| Author | Message | ||
     Sifo |
I'm starting to wonder if I'm the only one in the world (other than my wife) that can get 25K out of a Pilot Road 2. The original Dunlop on my XB didn't make 4K miles. The first thousand on that set was break in too.  | ||
| Glitch |
Speaking for myself. There is no way I could give this a go. I wear the whole tire, both sides and the middle. The chewed up "chicken strips" tell me all I want to know about sidewall adhesion. A car tire couldn't do well in my neck of the woods. No matter the bike. Maybe flat-landers, and hi way riders could get away with it I reckon. Too many transitions to even think of having a square rear tire. I reckon anyone that notices how much nicer their bike rides with new rubber, can appreciate what I'm saying. Maybe some day they'll build a long lasting sport-touring-tire, long lasting being relative. The industry has come a very long way in the past few years. Car tires? No thanks. Mileage isn't such a concern that'd I experiment on safety. My 2¢ | ||
| Syonyk |
Maybe some day they'll build a long lasting sport-touring-tire, long lasting being relative. The multi-compound modern stuff is pretty far into magic as far as I'm concerned. Long life, great grip, awesome in the wet... I'm starting to wonder if I'm the only one in the world (other than my wife) that can get 25K out of a Pilot Road 2. Front, or rear, or both? I got 12k out of a set with some quite hard riding in the summer on them. If I did more cold weather riding on them, or not-two-trackdays, or various other things, they would have probably lasted a lot longer. I got 6k out of Q2s, but they tended to be cracking from the sun by the time I wore them out. Tires that dramatically outlive the life of their rubber aren't any good either. | ||
| Sifo |
That was on a set. I tried only doing the front on the first set, but it was way too worn to really make it worth while. I just accept that the front will still look usable when it gets replaced now. I do find that the tend to develop a slight step where the compound changes. It's only been a slight bit of an issue way late in the tires life. | ||
| Glitch |
The multi-compound modern stuff is pretty far into magic as far as I'm concerned. Long life, great grip, awesome in the wet... The industry has come a very long way in the past few years. I run Pilot Roads right now, last years version. I should have took note as to when I put them on. They're great tires once I got the wobble taken care of, turns out the balance of the front tire was out. Wet, they do well. Twists and turns, they do well. All round riding, they do well. I have no complaints at all. I'll buy whatever the newest Pilot Road is when it's time. It was depressing to know how little mileage I was getting out of Sport Tires. Around 3thousand I'd reckon. Got way more than that now, way more. I ride at least 400 miles a week, and a long lasting tire is where it's at. I've not found the "step" yet, I did however find them to be "weird feeling" during scrub in, but that when away pretty quickly. Seeing a car tire tipped over, unsettles me. They're not made to run like that. No matter what Datsaxman says, or has experimented with. I'm all for doing your own thing, that thing though, ain't for me. Using the right tool makes all the difference in the world. To each his own I reckon. | ||
| Bienhoabob |
Here's a video that convinced me to put a CT on my Yamaha FJR. 12,000 miles and loving it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANTlFAFBoXw | ||
| Datsaxman |
Last post from me I expect... I am impressed at how a couple of you that have no experience with a CT at all know more than folks who have. Aristotle was famous for that kind of approach to reasoning...just think about it for a while, and the right answer would reveal itself. Sort of a religious approach. Galileo famously took a very empirical approach. It is the basis for all of scientific thought these days. My conclusions are empirically driven, and one of those conclusions is that a rear CT is safer than a MT. YMMV. saxman | ||
| Blake |
What scientific evidence do you have to support your conclusions? My point was that you don't have any, and that there exist valid scientific reasoning, simple logic, and analysis that oppose your own anecdotal opinion. I really prefer to stick to the topical issue. I'm not at all interested in personal comentary. Empiricism implies some actual scientific documentation and an accounting for statistical effects and unforeseen variables. So I'd ask again: How do you know what you are claiming is really true? | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
You're missing the point Blake, I didn't start this thread to find any scientific data as I expect there is none, or very little. I wanted to find out from folk who have actually done it, why, & what their results were. The "Topical Issue" as you put it, is all about personal commentary. Simple logic & reason indicate that you're right, yet many people have done & still do this, why is that? They say it works for them, therefore simple logic & reason say to me that there's more to this than meets the eye, & the initial simple logic & reason must be less simple & reasonable than I first thought. Empirical implies (according to all my dictionaries anyway) findings based on actual experience & testing rather than theory. You can't just write off other peoples experience because it doesn't suit what you think about something you've never done. | ||
| Blake |
I'm not writing off any experience. I'm just wondering at and challenging what seem like very bold yet tennuously supported assertions. Hey, I just bought a set of knobbies for the Uly. Not altogether rational, but I like the idea of it. | ||
| Datsaxman |
Blake, I suppose you can cite the "valid scientific reasoning, simple logic, and analysis"? I have not seen any except what I am trying to put together. Still very much a work in progress. I expect that there is NO DATA directly comparing MT and CT. Unless you have some? Back to back rides on the two Ulysses - one with CT and one with stock Dunlop - and back to back rides on the Concours - with CT on one rear wheel and stock Dunlop on the other - on the 20 mile mountain road that I have ridden in both directions 250+ times a year for the past 15 years is my test data. And the CT sticks better under all conditions on both MCs. The difference is really pronounced in the rain, and stunningly so in sleet or snow. As stated earlier, the Ulysses is a little heavier handling with the CT. Not "horrid" as you misquote me. Definitely not horrid, but not great either. The narrow CT on the Concours feels a lot like the stock Dunlop. The Concours suspension is tightened up considerably from the mushy stock settings, and it handles quite well. You admit to knowing nothing at all about this topic firsthand, yet you think you know more by guessing that somebody who has tried it. Fascinating. (You even said the motorcycle will ride on the sidewall of the CT instead of the tread in corners. THAT is confirmation that everything you say about this topic is pure guesswork). PM me for some photos of the CT with 20,000+ miles if you want to see evidence that it stays on the tread the whole time. Oh, and here is some Concours data: Stock Dunlop: Tread: 1 ply nylon + 1 ply Aramid, 350kg load rating. 7.5mm tread depth when new. Durometer reading: 68. CT: 2 plies polyester + 2 plies steel, 760kg load rating. 10.4mm tread depth when new. Durometer reading: 62. I say the CT is a safer carcass. Tougher, more tread, stickier. You think the MT is safer? How? saxman | ||
| Datsaxman |
Oh, and the knobbies are a great idea if you are going to be in the dirt all the time. You might not be expecting the CT to be a viable, even a better, alternative to the stock MT. I know I was shocked to find that it works so well. Even more so when the weather got rough last year and the advantages of the CT really sold me. disclaimer: I DO NOT RECOMMEND A CT FOR YOUR MC! Mine work great, but you have to find your own way if you are going to depart from the familiar. There is no guide book. I definitely recommend that you only use HD factory parts, installed by the nice folks at the HD shop, and the tyres and oil recommended in the Buell owner's manual. saxman | ||
| Blake |
For me safer in a motorcycle tire means better handling. Logic and reasoning? See prior comments concerning relative susceptibility to puncture. Maybe your OEM Dunlop was knackered, contaminated, or just plain sucked. Maybe it was not optimally pressurized. Maybe road temperature was different. Maybe ambient temperature was different. Maybe humidity was different. Maybe the road condition (level of surface contamination) was different. The variables in play are many. How if leaned over at 45 degrees does an automobile tire neither touch down on the sidewall nor buckle the sidewall? Either would seem very undesirable. Maybe a buckled sidewall isn't so bad? Mostly though, our preferred riding styles are likely worlds apart. I don't ride in snow much. | ||
| Datsaxman |
Yeah...I don't ride in snow much either. I was just pointing out that the CT has been run under a pretty wide set of conditions. And I ride briskly pretty much all the time in every terrain. I am not trailer-toting 350 pound slab rider. Not that there is anything wrong with that of course, just not the case. I just replaced the front on the Concours, the sidewalls having worn out well before the center tread was even close to gone. And before the rear also. If that tells you what kind of riding I usually do. Appreciate all your comments...but the Dunlop was nearly new, and runs on the different tyres were genuinely back to back, hoping to minimize variables, as you observe. Of course, variables still...you know...vary. I believe the MT is a lot more susceptible to failure, and a lot more dangerous when it fails. CT is stronger, period. The sidewall flexes some, which is good. The tread is not as square as folks ten to think. Yes, the contact patch is NARROWer when cornering than when going straight, but not actually SMALLer. Just a different shape. Same with a MT *or* a CT. And yes, I thought it would be a disaster when I first tried it. I find that it is not. disclaimer...disclaimer...disclaimer... | ||
| Datsaxman |
Just a random content-free post to keep this thread out of the boneyard. Snow later this week, but hoping to NOT ride the CT Kawasaki or the CT Ulysses in it. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
Snow here already, got a brand new PR2 on the M2 & can't scrub it in.  | ||
| Datsaxman |
Yeah, 10-4 on scrubbing it in when it is snowy. I got a new front on the CT Concours, and did a couple of runs down the hill yesterday to scrub in. First run two-up and moderate...second run solo and brisk. Let it snow! | ||
| Datsaxman |
Oh...some CT trivia. Wore the front tyre out first. By a bunch. Nothing much on the right side, a little still on the left, and a whole bunch left in the middle. Fotos of both front and rear if you PM me. In case folks are still clinging to the myth that a CT doesn't corner. Or that when you lean it you are on the sidewall. Or that the Earth is flat. | ||
| Boltrider |
Saxman, please email me the photos. Very interesting stuff. markkenney30@yahoo.com | ||
| Blake |
>>> In case folks are still clinging to the myth that a CT doesn't corner. Or that when you lean it you are on the sidewall "Clinging"? Please explain how your worn front tire is evidence that the automobile rear tire doesn't wear or buckle the sidewall? | ||
| Datsaxman |
Blake, I guess you are replying to me...but you are certainly not referencing the point I made. At all. My point, as stated, was that the front tyre wearing out before the rear is a symptom of the front "pushing." Slip angle stuff. The bike is not going in the direction that the front tyre points because the front is sliding. A little. Not racing on a track, but the same technique applied to a touring bike with harder tyres. The front slides because the bike is being hustled through corners pretty vigorously, and adhesion is insufficient to provide the lateral acceleration being demanded. Fun stuff, of course. Information provided as rebuttal to the popular canard that the CT "cannot turn." Here is what I said: // In case folks are still clinging to the myth that a CT doesn't corner. // Analysis: In order for the FRONT to be sliding, the REAR probably has to be sticking to the road really well. It is. You know, that dumb old CT back there. It sticks pretty well. Nobody but you ever said the CT doesn't wear. It lasts quite well, but of course it wears. It may be counterintuitive at first, and lots of folks seem to run on intuition instead of fact, but the CT is softer that the street MTs I have tested with the durometer, and softer sticks to the road better, AND LASTS LONGER. Up to the point of pronounced slipping, when cohesive forces within the tyre are overcome by adhesive forces (tyre to road surface), and tyre material is ground off. Micro-slippage produces more wear, so by slipping less, the CT wears less. Oh, and there is more rubber to begin with. Yeah, copolymers and stuff. An interesting thing happens with the CT. The contact patch is essentially the same size as a MT at the same pressure - slightly smaller due to the greater stiffness of the CT sidewall, actually (and yes, I have the data). The CT has a contact patch that stays about the same size as the MC turns. So does the MT. Has to, according to Newton. The contact patch grows as cornering speeds - and thus lateral acceleration, and thus total force on the tyre - increase. The thing that is so different between the CT and MT contact patch ins the SHAPE of the contact patch. The familiar MT ovoid shape is nearly the same at any lean angle. BUT THAT IS A RECENT DEVELOPMENT. If you have never seen a Dunlop K70, you may be shocked to see how much it resembles a CT. https://www.denniskirk.com/rear-k70-gold-seal-4-00 s-18-blackwall-tire-420245.p6509.prd And the 1960s and 1970s Dunlop K70, original fitment on Triumph, Norton, BSA - bikes known for their good handling - was even MORE square shaped. Anyway, on the CT, the contact patch at short (front to rear) and full width when going straight. When turning, the contact patch grows - see above - and changes into a long and narrow patch. No wear at all is evident on the sidewall of my CT after over 20,000 miles. IS THIS WHAT YOU MEANT< BLAKE? There is a defined "maximum lean wear edge", where the "chicken strips" would be found on your ordinary MT. Farther out, still on the treaded part of the CT, is virgin tread, and beyond that even farther, the sidewall. Conclusion: It is never riding on anything but the tread surface. The CT deforms, but RADIALLY. It does not wrinkle (rotational deformation)...It does not laterally deform as much as a MT...but it deforms by the carcass pushing in toward the axle. Is this a bad thing? Try this in your car: Drive over some pavement joints. If the CTs are damping the harsh ride, this is the same thing. After over 20,000 miles at a much smaller load than the sidewall load rating, it seems to be fine. I will cut the CT open to examine the carcass for damage after it is worn out. But that is next year. I have been cutting MTs open lately, and will be VERY interested to see how the construction compares to the MTs as well. Wrinkling sidewalls? Doesn't happen. A really facile observation and analysis of cornering forces shows that: 1. The lateral forces on a CT ON A CAR are greater than on the same CT on a MC. 2. The CT sidewall does not wrinkle on the car. With the greater forces. 3. Newton taught us that forces are forces. The CT does not behave differently from one lateral force than it does from another. Yes, the MC leans. No, the CT does not deform enough to "wrinkle" as a result. The deformation is smooth and lateral. Wrinkling would make the CT "wind up" like a spring and store energy. This is not observed behaviour, meaning that there is no sensation of "springiness" when riding the CT, nor is there visual evidence of this when following somebody riding a CT. Vigorously enough to wear the front tyre out on the sides while there is still nearly 4mm of tread remaining in the center. The much stiffer CT deforms a whole lot less than the much weaker sidewall of the MT, that is for sure! And those do not deform noticeably. Even under hard cornering. 4. Yes, the MC leans, so the CT is no longer on the really wide center tread. Again this may be counterintuitive but the CT contact patch changing shape explains all. So. If this seems daft to you, run don't ride down to the closest HD dealer and have them put on the OEM fitment MTs and have them inflate to the recommended pressure for you. It is better that way. I am just telling you what I have found. NEVER run non-approved equipment on your machine! And NO, I will not recommend an oil... | ||
| Bob_thompson |
Gotta break in here once again with the continuing debate. It seems its just a matter of personal opinion and trying to "win " a debate. AND I reiterate; if car tires are any good at all why are they not an option from all motorcycle manufacturers. Most all bike companies put a tire on to give the best performance for that particular bike with little concern for cost and more concern for safety due to liability concerns. I also say our freedoms give us the options of making our own choices and for me that choice is a tire that works the best it can to give me one last thing to worry about when biking. Its bad enough to deal with all the bad drivers and adverse conditions out there. The excellent handling of Buells, a great tire and my own abilities have kept me from serious harm many times. Ride safe ALL. | ||
| Glitch |
A worn front tire is usually a sign of hard braking, not from being pushed. | ||
| Sifo |
Or it's just a sign that the back tire is now lasting longer. Isn't that the main point of "darksiding"? I'll still stick with my dual compound MC tires that have shown themselves to last 20-25K miles. YMMV.  | ||
| Glitch |
My mileage does vary, although I'll stick with what's built for two wheels rather than what's built for four... | ||
| Datsaxman |
Glitch, I generally do not use the brakes AT ALL at full lean. That is where the tyre is worn out. I am one of those old skool "DO all braking while upright on the way into the corner then accelerate through the corner" types. Not quite as fast as trail braking all the way in, but a whole lot safer on the road. Lets me see through the corner with a much larger safety margin. Really better for corners that I can't see through until I am partway through them already, and all that. Sifo, The increased mileage is a bonus. The increased grip is the real selling point for me, and for a lot of other Darksider types that I know. And the thing about increased mileage that is so cool is: 1. I do not get a nasty shock at a gas station when I discover that there is cord sticking out on a long ride. "Hey, I though that MT had another thousand miles left in it, but I guess it didn't." I have no problem throwing the CT out early. It is a lot harder to throw a MT out "early" since the damn things only last a few thousand miles to begin with. 10,800 miles total for three MT rears on the Ulysses. TOTAL. No wheelies, burnouts, etc. Sheesh. 2. The CT spends most of its life with a really thick tread layer, not half worn out on the average. 3. Steel belted! The CT is really robust. I like that. Anyway, thanks for the comments. YMMV. | ||
| Glitch |
I generally do not use the brakes AT ALL at full lean. That's the smart way for sure. I do all my setting up for the turn before I enter the turn. That is where the tyre is worn out. Before the turn? Huh? Not quite as fast as trail braking all the way in, but a whole lot safer on the road. Agreed, although I will admit trail braking is what I do if it's a more than spirited run through the hills. Really better for corners that I can't see through until I am partway through them already, and all that. Absolutely. Having said all that, it doesn't change what I said. A worn out front is more from braking than being pushed. There are way more forces being placed on the front tire during braking that anywhere else. Now if you wanna tell me you do all your braking with the rear, I'll just think your riding skill matches what I feel your selection of rear tire is... | ||
| Sifo |
I just have one thing I can't get over with this. If the car tire is giving far better mileage, better traction, and still provides good handling, why hasn't motorcycle racing, especially endurance racing where tire changes cost a lot of distance on the track, started using car tires? More to the point, why haven't tire manufactures figured this out and given us MC tires that provide these CT benefits in a tire specifically designed and approved for your bike. It would be a HUGE seller! | ||
| Datsaxman |
Glitch, I meant that the TYRE is worn out on the edges...definitely NOT from braking. And I agree about the trail braking. I keep up ok. And no need for the rear brake most of the time, although I appreciate the weak attempt at an insult. Sifo, I bet you don't use racing tyres on your road bike...you know, 20-45 minutes of tyre life...really narrow range of operating temperature, tiny maximum load rating, etc. This is a standard topic in the CT argument, BTW. Ever ride a real thoroughbred racebike on the street? Not as much fun as you might think. Geared for 100mph in first gear, loud as hell, doesn't idle, etc. To your question about why the manufacturers don't offer a better MT, I guess they don't have to in order to sell what they offer. Arguing that it is not going to work because it is not available as OEM is "flat earth society" stuff. The Ulysses CT is really too wide to transition from side to side as well as I would like...but the CT on the Kawasaki is terrific. NEVER going back to a MT. Oh, and I have never had a modern MT last more than about 6,000 miles. Many many miles in 40+ years. SO flame away... Bob, My point is that "everybody" seems to have a bad opinion of the CT, despite having no experience. Like it or hate it is fine...I DO NOT recommend a CT for your Buell...but opinions based on total ignorance are always a puzzle to me... | ||
| Sifo |
Flat earth society stuff? Speaking of a weak attempt at an insult. Assuming that tire manufacturers simply don't make a better tire because they don't have to in order to sell what they have is simply ignoring the improvements in tires that are made on a regular basis. It's what free market competition is all about. What's more is that you are telling us that the development is already done by the tire manufacturers. It's just a matter of marketing them to the motorcycle market. You've made a lot of good points in this thread. This isn't one of them. |
