed to give specific handling properties and neutral steering is a key goal, while CTs on bikes increase the needed effort to impart a maneuver away from straight up. I've had worse handling with an old square K60 motorcycle tire. Further, it's flat out illegal in many countries for a motorcycle owner to install many of the motorcycle tires which we take for granted, such as the Heidenau K60, simply because it is a non-OEM tire.
And in posting the photos you left out extremely relevant items.
1. In the first photo, the bike is near the point where similar cruisers drag hard parts, then you left out all the photos which might show sparks. There are numerous photos on Killjoy of CT Harleys and Wings creating sparks, which means that those tires had the capability to lean further than the bikes they were on. For example:
2. The accident happens two turns later, after a left and into the second right. How do you connect the two photos? See the long black skid mark below which is not in your first photo? Look at the where it goes. Those are clues about what really happened.
FredBGG said:
scott123007
Well-Known Member
Re: Car Tires - What people think are the negatives or want to debate
And yet, you will be the first one to defend the logic of strapping a friggin' kite surfing board to the side of a motorcycle for transport. I'm going to take a wild guess that if that came to a vote about its relative safety, that "idiotic" might be one of the more positive responses you would get.FredBGG said:
RCinNC
Well-Known Member
Re: Car Tires - What people think are the negatives or want to debate
Using that photo of the guy dumping the bike in the curve may feel like vindication of the anti-darkside viewpoint, but it proves nothing, unless there is some evidence that he crashed because of the C/T. For all anyone knows (unless you know that rider personally), he crashed because of rider error.
This is the problem that plagues all darksider topics, as I said earlier; lots of doom and gloom predictions that sometimes rise to the level of hysteria, but very little actual information presented from the anti-darkside faction of why it's an unworkable solution. Yes, there are lots of photos and diagrams of a pseudoscientific nature showing how a car tire corners while on a motorcycle, accompanied by statements with some variation of "See? See how dangerous that is??". What I have never seen is any information presented that at some point, someone had personal experience with a crash that was directly attributable to a C/T being installed on the bike. That doesn't mean that it hasn't happened; what it means is that, in a very real world sort of way, the darksiders have more facts on their side in this argument. They have been putting this into practice for many years, with many countless thousands of miles. Every one of these riders can be viewed as a data collection agent, and even though they all can't be viewed as unbiased, their accumulated mass of ridden miles speaks volumes. There is a saying made popular by Carl Sagan, that goes "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and it applies to both sides in this argument. The darksiders have made the claim that a car tire works very well for them as a substitute for a motorcycle tire. They have tested this theory for many years now in a very real-world sort of way. Though it's not scientific testing, even the informal manner in which they are collecting their data still has some credibility. If an anti-darksider wants to present their side with equal credibility, then they have the obligation to provide some actual real world evidence why this is as dangerous as they claim it to be. Parroting the statement of a motorcycle manufacturer when they say "we do not recommend using a car tire on a motorcycle" is not evidence; it's a legal liability statement. They say it because they have never done the rigorous testing necessary for installing a car tire on their bikes, so making a statement that it was okay would be a huge legal liability. And they have no reason to do the testing; why would they? Their industry is in no way served by spending the kind of money it takes to make a legally safe statement that you can use a car tire on their bikes. It's the same reason most motorcycle manufacturers (with the exception of Honda on their Goldwings, unless I'm mistaken) say that they don't approve using a tow hitch on their bikes. They don't design their bikes to tow, they don't test them as a tow vehicle, and they have no need to assume the liability to approve towing with their bikes. It doesn't mean they can't tow, it just means that Yamaha or Suzuki or whomever sees no benefit financially to get involved with that.
No one disputes an anti darksider's ability to have an opinion, but don't confuse the weight of your opinion with the weight of the opinion of someone who has successfully put this into practice year after year, mile after mile. If a tire engineer came on one of these forums and explained why this was as dangerous as so many anti darksiders say it is, and then that engineer backed up his theory with some actual real world data (like pushing a tire to the point of failure and determining where that point of failure occurred, and then did it enough times to show that the failure was specifically due to the presence of a car tire on a motorcycle) then his opinion would have as much (or even more) weight than the admittedly anecdotal evidence being offered by the darksiders. If you make a claim that a darksider is endangering your life or your family's life by doing this, then the obligation is on you to offer something more than your opinion. Just show the data. Show the data where someone with the actual qualifications to say so has formulated a theory that this is a horrible idea, then tested his theory, and can venture at least an informed opinion. Honestly, I would love to see that happen, because it might actually settle this dispute one way or another. But so far, I'd say the darksiders have the advantage, and that's coming from someone who probably still wouldn't put a car tire on his bike.
Using that photo of the guy dumping the bike in the curve may feel like vindication of the anti-darkside viewpoint, but it proves nothing, unless there is some evidence that he crashed because of the C/T. For all anyone knows (unless you know that rider personally), he crashed because of rider error.
This is the problem that plagues all darksider topics, as I said earlier; lots of doom and gloom predictions that sometimes rise to the level of hysteria, but very little actual information presented from the anti-darkside faction of why it's an unworkable solution. Yes, there are lots of photos and diagrams of a pseudoscientific nature showing how a car tire corners while on a motorcycle, accompanied by statements with some variation of "See? See how dangerous that is??". What I have never seen is any information presented that at some point, someone had personal experience with a crash that was directly attributable to a C/T being installed on the bike. That doesn't mean that it hasn't happened; what it means is that, in a very real world sort of way, the darksiders have more facts on their side in this argument. They have been putting this into practice for many years, with many countless thousands of miles. Every one of these riders can be viewed as a data collection agent, and even though they all can't be viewed as unbiased, their accumulated mass of ridden miles speaks volumes. There is a saying made popular by Carl Sagan, that goes "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and it applies to both sides in this argument. The darksiders have made the claim that a car tire works very well for them as a substitute for a motorcycle tire. They have tested this theory for many years now in a very real-world sort of way. Though it's not scientific testing, even the informal manner in which they are collecting their data still has some credibility. If an anti-darksider wants to present their side with equal credibility, then they have the obligation to provide some actual real world evidence why this is as dangerous as they claim it to be. Parroting the statement of a motorcycle manufacturer when they say "we do not recommend using a car tire on a motorcycle" is not evidence; it's a legal liability statement. They say it because they have never done the rigorous testing necessary for installing a car tire on their bikes, so making a statement that it was okay would be a huge legal liability. And they have no reason to do the testing; why would they? Their industry is in no way served by spending the kind of money it takes to make a legally safe statement that you can use a car tire on their bikes. It's the same reason most motorcycle manufacturers (with the exception of Honda on their Goldwings, unless I'm mistaken) say that they don't approve using a tow hitch on their bikes. They don't design their bikes to tow, they don't test them as a tow vehicle, and they have no need to assume the liability to approve towing with their bikes. It doesn't mean they can't tow, it just means that Yamaha or Suzuki or whomever sees no benefit financially to get involved with that.
No one disputes an anti darksider's ability to have an opinion, but don't confuse the weight of your opinion with the weight of the opinion of someone who has successfully put this into practice year after year, mile after mile. If a tire engineer came on one of these forums and explained why this was as dangerous as so many anti darksiders say it is, and then that engineer backed up his theory with some actual real world data (like pushing a tire to the point of failure and determining where that point of failure occurred, and then did it enough times to show that the failure was specifically due to the presence of a car tire on a motorcycle) then his opinion would have as much (or even more) weight than the admittedly anecdotal evidence being offered by the darksiders. If you make a claim that a darksider is endangering your life or your family's life by doing this, then the obligation is on you to offer something more than your opinion. Just show the data. Show the data where someone with the actual qualifications to say so has formulated a theory that this is a horrible idea, then tested his theory, and can venture at least an informed opinion. Honestly, I would love to see that happen, because it might actually settle this dispute one way or another. But so far, I'd say the darksiders have the advantage, and that's coming from someone who probably still wouldn't put a car tire on his bike.
Re: Car Tires - What people think are the negatives or want to debate
The only threat to your family is if they were to pull over to help a rider who fell and has hepatitis, the most common blood-contact communicable disease.
and
I've seen a LOT more bikes drifting into other lanes with m/c tires than you may've seen with car tires.
Neither of these arguments work.FredBGG said:
The only threat to your family is if they were to pull over to help a rider who fell and has hepatitis, the most common blood-contact communicable disease.
and
I've seen a LOT more bikes drifting into other lanes with m/c tires than you may've seen with car tires.
Re: Car Tires - What people think are the negatives or want to debate
RC, brilliantly said!
RC, brilliantly said!
Re: Car Tires - What people think are the negatives or want to debate
Dang, this thread is more polarizing than any oil thread ::015::
I may have to try a CT on my Wing in the future. ::021::
Dang, this thread is more polarizing than any oil thread ::015::
I may have to try a CT on my Wing in the future. ::021::
groundhog
New Member
Re: Car Tires - What people think are the negatives or want to debate
So do these Darksiders wear black cloaks and plastic helmets as they drift uncontrollably round a corner. May the grip be with them!
I wasn't going to comment anymore on this subject as I find it almost too ridiculous for words. But hey since you are all ganging up on Fred or anyone else who thinks car tyres/tires on a bike is a bad idea, I can't help but try to redress the balance.........something not altogether easy when riding a bike with a car tyre
So do these Darksiders wear black cloaks and plastic helmets as they drift uncontrollably round a corner. May the grip be with them!
I wasn't going to comment anymore on this subject as I find it almost too ridiculous for words. But hey since you are all ganging up on Fred or anyone else who thinks car tyres/tires on a bike is a bad idea, I can't help but try to redress the balance.........something not altogether easy when riding a bike with a car tyre
RIVA
Well-Known Member
Re: Car Tires - What people think are the negatives or want to debate
Go the full hog and try some kerosene. That will fix it.simmons1 said:
Re: Car Tires - What people think are the negatives or want to debate
::017::
I guess that this is one of those common language phrases that divides you Brits and us Yanks.
And it's not ganging up on Fred so much as responding to, and pointing out, the flaws in his argument on this one subject. Clearly Fred is a thinker with a lot of experience that I'm glad he shares, and he always seems up for a debate.
Huh?? What'd you mean?groundhog said:So do these Darksiders wear black cloaks and plastic helmets as they drift uncontrollably round a corner. May the grip be with them!
I wasn't going to comment anymore on this subject as I find it almost too ridiculous for words. But hey since you are all ganging up on Fred or anyone else who thinks car tyres/tires on a bike is a bad idea, I can't help but try to redress the balance.........something not altogether easy when riding a bike with a car tyre
::017::
I guess that this is one of those common language phrases that divides you Brits and us Yanks.
And it's not ganging up on Fred so much as responding to, and pointing out, the flaws in his argument on this one subject. Clearly Fred is a thinker with a lot of experience that I'm glad he shares, and he always seems up for a debate.
RCinNC
Well-Known Member
Re: Car Tires - What people think are the negatives or want to debate
Ganging up? Hardly. If this was an argument about the chemical composition of Jupiter's atmosphere and I voiced my opinion, and Neil Degrasse Tyson chimed in with his opinion, whose opinion holds more weight? I could claim that I have the right to my opinion (and I do), but realistically, whose opinion has more credibility? Bearing in mind that I'm not an astrophysicist, and haven't even gone to college? And if I continued to argue with Tyson about my opinion, I could reasonably expect others to try and compel me to justify it.
I'm not claiming that darksiders are experts in tire design, or scientific testing procedures, or that they're unbiased in their claims. What I'm saying is that with every mile they ride, they are adding weight to their hypothesis that using a car tire on their bikes is an acceptable alternative to a motorcycle tire to them, and that it isn't inherently dangerous. If your hypothesis is that it is inherently dangerous and you shouldn't do it, then offer some sustantiation with your opinion. Saying that car tires weren't designed to be on motorcycles is true, but it doesn't substantiate your argument. Teflon wasn't designed for frying pans, Kevlar wasn't designed for ballistic vests, Silly Putty wasn't designed to be a kid's toy, and the list goes on and on. Saying they weren't designed for a motorcycle is a spurious argument; if your argument is that they somehow can't safely cope with the stresses put on a tire by a bike, then offer the proof to back up the argument, beyond "it looks weird". No one says you have to put one on your bike, but if you're going to advance the idea that guys who do it are being careless, and unsafe, and risking other peoples' safety, then you should be able to back up your claim.
I don't think it's a ridiculous subject at all. In fact, I wish someone out there did have the desire/resources/time to put this to the test, and determine which side had the better claim. Until someone does, or until someone like the NTSB or the insurance companies start to compile actual stats on crashes involving darksiders, the darksiders still have the more substantiated claim.
Ganging up? Hardly. If this was an argument about the chemical composition of Jupiter's atmosphere and I voiced my opinion, and Neil Degrasse Tyson chimed in with his opinion, whose opinion holds more weight? I could claim that I have the right to my opinion (and I do), but realistically, whose opinion has more credibility? Bearing in mind that I'm not an astrophysicist, and haven't even gone to college? And if I continued to argue with Tyson about my opinion, I could reasonably expect others to try and compel me to justify it.
I'm not claiming that darksiders are experts in tire design, or scientific testing procedures, or that they're unbiased in their claims. What I'm saying is that with every mile they ride, they are adding weight to their hypothesis that using a car tire on their bikes is an acceptable alternative to a motorcycle tire to them, and that it isn't inherently dangerous. If your hypothesis is that it is inherently dangerous and you shouldn't do it, then offer some sustantiation with your opinion. Saying that car tires weren't designed to be on motorcycles is true, but it doesn't substantiate your argument. Teflon wasn't designed for frying pans, Kevlar wasn't designed for ballistic vests, Silly Putty wasn't designed to be a kid's toy, and the list goes on and on. Saying they weren't designed for a motorcycle is a spurious argument; if your argument is that they somehow can't safely cope with the stresses put on a tire by a bike, then offer the proof to back up the argument, beyond "it looks weird". No one says you have to put one on your bike, but if you're going to advance the idea that guys who do it are being careless, and unsafe, and risking other peoples' safety, then you should be able to back up your claim.
I don't think it's a ridiculous subject at all. In fact, I wish someone out there did have the desire/resources/time to put this to the test, and determine which side had the better claim. Until someone does, or until someone like the NTSB or the insurance companies start to compile actual stats on crashes involving darksiders, the darksiders still have the more substantiated claim.
RCinNC
Well-Known Member
Re: Car Tires - What people think are the negatives or want to debate
Fred, you draw conclusions for which you have no evidence. There is nothing about that photo that indicates any obvious reason why he crashed. Saying that is was rider error because he had a c/t on the bike is not supported by any facts at hand, unless you personally interviewed that rider, and examined the road surface, and the tire, and was able to reliably draw a conclusion from that based on your training and experience in crash investigation and engineering. I've been trained in crash investigation and reconstruction, and I would not draw any conclusions from a photo like that.
Your position is that people say it's unsafe....which people are you referring to? Which trained professional in the proper discipline who has made an actual study of this topic (and not just rendering some off the cuff opinion) are you quoting? Because I don't know of any studies done by anyone competent to make such a study that says this is dangerous and shouldn't be done. The reality is that the only real experts on the topic at this time (and I use the legal definition of the word "expert") would be the guys who are actually doing it. A quote from a motorcycle manufacturer that they don't recommend it is not evidence that it's unsafe, it just means they haven't (and wont) study the issue. If you are going to keep saying it's dangerous, provide some actual proof. Repeating an unsubstantiated position over and over doesn't strengthen your argument over the one made by those who do this successfully year after year.
Fred, you draw conclusions for which you have no evidence. There is nothing about that photo that indicates any obvious reason why he crashed. Saying that is was rider error because he had a c/t on the bike is not supported by any facts at hand, unless you personally interviewed that rider, and examined the road surface, and the tire, and was able to reliably draw a conclusion from that based on your training and experience in crash investigation and engineering. I've been trained in crash investigation and reconstruction, and I would not draw any conclusions from a photo like that.
Your position is that people say it's unsafe....which people are you referring to? Which trained professional in the proper discipline who has made an actual study of this topic (and not just rendering some off the cuff opinion) are you quoting? Because I don't know of any studies done by anyone competent to make such a study that says this is dangerous and shouldn't be done. The reality is that the only real experts on the topic at this time (and I use the legal definition of the word "expert") would be the guys who are actually doing it. A quote from a motorcycle manufacturer that they don't recommend it is not evidence that it's unsafe, it just means they haven't (and wont) study the issue. If you are going to keep saying it's dangerous, provide some actual proof. Repeating an unsubstantiated position over and over doesn't strengthen your argument over the one made by those who do this successfully year after year.
RCinNC
Well-Known Member
Re: Car Tires - What people think are the negatives or want to debate
Fred, why would they? I haven't heard any claims made by darksiders that a C/T is better than a motorcycle tire, so what conceivable reason would a motorcycle manufacturer have to make a car tire for a bike? Your circular argument of "if it was ok then motorcycle companies would do it, so since they don't do it it must not be ok" doesn't advance your position at all. They don't do it because they don't need to do it; the tires they make work just fine. The position of the darksiders is that the C/T is a safe acceptable substitute for their riding, and nothing you've put forth refutes that. If you say it's unsafe, then put forth the engineering study from the qualified professional that says its unsafe. You keep saying that the engineers know better than the darksiders, but how do you know that they have even looked at this issue? Which Yamaha or Honda or Suzuki engineers are you referring to that have studied this and said it's unsafe? Invoking these phantom engineers to strengthen your argument is only valid if these engineers had actually tested this.
Fred, why would they? I haven't heard any claims made by darksiders that a C/T is better than a motorcycle tire, so what conceivable reason would a motorcycle manufacturer have to make a car tire for a bike? Your circular argument of "if it was ok then motorcycle companies would do it, so since they don't do it it must not be ok" doesn't advance your position at all. They don't do it because they don't need to do it; the tires they make work just fine. The position of the darksiders is that the C/T is a safe acceptable substitute for their riding, and nothing you've put forth refutes that. If you say it's unsafe, then put forth the engineering study from the qualified professional that says its unsafe. You keep saying that the engineers know better than the darksiders, but how do you know that they have even looked at this issue? Which Yamaha or Honda or Suzuki engineers are you referring to that have studied this and said it's unsafe? Invoking these phantom engineers to strengthen your argument is only valid if these engineers had actually tested this.
Re: Car Tires - What people think are the negatives or want to debate
Oh, hang on, I've got this tongue stuck in my cheek...
Err, surely if they did fit car tyres (and I DO wish you Americans/Canadians would spell fricking 'tyre' properly..) to a motorcycle then they would then be called motorcycle tyres ? If I fit some spotlights to my bike that were intended for a car they become motorcycle spotlights shirley ? I have a kitchen sink which I fitted in the utility room, it is now referred to as the utility room sink, is it not the same with tyres ? I also have a bathroom tap which we fitted to our new kitchen sink, it's never been referred to as a bathroom tap, only as a kitchen tap. Is it not the end use that defines a product.FredBGG said:
Oh, hang on, I've got this tongue stuck in my cheek...
Re: Car Tires - What people think are the negatives or want to debate
Shirley - Yer killin' me!
LOL
Shirley - Yer killin' me!
LOL
2112 said:
Tempesc
Member
Re: Car Tires - What people think are the negatives or want to debate
I keep seeing the phrase "darksider". Is there a name for the other viewpoint?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I keep seeing the phrase "darksider". Is there a name for the other viewpoint?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: Car Tires - What people think are the negatives or want to debate
Two reasons. Largely, it's because a car tyre will not meet what is a normal key vehicle design goal. When you roll into a curve with a round tyre profile, your input force is relatively constant and a CT doesn't do that. Instead, a CT takes more effort to initially displace from vertical, and then you need to change your input to keep it away from vertical. As you yourself noted from the one CT you said that you tried, the response is very similar to that of a cruiser, and if the rear tire of the cruiser was wide-aspect then we have something to agree on.
But then, you said you found cruisers to be poor handling too, so by extension it sounds like you are arguing to say that all cruisers should be banished. Right?
>
The other reason is legal, having to do with design standards. The bead of a car tyre and the bead area of a motorcycle rim have different design standards. Until the manufacturers themselves test and present results showing the use of the two together, it doesn't matter how many people have done it successfully. Conservative legal department guidance will always be that something is not endorsed and potentially dangerous until the company proves otherwise.
("Y"s added for 2112)FredBGG said:
Two reasons. Largely, it's because a car tyre will not meet what is a normal key vehicle design goal. When you roll into a curve with a round tyre profile, your input force is relatively constant and a CT doesn't do that. Instead, a CT takes more effort to initially displace from vertical, and then you need to change your input to keep it away from vertical. As you yourself noted from the one CT you said that you tried, the response is very similar to that of a cruiser, and if the rear tire of the cruiser was wide-aspect then we have something to agree on.
But then, you said you found cruisers to be poor handling too, so by extension it sounds like you are arguing to say that all cruisers should be banished. Right?
>
The other reason is legal, having to do with design standards. The bead of a car tyre and the bead area of a motorcycle rim have different design standards. Until the manufacturers themselves test and present results showing the use of the two together, it doesn't matter how many people have done it successfully. Conservative legal department guidance will always be that something is not endorsed and potentially dangerous until the company proves otherwise.