The Darkside.......

[ballisticexchris]

To claim your contributory negligence they would have to prove in a court that it would be so and deny the literal millions of miles ridden on car tires for over a decade now. Quit with your fear mongering unless you have proof to back up your claim, your lack of it is all the proof I need to claim it. If it was so it would be far and wide as there are many with your frame of mind that would love to say told you so across many a board in 100s of fourms. Find me a law that says you can't mount a car to on a motorcycle for that would be the only way they could not pay at least in the US

Ask and you shall receive. If you disagree with the facts then it simply means you do not comprehend or understand the document:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2002-title49-vol5/pdf/CFR-2002-title49-vol5-sec571-120.pdf

It's the law in black and white. Forums are not always a good source of information. I'm quoting the facts as documented by the NHTSA, lead by Ms. Elaine L. Chao - Secretary of Transportation (DOT), regulations and day to day operations are enforced and lead by Mr. Jack Danielson the Executive Director of NHTSA.

You may certainly choose to do as you please.

 

[RCinNC]

I'm not sure I'm convinced about the insurance either, even with the information in that NHTSA document. That sets out a lot of rules about tires, but that doesn't really translate to an automatic denial of an insurance claim; that's not how insurance works.

Insurance companies pay off on claims even when the driver is drunk off his or her ass and plows into another car. They will pay on a claim even when you're charged with something like reckless driving. That's the whole point of liability insurance. It's not "conditional liability", where they only have to pay if the driver was abiding by all laws and wasn't doing anything wrong when the crash occurred. Now, an insurance company can deny a claim for willful or fraudulent acts, or that you contravened a specific part of your policy. If I deliberately set my car on fire, then they aren't going to pay that claim. If I decided to try and jump my Camry over three school buses and wreck it while doing so, they probably aren't going to pay that claim either, nor would they pay if I entered my car in a demolition derby. But if I'm driving down the road and skid off the road because my tires are bald, and I smash into someone else's car, then they're going to pay on that claim up to the liability limits in the policy.

Now, if a person (either a passenger on the bike or a person in another vehicle) was injured in a crash with a darksider and decided to file a lawsuit, then they could conceivably focus on the fact that there was a car tire on the bike that led to the crash. They could present their claim about how they felt the car tire was the cause, and the defense could say why it didn't, and the jury would be the one to decide who was to blame, and how to assign percentages of responsibility. That's an independent process though, from what a claims adjuster does.

If there's ever been an insurance claim denied because of a car tire on a bike, I've never heard of it. Hopefully there's an insurance adjuster who haunts this forum that could shed more light on it.

 

[Madscrapper85]

Your law makes my point as long as it seals and it's load range is above the spec minimum there's nothing in there that states you cannot use it on a motorcycle

 

[ballisticexchris]

I'm not sure I'm convinced about the insurance either, even with the information in that NHTSA document. That sets out a lot of rules about tires, but that doesn't really translate to an automatic denial of an insurance claim; that's not how insurance works.

If there's ever been an insurance claim denied because of a car tire on a bike, I've never heard of it. Hopefully there's an insurance adjuster who haunts this forum that could shed more light on it.

Actually Insurance adjusters use every document they can get ahold of to deny a claim. It's only hard to find those claims being denied just for the fact that car tires used on bikes a very rare. It is a very small percentage of riders.

Your law makes my point as long as it seals and it's load range is above the spec minimum there's nothing in there that states you cannot use it on a motorcycle

If you read the document carefully the tire has to match the bead of the rim. It can be argued in a court of law that the bead did not seat properly causing the accident. And let's face it (again just facts not opinion), There is not a car tire manufactured that will match the bead of a motorcycle rim. It might very well seal. But it is not a perfect match. The design and scope of intended use is for an automobile.

 

[RCinNC]

I understand what the document says, Chris, and I'm not entering into the whole darkside debate again and whether it's a good or a bad idea. This is more about the insurance aspect you brought up. You're making statements about how insurance adjusters operate, which is a specialized field. You cut out a very large portion of what I wrote when you quoted me, but the salient facts are that your liability policy is designed for just that; to compensate others for the damage you cause to persons and property when you drive, and it isn't based on whether or not your vehicle had a mechanical problem, or even if you were capable of safely driving a car when you wrecked. An adjuster can't deny a claim because of those things. They can't deny a claim even if you were a .20 BAC when you crashed. If you're making the assertion that an adjuster can deny a claim because you have a car tire on your bike, making a generalized statement of "well, that's what adjusters do" isn't adequate. Your offering an opinion as if you have some internal knowledge of the workings of the insurance field, and not just a layman's opinion of how they think the insurance business works, so what precisely are you basing your opinion on that an adjuster will deny an insurance claim involving a darksider, or that they even have the legal ability to deny a claim for that reason? Did you work as a claims adjuster or even an agent, or in some other capacity in the insurance industry? Have you ever spoken to a claims adjuster about this topic? Did you have a claim denied because of a car tire on a motorcycle, or know someone (or even have anecdotal evidence of) that happening? Or is it just your supposition, based on how you think an insurance company operates?

If you're just throwing out a layman's opinion, then that's all well and good. I see that a lot from people who think they know how the law operates, because they've been exposed to 50 years of TV and movies. They are, however, often very wrong. This darkside topic is always full of hysteria, and unsupported opinion. I'm not saying that your opinion is in that category, or even that you're wrong, but if you're making a claim about something involving specialized knowledge or expertise, without being able to substantiate it, then it's just more background noise in an already very noisy subject.

 

[ballisticexchris]

Sorry Ron, My fault for not explaining myself good enough. What I'm trying to explain is the insurance company will find the "fault of the accident" due to non approved equipment . At that point the claim can be denied to the party who was found at fault.

I have personally seen this happen more than once. Not for a tire but for other things. An example would be a lifted truck or Jeep that rolls. I have yet to see insurance company pay out a repair or replacement for a lifted vehicle that rolls over in a collision. I rolled a Baja Bug when I was young man. My claim was completely denied because of the suspension lift. I had full coverage insurance. It was a total loss out of my pocket. It's very important to read your policy before making modifications to any vehicle.

I have seen DUI cases that end up bankrupting the driver who was under the influence. I have never seen an insurance company getting a drunk drivers car replaced or repaired. This in CA. We have very strict laws when it comes to driving under the influence.

 

[Mak10]

So, maybe I didn’t catch it but where in that code you posted does it say that running a dot tire is illegal?

At one time, running a darkside tire was new and unproven. Not so much anymore. I haven’t heard of one failure due to a darkside tire.

I won’t run one on my Tenere because it doesn’t fit my riding parameters. I also don’t like the look it gives the bike. My vanity I guess.

My experience, and yes I own a motorcycle with a car tire on it-have driven it multiple thousands of miles. It works for me on that particular motorcycle very well.

 

[Kurgan]

I can put a set of Michelin Defender LTX's on my Highlander and they come with an 80k treadlife warranty provided I keep the vehicle aligned and inflated correctly and don't overload it. With a mix of city/highway driving in that 4100 pound AWD vehicle I get a realistic 68k miles from them and there's still some tread above the TWI's. They might actually make it to 80k but I want some deeper tread for rain or snow covered roads so I replace them a bit early.

The same company can't make a 90/10 tire where we could see a realistic 20k-25k lifespan, roughly 1/4 of what they can do on the automotive side? Yes, different forces at work and all that for motorcycles vs. automobiles but still, damn...

 

[RCinNC]

Sorry Ron, My fault for not explaining myself good enough. What I'm trying to explain is the insurance company will find the "fault of the accident" due to non approved equipment . At that point the claim can be denied to the party who was found at fault.

I have personally seen this happen more than once. Not for a tire but for other things. An example would be a lifted truck or Jeep that rolls. I have yet to see insurance company pay out a repair or replacement for a lifted vehicle that rolls over in a collision. I rolled a Baja Bug when I was young man. My claim was completely denied because of the suspension lift. I had full coverage insurance. It was a total loss out of my pocket. It's very important to read your policy before making modifications to any vehicle.

I have seen DUI cases that end up bankrupting the driver who was under the influence. I have never seen an insurance company getting a drunk drivers car replaced or repaired. This in CA. We have very strict laws when it comes to driving under the influence.

You're conflating two different things here, Chris....when you're talking about "fault", you're still talking about liability. As far as fault in the accident goes, the insurance company can't deny a liability claim based on a mechanical defect. If you'd injured someone in your rollover crash, then your insurer would still be responsible for that person's injuries. They could not deny any claim for injuries by the injured party simply because you had a lift kit on your truck. They would have to pay up to whatever the limits of the coverage were, and then the injured party could sue you for anything above and beyond that. You can't conflate a liability claim with a claim under the collision/comprehensive portion of an insurance policy. Insurance companies have a lot of leeway with insuring the value of a vehicle, and the conditions under which they'll insure the value of the vehicle. That's why some companies will insure a bike plus accessories, and others won't cover anything you add yourself. Collision coverage and liability coverage are two entirely different animals, and I don't dispute that an insurance company may refuse in part or in total a claim for damages to your own vehicle. They may not have paid for the damages to your Baja Bug for the same reason they probably wouldn't pay a damage claim to my car if I took it to the drag strip on a Saturday and crashed it in the quarter mile. But those sorts of claims have nothing to do with a liability claim.

I'm not surprised that someone was bankrupted by DUI. When a drunk driver injures someone, the driver normally gets sued for whatever damages are incurred above the limits of the drunk driver's liability insurance. If you carry the minimum $30K/$60K liability insurance, an injured person can blast through that really fast, and after that, they sue you personally for you house, assets, etc.

Every place in the US has strict drunk driving laws. Those particular criminal laws have nothing to do with the civil laws that govern liability insurance. Why do you think that every state has an insurance risk pool for drivers with prior DUI offenses? Because you HAVE to have insurance to drive, and even when an insurance company won't write you a policy, the State has to. Now, they can charge you am arm and a leg for the coverage, because you're a high risk, but if you go out and run someone down for the second time, your liability insurance HAS to pay the claim, regardless if you were drunk.

If you're claiming that an insurance company won't pay a collision related damage claim on a darkside motorcycle simply because it had a car tire on it, my response is....I have no idea. It's entirely possible; it would depend on how your individual collision policy was written. If you're saying that they would deny any claim because of the tire, then I say you're wrong.

 

[Checkswrecks]

Yes, NHTSA 571.120 does in the following phrase prohibit use of unproven car tires on a motorcycle rim. The two do have different bead designs and I know of no motorcycle manufacturer which would put a car tire on a list of suitable tires for their motorcycle rim.

"New pneumatic tires, or §571.119, . . .and rims that are listed by the manufacturer of the tires as suitable for use with those tires . . ."

That said, motorcycle accidents don't incur enough cost for an adjuster to do more than ask for photos in the vast majority of cases. Even if they thought a tire might have been involved they then have to document why the tires' involvement was causal, above the road condition, rider ability, etc. If they did then they'd typically need to contest the on-scene officers' report, who they will need to be ready to work with again other cases, so that's not going to happen. Beside the fact that the vast majority of accidents we ourselves create which will have been how the officer wrote it up. Fighting all of this would also mean the adjuster gets his supervisor to authorize the insurance company lawyers involvement at probably $4-500/hr. It's beaurocratically easier and less expensive for the company to cut a check in these little claims.

So yes technically an adjuster could maybe possibly deny a claim, but they'll just pay and make it go away.

 

[ballisticexchris]

Wish the adjuster would have cut me a check when I rolled my VW!! State Farm used the "non conforming modifications" clause to deny my claim.

 

[Sierra1]

. . . .The same company can't make a 90/10 tire where we could see a realistic 20k-25k lifespan,. . . .

I've learned to stay away from any brand tire with a 80k mile warranty. They probably do OK in most of the US, but the heat in Texas turns them into rocks at about half way. I don't put 10k miles a year on my Jeep, so I buy a softer tire. It still gets hard, and has no wet pavement traction, well before the tread life warranty is up. But, Discount Tire pro-rates the tire, and I get new ones at a reduced price.

. . . .State Farm used the "non conforming modifications" clause to deny my claim.

When my kid wrecked his bike, the insurance company didn't want to cover any of his "modifications" since they replaced existing parts/pieces. They did allow us to replace all of the mods with the OE parts/pieces.

 

[Checkswrecks]

I've heard of a couple of Jeepers being denied for the same reason, but they were so jacked that they were challenging laws of gravity and common sense. Not the same as the subtleties of noticing what tire is on a bike and THEN proving it had something causal (the key term in these questions) to do with a claim.

 

[AVGeek]

Wish the adjuster would have cut me a check when I rolled my VW!! State Farm used the "non conforming modifications" clause to deny my claim.

State Farm will do anything and everything they can to avoid paying out on claims. They're more interested in their shareholders than their policyholders...

 

[ballisticexchris]

I quit using State Farm almost 30 years ago.

 

[ballisticexchris]

So as far as mounting a car tire on the Super Tenere. How are you guys modifying the brake arm to prevent rubbing on the tire?

 

[Tombstone]

I'm on my third (on the ST, I've had them on 4 different bikes) DS its a 175 and no rubbing noted. The biggest problem is I have less hair than when I started with the DS tires..

 

[Kurgan]

State Farm will do anything and everything they can to avoid paying out on claims. They're more interested in their shareholders than their policyholders...

I've had the opposite experience. I've been with State Farm for everything (home, life, trucks and cars) since the early 90's. They've paid out VERY well, above and beyond actually, including money for modifications and added equipment each time. All I've had to do is not be a dick and help make their job easy by doing this:

​

Send maye a dozen pictures showing the bikes or trucks condition inside and out, especially pics showcasing modifications and extra equipment.​

Send them a line by line description of the extras on the bike or truck, along with what I paid (receipts to back it all up) and what current replacement costs are.​

Send them copies of NADA and KBB for full retail value on the bike or truck, making adjustments + / - for mileage compared to "average mileage driven".​

I do my math and put it all down on a nice spreadsheet leading them to a very fair number from my perspective, add sales tax, tag and title costs.....and done.​

At that point it's never taken more than one 1 or 2 calls to discuss the "settlement package" I've sent over and answer their questions. The check is in my mailbox within a week after that last call and I have every dollar needed to completely start from scratch and replace that vehicle and all mods and accessories without extra money coming out of pocket.

 

[Siddarth]

Thanks to inputs on this topic I went ahead and darksided my 2015 ST and it is fantastic! - 38 psi is perfect for my pannier configuration. Bought exact same tire recommended -
Achilles ATR-K ECONOMIST 175/55/17


The curvature is sufficient enough for inclinations in corners up and down winding bends.

 

[Siddarth]

So as far as mounting a car tire on the Super Tenere. How are you guys modifying the brake arm to prevent rubbing on the tire?

with 175/55/R17 - only have a millimeter or less to spare from brake arm. But did not notice any rubbing whatsoever