To each his own...but everyone I hear go back soon enough. So WHY?

 

Despite the "clueless" comment, I also like a good debate and have no problem admitting I'm wrong if it turns out that's the case.

Despite all these "darksiders" claiming increased traction, I've not seen one shred of evidence to support this. I STRONGLY suspect that most MC tires are far softer than most CT's. I have no evidence of this, but it sounds like none of you have evidence to the contrary either.
The other pce of the physics puzzle is the contact patch and while I'll concede that a CT contact patch is far larger when the bike is level, I believe it would be far less when the bike is leaned into a decent corner....just looking at the tire profile would seem to confirm this.

One thing my years of university physics has taught me is that for your CT comments to be true, the coefficient of friction with the CT would HAVE to be greater....this is only possible by two variables: the contact patch and the rubber compound used. At first brush, the CT would seem to suffer on both fronts.

I have no doubt that the DS riders have accumulated millions of trouble free miles, but I'm not ready to believe that they actually enjoy increased traction in corners while doing it without better proof than: I went around a corner faster than my buddy with XYZ motorcycle tires (of indeterminate brand, model, age and pressure).

Only two things would be needed to prove it one way or another; durometer results of brand new CT vs. a MT and a picture of the contact patch on a pce of glass/plexi showing a fully loaded FLH at maximum lean. Keep in mind that the more "space" in the tread pattern, the less the effective contact patch is for a given area.

....I can probably do the durometer test, though I don't have the current popular DS CT available....


Dave

 

WHAT??? You just take a few drinks and come out with some total freekin' nonsense like that? SHOW US these posts from people who "go back". I'll have to see this since it's more like 98% will NEVER run a MT in back again.
Obviously, we have a troll. The very FEW I've seen go "back" were because of a new bike with MT's on it, or one or two who just couldn't trust the CT, but out of THOUSANDS of posts I've read on FOUR DS forums, almost NOBODY goes 'BACK'.
SHOW US! We demand links.

Mr. Pelletier;
good comeback from your position. I added the link to durometer proofs to my post for you to peruse. A very quick test is using a pen and pushing it into your bike tire, then your car's. You may notice an immediate difference.
Point is, most CT's are DEFINITELY softer compounds than MT's. Your tires DO "constantly slip" as proven by track testing in the wet. The tires showed massively lower wear factors than tires ran on the dry tracks. I'll see if I can find the link. Even a little makes a lot when compounded by thousands of miles.
I have a regular riding pard who tears up the twisties with me. Before the CT, I couldn't keep up with him. Major change after getting to trust the CT's: we run neck and neck. Now I find that when he slips on gravel or whatnot, I wonder what the problem was - having not felt the same problem. I've been surprised (in a good way) by this several times. And he runs Avons for grip.

 

...and I don't believe for a split second that a MT "constantly slips".

Dave

 

 

I think there's durometer readings somewhere...I haven't much looked at them though (and it's not a controlled test). I know it's less than ideal, but there was one video a page or three back that was mounted low enough to give a somewhat decent idea of a CT contact patch...I still think the wear is attributed to the traction patch being spread over a wider area, but for tire stuff I'm only decent with Jeeps (and I'm not a DS yet, though the idea fascinates me now that I have a Glide that is easily fitted)

I agree about the tire not "constantly slipping", maybe more squirming?


(ETA: Just saw Quad put his duro readings up...I gotta look before I speak more)

 

I'll get my buddies racecar durometer and check some tires when I have time. If I find the MC tires are harder or the CT contact patch appears larger, then I will concede that the possibility of increased traction with a CT exists. The pic above certainly doesn't look like the CT has a larger contact patch....

cheers,
Dave

 

Please post the results when you do...it should be interesting regardless of which side of the fence views it (and, I get the feeling you'd be one of the last to skew it against DS).
I'm still looking for video (I don't mind...you've been one of the most sensible & grown-up non-DS posters), but I found posts to show some leans and what-not.
By post number:
1164 - shows a decent comparo between a CT and MT profile side-by-side
1073 and 1085 - Shows the contact patch on a durn (one LH and one RH)...not as ideal as the "picture of the contact patch on a piece of glass/plexi" (I'd love to see that as well), but better view than that sig pic.
1041 - Shows the chicken strips on a bike mounted CT to show it's not running on sidewall (not one of your claims, but a worthy share).

Like I said, I'll post vid when I find it, shows the tire deformation pretty well. Thanks for being a good (polite) critic.

ETA - post 1022 is an ok pic, might be too dark to judge though.

 

Couldn't find the vids that were in thread a few weeks ago, but here's some from Youtube. The CT's appear to always have 1/3 of tread in asphalt at all times (with occasional exceptions)
The first two show same bike, same rider, everything...only difference is an MT vs CT to show CP comparo.


then the others:

And for those that ask "why don't they put 'em on sportbikes?" here's one on a ZX-14

 

I just don't get it? I read as much as I could stomach but cant even bring myself to entertain the idea. The last thing I want to save a few bucks on is a tire. IDK maybe im just stupid but the last thing I ever thought would look cool on my bike was a CAR TIRE!!!!