The Darkside.......

[Judd]

Re: Car Tires - What people think are the negatives or want to debate

Currently Working as a Maintenance tech, SO I plumb, Operate Heavy Equipment, which I also repair, Weld, Fab, hell I even trap and live trap Animals.

My Background is primarily heavy equipment, operating, wrenching, Fabing. Dad was a Boiler Maker/Welder when I was a kid so I grew up burning metal.

Cool you got to put a CT on a bike though ::012::

Unless you want to show us your massive ability on the track again with a CT in an actual race, ya know cause tires burn out and what an advantage you would have with all that acceleration and stopping power you would have, you probably aught to quit insulting.

And I work in the QA field at a plant that makes gear boxes for Wind power units. My job is to insure a quality product goes out the door through objective measurement {ranging from CMM, to NDT methods like Mag Particle, Nital Etch and Ultra Sound and hard gaging like conventional mics and calipers, testing and calibration of gaging used to measure and to investigate root cause failure if and when needed. I used basically the same objective investigation methods I've learn by working in my field for the last 15yrs. Before that I was a CNC and manual machinist Before that I was in machining, also weld and way back when I was a kid, trapped quite a few coons and fox myself. But WTF does trapping have to do with objectively testing a CT on the back of a bike? Not a damned thing.

No where did I say the CT had more acceleration nor did it handle as well as a good MT. Matter of fact, I specifically stated in this or the other CT thread that it was heavy as hell hurting acceleration due to higher reciprocating weight and handling due to much more unsprung weight. I have repeatedly stated that a CT doesn't belong on the of a Gixxer or the like but it was on a DL650,,,,, do you think folks will be lining up to road race their DL650s with tires that you normally find on a DL650????? You said that crap, not me feller.

I already stated, I'm no where near as fast as I used to be, I mentioned it only because someone on here supposed that people whho had tried a CT were shitty riders. I'm sure some are, many are not. I only started firing back the insults when insults started being hurled at me sport. :-*

 

[Judd]

Re: Car Tires - What people think are the negatives or want to debate

Actually being the curious type I would have already tried a CT but universally acclaimed by all users how bad they track on rough, rutted and uneven off road dirt/rocks. Since that is what I like to ride whenever possible I wont be trying one.

If you normally run TKCs, K60s or MEFOs on your DL650,,,,, no, the CT isn't for you. If you needed to make it from Prudhoe Bay to Key West loaded down,,, then yea, a 705 front and a CT out back is just the ticket. ::024::

 

[groundhog]

Re: Car Tires - What people think are the negatives or want to debate

And I work in the QA field at a plant that makes gear boxes for Wind power units. My job is to insure a quality product goes out the door through objective measurement {ranging from CMM, to NDT methods like Mag Particle, Nital Etch and Ultra Sound and hard gaging like conventional mics and calipers, testing and calibration of gaging used to measure and to investigate root cause failure if and when needed. I used basically the same objective investigation methods I've learn by working in my field for the last 15yrs. Before that I was in machining, also weld and way back when I was a kid, trapped quite a few coons and fox myself. But WTF does trapping have to do with objectively testing a CT on the back of a bike? Not a damned thing.

No where did I say the CT had more acceleration nor did it handle as well as a good MT. Matter of fact, I specifically stated in this or the other CT thread that it was heavy as hell hurting acceleration due to higher reciprocating weight and handling due to much more unsprung weight. I have repeatedly stated that a CT doesn't belong on the of a Gixxer or the like but it was on a DL650,,,,, do you think folks will be lining up to road race their DL650s with tires that you normally find on a DL650????? You said that crap, not me feller.

I already stated, I'm no where near as fast as I used to be, I mentioned it only because someone on here supposed that people whho had tried a CT were shitty riders. I'm sure some are, many are not. I only started firing back the insults when insults started being hurled at me sport. :-*

I think you may have slightly missed the point on his'trapping' comment ::025:: By the way I was wanting an explanation as to how the universe started ? Sounds like you are the man for the job with that impressive CV !!!

 

[dcstrom]

Re: Car Tires - What people think are the negatives or want to debate

If you normally run TKCs, K60s or MEFOs on your DL650,,,,, no, the CT isn't for you. If you needed to make it from Prudhoe Bay to Key West loaded down,,, then yea, a 705 front and a CT out back is just the ticket. ::024::

A K60 rear will get you there AND BACK, with tread to spare, and handle the dirt much better while doing it. So the mileage argument really doesn't hold water either. Somebody, forget who, said they had a CT for the trip to South America because they couldn't get MT's on the way down. Not true at all. Run K60's and you'll get Prudhoe to Lima or Santiago on one set. K60's have been available in both cities for a while now. Also available at a few other places on the way...

 

[RCinNC]

Re: Car Tires - What people think are the negatives or want to debate

Six pages in. Seen all sorts of innuendo, and unqualified opinions, maybe an insult or two thrown in about someone's judgement and riding ability if they use a car tire, but still, no one who claims this is inherently unsafe (which was how this thread started off) has produced anything remotely close (actually, more like zero) to the amount of information and data collected by the guys that actually do it, year after year, mile after mile. It's a hugely controversial topic on multiple bike forums, and there's plenty of people who would love nothing more than to debunk the whole c/t thing, so where are the accounts of all the accidents, tire failures, and tragic occurrences that would surely go along with the definitely seven figures worth of mileage that has been amassed by guys? For Jeebus' sake, this is the internet...ten minutes on Google should turn up countless instances of guys on MC forums crowing about any accident that happened to a darksider. When BMW final drive failures became a potential issue, you couldn't go on an ADV forum without hearing about someone's personal or second hand experience with it. For those of you who think this is as dangerous as you say, if you were actually being objective, wouldn't you by now have expected to see something to bear out your assertion? It's absolutely conservative to say that darkside riders have amassed well in excess of a million miles doing this (just read a couple forum postings by guys who do it and you'll easily add up a million miles). The closest I've seen to evidence against the process (and it really isn't evidence, it's opinion) is some guys who tried it and said they didn't like the way it felt, or handled, so they decided not to do it. Hardly a ringing condemnation, when stacked up against the experiences of the guys who do it.

If an objective observer with no preconceived bias about motorcycles, or tires, or riding ability, were to look at the evidence presented by the guys who do this (i.e. in excess of a million miles of riding) with no first hand real world evidence from people who say it's highly dangerous, what possible conclusion would they reach?

If you think it's dumb, then fine; I think dubstep and ear gauges are dumb, but there's no shortage of people who think otherwise. Thinking something is dumb is a subjective opinion, and the beauty of a subjective opinion is that you don't have to account for it. But if you're going to make a claim that something like this is inherently dangerous, and you are going to say that your training and experiences validate your opinion, then you should be prepared to present at least even a small portion of the actual evidence (i.e. incident free miles) that the c/t guys do. You can dispute the merits of a c/t on a bike; handling characteristics, traction, etc are all going to be subjective opinions unless someone wants to do an actual side by side test (though it's hard to argue handling characteristics with a freaking Gold Wing on a c/t carving curves on the Dragon). But if your claim is that it's unsafe, then you should be able to demonstrate your position at least partially as well as the darkside guys demonstrate theirs.

Harlan Ellison once said that "everyone is not entitled to their opinion....everyone is entitled to their informed opinion". That sounds harsh, but the meaning is clear; if you can't back up what you're saying, then you're just blowing smoke.

 

[simmons1]

Re: Car Tires - What people think are the negatives or want to debate

A K60 rear will get you there AND BACK, with tread to spare, and handle the dirt much better while doing it. So the mileage argument really doesn't hold water either. Somebody, forget who, said they had a CT for the trip to South America because they couldn't get MT's on the way down. Not true at all. Run K60's and you'll get Prudhoe to Lima or Santiago on one set. K60's have been available in both cities for a while now. Also available at a few other places on the way...

But after a couple thousand miles a rear K60 looks just a like a car tire. ::013::

 

[groundhog]

Re: Car Tires - What people think are the negatives or want to debate

Six pages in. Seen all sorts of innuendo, and unqualified opinions, maybe an insult or two thrown in about someone's judgement and riding ability if they use a car tire, but still, no one who claims this is inherently unsafe (which was how this thread started off) has produced anything remotely close (actually, more like zero) to the amount of information and data collected by the guys that actually do it, year after year, mile after mile. It's a hugely controversial topic on multiple bike forums, and there's plenty of people who would love nothing more than to debunk the whole c/t thing, so where are the accounts of all the accidents, tire failures, and tragic occurrences that would surely go along with the definitely seven figures worth of mileage that has been amassed by guys? For Jeebus' sake, this is the internet...ten minutes on Google should turn up countless instances of guys on MC forums crowing about any accident that happened to a darksider. When BMW final drive failures became a potential issue, you couldn't go on an ADV forum without hearing about someone's personal or second hand experience with it. For those of you who think this is as dangerous as you say, if you were actually being objective, wouldn't you by now have expected to see something to bear out your assertion? It's absolutely conservative to say that darkside riders have amassed well in excess of a million miles doing this (just read a couple forum postings by guys who do it and you'll easily add up a million miles). The closest I've seen to evidence against the process (and it really isn't evidence, it's opinion) is some guys who tried it and said they didn't like the way it felt, or handled, so they decided not to do it. Hardly a ringing condemnation, when stacked up against the experiences of the guys who do it.

If an objective observer with no preconceived bias about motorcycles, or tires, or riding ability, were to look at the evidence presented by the guys who do this (i.e. in excess of a million miles of riding) with no first hand real world evidence from people who say it's highly dangerous, what possible conclusion would they reach?

If you think it's dumb, then fine; I think dubstep and ear gauges are dumb, but there's no shortage of people who think otherwise. Thinking something is dumb is a subjective opinion, and the beauty of a subjective opinion is that you don't have to account for it. But if you're going to make a claim that something like this is inherently dangerous, and you are going to say that your training and experiences validate your opinion, then you should be prepared to present at least even a small portion of the actual evidence (i.e. incident free miles) that the c/t guys do. You can dispute the merits of a c/t on a bike; handling characteristics, traction, etc are all going to be subjective opinions unless someone wants to do an actual side by side test (though it's hard to argue handling characteristics with a freaking Gold Wing on a c/t carving curves on the Dragon). But if your claim is that it's unsafe, then you should be able to demonstrate your position at least partially as well as the darkside guys demonstrate theirs.

Harlan Ellison once said that "everyone is not entitled to their opinion....everyone is entitled to their informed opinion". That sounds harsh, but the meaning is clear; if you can't back up what you're saying, then you're just blowing smoke.

The burden of proof lies with those who state that car tyres work and are safe on a bike. It's like saying a banana tastes better with it's skin on. Now any sensible person knows this not to be the case, but if some people were determined to eat their banana's with the skin on and say it tastes better and to call themselves skinsiders, then so be it, but the rest of us would know that it is obvious that a banana tastes better with skin off. Now of course there is no accounting for taste so a few skinsiders may genuinely believe skin on tastes better, but the fact is that millions of people have always eaten their bananas with skin off and for a very good reason. Just like bikers have always run bike tyres on bikes for an equally good reason. It is proven fact unless I am very much mistaken that a motorcycle tyre works and is safe (in as much as anything can be safe) to use on a motorcycle. So you believers have to prove that car tyres are at least equal to or better in terms of handling and safety than a bike tyre. You are correct when you say the only way to see for sure is to do a side by side test. Surely you are not suggesting that if there were two riders on identical bikes, one with car tyres and one with bike tyres, riding on a decent road with plenty of corners, that the CT rider would have any chance of keeping up without crashing ??

 

[RCinNC]

Re: Car Tires - What people think are the negatives or want to debate

I don't have to prove anything, groundhog...I'm not the one making an assertion here. And the burden of proof doesn't lie with the guys who are doing the darkside thing, because they have already proved that it can be done safely. They do it day in, day out, with none of the catastrophic consequences that those who disagree with it predict. If you claim that it's unsafe, then do what they do....prove it. Either by your own experiences, or by finding the experiences of others who have done it and found the experience to be dangerous. Because the side that claims it's unsafe hasn't presented anything more than unsubstantiated opinion as to why it's unsafe. Saying "it's a car tire, it doesn't belong on a bike" over and over ad nauseam doesn't prove anything.

Your banana skin analogy isn't relevant, because like a lot of things involving personal taste, it's a subjective opinion. It doesn't matter if a million people like bananas with skin and one doesn't, it's still subjective. There isn't a right or wrong answer to whether or not it tastes better with a skin or without. However, there is a right or wrong answer to whether it's safe or not. So far, the answer seems to be yes, it's safe, pending any evidence presented to the contrary.

Darksiders don't have to prove that it's better than a motorcycle tire unless they are making that claim. That's not what I'm hearing; I'm hearing that a c/t is a safe alternative to a motorcycle tire for the kind of riding that the darksiders do. They prove that it is every single day that they ride....what's your proof that it isn't? As for your theoretical comparison between a bike tire and a car tire, why not just look on youtube and the rest of the net and find one of the many, many videos of guys who are doing the exact thing you claim they can't do...keeping up with guys who are riding on an M/C tire. The evidence is out there for anyone to view, unless personal bias prevents someone from acknowledging it. There's even a guy who does it on a Gold Wing, though I can't recall his name (I'm sure someone on here can enlighten me). He puts a lot of riders to shame, and these riders are on bikes with motorcycle tires. So once again, there is someone who is offering proof that, in this particular case, it's not only safe, but he can surpass the performance of another person on a standard equipped motorcycle. Your assertion is refuted by that one instance alone.

If you can't offer proof of some sort why you believe it's dangerous (even a couple of real experiences from people who have had accidents from doing it, or experienced just a minor version of the catastrophe that some guys predict), then it's nothing more than a subjective opinion. The weight of evidence still lies with the darkside riders.

 

[groundhog]

Re: Car Tires - What people think are the negatives or want to debate

Well RCinNC at the end of the day it comes down to differing opinions. I don't agree with it but it seems to me neither side is ever going to convince the other that their opinion or view is the right one. I know what I think and I'm sticking to it. What is crystal clear is that this subject certainly stirs people up on both sides, me included, but I can see this argument going on and on and on and on.......... I'm tired of it and think I will go back to reading and talking about the Yamaha Super Tenere..........much more interesting

 

[AVGeek]

Re: Car Tires - What people think are the negatives or want to debate

There are a few posts which are right up against the line here gents; since this is the Debate Room, we do give a little more leeway, but do please keep it civil.

I don't care either way whether you run a CT, or not, on a motorcycle. I know one person myself who does (his picture was posted in the other thread), and he was another skeptic until he tried it. In the long run, if it works for you, use it. If it doesn't, then find something that does. The freedom of choice we have here in the US is a wonderful thing.

 

[Judd]

Re: Car Tires - What people think are the negatives or want to debate

There are a few posts which are right up against the line here gents; since this is the Debate Room, we do give a little more leeway, but do please keep it civil.

I don't care either way whether you run a CT, or not, on a motorcycle. I know one person myself who does (his picture was posted in the other thread), and he was another skeptic until he tried it. In the long run, if it works for you, use it. If it doesn't, then find something that does. The freedom of choice we have here in the US is a wonderful thing.

Sorry bout pushing the limits. I just get tired of people constantly ridiculing anyone with the curiosity and audacity to simply try it and honestly report their experiences. Post after post, page after page insults are thrown and I admit, I reacted.

Saying that, I saw several guys in a Wing club up at the local hangout Thursday. Prolly seven or eight all together and they were all running CTs. One guy tried it years ago after installing several MTs on his new to him Wing. He saw others doing it, asked questions, got some opinions on the best CT to run and tried it out of pure aggravation with the tire life his MTs were giving. If memory serves {I talked to nearly everyone of them so hard to keep it straight} he had ridden the CTs on the Wings for over 150K miles and a good 12 yrs on two different Wings. In that time he noted he had zero issues, not even a flat. They were in a club judging by matching vests so I suppose the common denominator was the CTs. Judging byEveryone of them were running CTs and had been for some time although that guy that had done 150K miles on his stood out. So, seven, eight people with all those miles on one of the heaviest bikes out there now and not a one had any issues. Plenty of grinding marks on the bikesfrom cornering so apparently those 7-8 people running CTs had absolutely no issues leaning as far as the bike could physically lean,,,,,,, not a damned issue.

Hell, people chunk Shinko 705s all the time judging from the internet postings {I have run a shit load of 705s without issue but I do not discount the experiences of those that have} so apparently, a CT is more safe than running some MTs yet I don't see people ridiculing folks that run 705s constantly. Yea, there are a few blue bloods that look down their noses at anything other than a 150$ "name brand" tire but they don't ridicule with the dog pile mentality some of these folks do.

I have chunked a couple of Michelins on the track and even a Pilot Sport {that'll tell how long ago} and a Pilot Power on the street when playing a lot. Does that mean that MTs are more dangerous than CTs? No, but all I here is how stupid a person is to run the CTs and people spouting off cite safety repeatedly yet none can give a single instance of their gloom and doom scenario coming to fruition. In nearly every case the person being the most vocal with the ridicule has never experienced it or "tried a buddies for ten miles" or some such malarkey. Truth be told, I'm betting a lot of those statement I hold with more than a dash of skepticism as I think they don't want to admit they have zero, zilch,,,,, nadadamned bit of experience.

 

[shrekonwheels]

Re: Car Tires - What people think are the negatives or want to debate

I think you may have slightly missed the point on his'trapping' comment ::025::

As easy as getting your way with a blonde you just bought tequila.

 

[Judd]

Re: Car Tires - What people think are the negatives or want to debate

A K60 rear will get you there AND BACK, with tread to spare, and handle the dirt much better while doing it. So the mileage argument really doesn't hold water either. Somebody, forget who, said they had a CT for the trip to South America because they couldn't get MT's on the way down. Not true at all. Run K60's and you'll get Prudhoe to Lima or Santiago on one set. K60's have been available in both cities for a while now. Also available at a few other places on the way...

Again, I specifically stated I didn't particularly want to mess with buying tires while on a trip. I don't mind changing them on a trip, just don't like procuring them and I have had enough bad experiences trying to do exactly that to where I would rather pop a tire combo on that will easily last the trip.

I agree, K60s are getting some rather great mileage numbers but from friends that have tried them and who also liked hauling the mail in the twisties, they are not the tire for that or playing in the rain. I have never had a person running a CT say it didn't over a lot of traction. It way not handle as well as say,,,, a Pilot Road but it does have plenty of traction, on road, light off tarmac, straight up and yes, whether some will admit or not, while healed over scraping the pegs on a DL650 that has much more cornering clearance than a stock DL650. If I can scrap the pegs heeled over on a DL650 that has more clearance than stock,,,,, how the hell are these dangerous? Again, they are not perfect for every application, no tire is but honestly, a CT is a better compromise tire than many MTs for fitment of these type bikes. Most DL650 owners are not playing Rossi in the mountains, most DL650 owners are not out roosting on the OHV trails. Most are simply riding rather sedately in my opinion. There will always be the odd outlier here and there and if you are the type that straffs corners on Pilot Roads, a CT isn't for you. If your are the type that hits rough, barely maintained two track on a regular basis,,, CT not for you. If your DL650/1k or Tenere munches miles during long trips, pounds out the miles during commuting and you might do a maintained dirt road here or there, a CT is honestly a great choice. If you choose to not run one, cool beans.

 

[RCinNC]

Re: Car Tires - What people think are the negatives or want to debate

Well RCinNC at the end of the day it comes down to differing opinions. I don't agree with it but it seems to me neither side is ever going to convince the other that their opinion or view is the right one. I know what I think and I'm sticking to it. What is crystal clear is that this subject certainly stirs people up on both sides, me included, but I can see this argument going on and on and on and on.......... I'm tired of it and think I will go back to reading and talking about the Yamaha Super Tenere..........much more interesting

No harm, no foul, Groundhog. As I've said in previous posts, my issue isn't that the c/t thing is that it's right or wrong; only that the dismissals of it lacked the sort of evidence that the guys who actually do it are able to provide.

 

[dcstrom]

Re: Car Tires - What people think are the negatives or want to debate

But after a couple thousand miles a rear K60 looks just a like a car tire. ::013::

No, after about 10,000 miles it starts looking like a car tire. The handling deteriorates but I tolerate it in order to save a few bucks and get to the end of the tire life. I don't know why I would knowingly choose a tire that gave me dodgy handling from day 1 - even if it got twice the mileage.

 

[Checkswrecks]

Re: Car Tires - What people think are the negatives or want to debate

I have to agree with AvGeek, in that some of the posts are getting too personal. Keep it civil. The passion in this thread is exactly why I split this from the other thread.


Every time this debate comes up, RC is right in that there are a few actual data points for the positive/pro side, and a lot of opinions and passion on the anti side. Most of the anti sentiment begins like one of our original ones did, with loud people not understanding half of what they tried to use to make their case, further muddying the water.

What got my interest has been to see what the objective facts would be. Why are people successfully running car tires and not killing themselves left and right? After some research this week, I both think I have some answers and can see the design issue giving the tire companies an objective reason to recommend against using car tires on motorcycles. (Dunlop is a great example that the mfgs can also sound like Chicken Little and diminish their own credibility by stating that motorcycles must never pull trailers, owners should not change their own tires, etc.)


My goal in all of this has been for all of to better understand what we are discussing. Any time risk is discussed objectively, there is an acceptance of some frequency of expected failures which is then weighed against the potential results if a failure occurs. We would rather have little things fail sometimes which aren't catastrophic, rather than expecting that something really bad WILL happen.

So from that basis:


On the pro-CT side, I see lots of owners with usage (frequency) data, they have lots of miles (more frequency data), the CT has a heavier load rating which is nearly a 20% safety margin, and cooler running which is important to tire reliability. The fact is that Goldwing owners are experiencing less failures with car tires, and the above are probably part of that. Handling changes of CT are increased straight-line stability which is a positive for highway touring bikes. While the handling change would be an undesirable increase in force/response effort for sport and ADV style m/c, but the additional effort to maneuver is not unpredictable. Tire structural integrity hasn't been an issue since radials became popular. (You ought to see the lateral forces tires endure when a jet has a cross-wind landing!) Note that none of these benefits have to do with better mileage, reduced cost, or being cheap.


Coming out as neither a pro or a con, some math indicates that Yellow_Wolf running his Goldwing as hard as he was really wasn't even close to the loads the tire was capable of. Even though he was not running at gross weight, the CT has an 18% increase in potential gross weight capability (1,201 lbs vs 992 lbs), there is typically a 2X factor or more in tire design, and the 'Wing is limited to 42 degrees in lean. That lean is only about 1.6G total and his lateral doesn't even reach the 1G lateral of a 45 degree bank. None of this lessens his comments about the car tire taking more effort.


However, what people have missed as the biggest anti-CT aspect is that the potential risk in the failure mode can be instantly catastrophic. I write potential, because the known factual basis so far is based in the difference of rim designs and a limited amount of NHTSA testing which was done for a change in FMVSS tire standards.


In his GoldwingFacts post, 82gl1100iwingman pointed to the CT tire's bead toe potentially being 5mm wider than that of the MC rim. Wheel rims have a "safety hump" (he labeled it as a bead hump) intended to keep the bead toe against the rim when pressure is lost. His upper right illustration shown below has a CT on the left flange of a MC rim in the upper right and you can see how the extra 5mm could place the bead slightly beyond pocket created by the hump:

There is a CT bead unseating test required for NHTSA FMVSS 119 and 120 (none required for MC) and I've been looking for actual test results. One tire was been a 16" and not too much bigger than a Goldwing would use; it was pretty typical of the rest of the CT in the bead unseating. While tires inflated to 36 psi passed the test, at 28 psi some did not. At first glance, anybody running a CT on a MC would just say "OK, I'll keep my pressure up." The problem with that logic is that this was for a CT on a matching CT rim and I can't find any records of anybody performing a bead unseating test for a CT on a MC rim, where the tire toe is already not fully seated. In addition to the legal argument I pointed out once before for the tire companies, here's a technical objection for them to cite.


So the bottom line is that there are some good reasons and experience for the use of CT, but the risk is that if your tire starts to lose air, you really do have something to be concerned about. The difference means that the designs indicate that a hard cornering maneuver at gross weight with low pressure could lead to instant loss of the tire, as could a slow leak while riding straight up.


[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Again and agreeing with Groundhog, this isn't offered to change anybody's opinion about whether or not to use a CT. It's been a curiosity exercise on my part, adds to the collective knowledge, and in the end reinforces the need to constantly check tire pressures, no matter what kind of tire you use.[/font]

 

[La Knee]

Re: Car Tires - What people think are the negatives or want to debate

WHAT A STUPID THREAD !! BUNCH OF OLD GUYS HAVING A PISSING CONTEST !!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dogdaze]

Re: Car Tires - What people think are the negatives or want to debate

WHAT A STUPID THREAD !! BUNCH OF OLD GUYS HAVING A PISSING CONTEST !!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

::026:: But when you are old, it really does become a pissing contest................ to see who can pee first ::025::

 

[La Knee]

Re: Car Tires - What people think are the negatives or want to debate

::026:: But when you are old, it really does become a pissing contest................ to see who can pee first ::025::

Oh im with you on that one Doddaze !!
But im really interested in the people who have tested the CT as i will be mounting one on my Honda ST in the winter . The other people who have not tried it should stop writing a friggin book on this topic and get out and RIDE !!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Checkswrecks]

Re: Car Tires - What people think are the negatives or want to debate

Can't say that I blame you Knee but it's one of those almost inevitable topics, like oil threads. Besides, my kids are grown and keep telling me that I AM an old guy.


I was into the debate originally from trying to understand why so much passion while having ridden them, knowing car tires have been used for a long time, and still are. I scratched my curiosity and intend now to just watch that the thread stays civil while it fades into Aging Threadland. Good luck with your Honda - It's a beautiful Sunday and I'm going for a ride.