Originally Posted by Deuces R Wild
savings not worth the risk to me.



Folks,

Its not about the savings. Its about the ride.

Regards,

 

I have ran Mickey Thompson "motorcycle" flat slick tires on Hayabusas that where 7" wide with as little as 10 psi. I ran them on the highway and at the dragstrip in excess of 180 mph... Of course the majority of those miles where straight line but there where curves along the way. When I say curves I mean the basic kind, not the extremely hazardous descending radius curves on the Blue Ridge Parkway, Deals Gap, etc. Now, with that being said, a car tire is basically flat too. Although my experience with 7" flat motorcycle slicks are a different compound and application, it's also two different riding applications as well. Let's face it, a touring bike spends 90% of it's life riding in a straight line and rarely experiences much if any curves unless you use Deals Gap to commute to work. If a car tire rides anything like a flat slick then it can't be that bad, I don't know...

All I can say is try it or don't try. It's not worth getting heated in a forum. Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics...
Even if you win, you're still retarded.

 

My concerns are:

1. Are CT's heavier/lighter than MT's and, if so, are there any issues with the greater/lesser rotating mass?

2. What additional stress, if any, does a CT place on components like the belt, transmission, shocks, swingarm, or bearings?

3. Does the CT contact patch and tread pattern when combined with less vehicle weight result in a greater likelihood of hydroplaning in wet conditions?

Just because someone does it and has done it for years does not make their experience empirical data.

You don't know what you don't know.

If it works for you, have at it, but I wouldn't be recommending it to others without hard data to support it.

 

From my study and experience:
1.) reasonably closer than you'd think - it goes both ways, generally a bit heavier on the CT due to the tread depth, but not sidewalls.
2.) No difference on drive components but some metrics with the plastic shock bushings need them replaced. Also, there seems to be a harmonic effect with the front ends. If you have anything wrong with the front end, like a loose triple tree or a crappy tire, it shows up, but is fixable.
3.) Many have run as fast as 80 in the rain with no effects, but I'd wager that on a small bike it could be a problem for that reason. The main thing everyone notices is how much more traction they have in the rain than a MT. Especially brakes. Some corner down to the pegs in the rain, but that's just asking for it, IMO...you still have a MT on the front.

 

Yeah, I am evidently the first Heritage to go DS - Vredestein Comtrac 175/75/16 with stock tube. This is the narrowest you can get a CT in, but it works on the softails at least.

French: We've discussed it on the DS forum; seems that fuel mileage stays about the same and increases in some instances. My buddy with a VTX1100 we put a Dunlop Signature on swears he gets 14mpg more, but I think that's a bit of a stretch. Your numbers are off since you don't see the guys using expensive high performance tires that often. I wouldn't want to use a $45.00 tire though either as some have done. http://darkside.nwff.info/database.php
I can pay $153 for the Comtrac to my door or drive down to the shops and buy a MT for nearly the same or more. So what do I prefer, 6-8k or 20+k and three times the traction? The wife's back loves it too.

itSawOrk: We recommend them for cruisers, although some Triumph triples and such have run them very successfully in the mountains. But the lean angles on the crotch rockets is too much to keep half the tread flat on the road as we do with the heavies and proper pressures.

 

Well, you seem to be the guy to talk to. Will the tire you are running fit under my 07 Ultra? Which size Harley tire where you running on the back, before you went darkside? Where's the best place to order the Comtrac?

Thanks for the help. I really miss my darkside tire that was on my old bike, and I'll be honest.....I miss the cookies too!

 

your last paragraph shows you have no class.

 

I try to be helpful, but I don't have all the Harley frame sizes memorized. Mine had a 150 in it; if yours has a 140 you may have a problem. You will void some insurance coverage if you modify the frame of the bike to make a bigger one fit, but they do cover the tire if it's DOT certified and has tread on it, according to the guys who called a bunch of companies and checked. They have no other reason to reject them. (actually should give you bucks OFF for running them, IMO!)
http://www.tiresbyweb.com/p-8480-vre...n-comtrac.aspx

 

This is what cracks me up with some darksiders, they can't be trusted. 14mpg more with a CT??? Give me a break! Not you personally, but your buddy.

Most posts I've found on gas mileage state that they lost an average of 2 to 3 mpg, due to the fact that there's more rubber on the ground, hence more friction. By the way, it's the same if you use a wider MT.

For 99.9% of the darksiders, cost was the only reason they switched. I've never read a single post on a Darkside forum stating that someone switched because of superior handling.

My previous post demonstrated that in fact, it'll cost them more to use a CT than a MT over 50,000 miles, due to lower MPG.

Finally, why are my numbers off? I compared a MT at $150, which is the price of the American Elite 180/65-16 at Jake Wilson (it's listed at $152.99 and I paid $132.99 for mine with a $20 off coupon), to a CT at $100. I've seen the Dunlop SP5000 in 195/60-16 at $102 at Tire Rack, some guys found it cheaper on eBay.
In terms of longevity, I considered 12,000 miles for the MT vs. 35,000 miles for the CT.

Sounds fair and realistic, no?

By the way, your "3 times the traction", is like 14mpg more, I don't buy it either. MTs have excellent traction and there's no way an additional 3/4" of rubber on the ground would triple it.

Let's just conclude that you like your CT, which I have no problem with, and I've yet to hear compelling arguments to switch. Take care.

 

You mentioned some very expensive tires and I thought that was your base.
Yes, there IS ABSOLUTELY FAR MORE TRACTION! This is undeniable to anyone running them, especially when talking about wet traction. I estimated my stopping power to be 3x better due to the fact that my Dunflop AND my Pirelli tended to slide so far and lock up so easily in a fast stop, something the DS doesn't do. Stopping distance is far shorter, of course and I'll argue this one into the ground buddy, believe me.

Truth be known, from what I see but don't see mentioned is that most guys go for the widest tire they can fit. That is all about looks, not performance. Mileage is an excuse for fat. I'm happy as a clam at 175mm.