Darksider - conviction registered | Page 4 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Darksider - conviction registered

Bandit Bill said:
I am going by what i remember a Honda mechanic once told me eons ago. My memory may have slipped - I do remember it being in relation to the cracked frame issue with the early 1800 Wings, and him bitching about the tear-down of a Wing to get at that rear end. Perhaps i was in error.. he ain't a genius, but he's a damn competent mechanic in the USA. As for the rest of your rant - if you've been paying attention to this thread, you would have known i did my research on this quite some time ago.

Your 1800 Wing possesses no magical properties. It shares the same motorcycle specific bead profile as any other motorcycle. Being a Wing, does not make it immune to the laws of physics when you mate two mis-matching components together, that were specifically designed to be incompatible, so that lunk-heads wouldn't be splattering themselves road-side on-mass, going dark-side.

Don't like it.. stop bitching at me.. I can't change the fundamentals of the Reality that you choose to ignore. Talk to the engineers at both the tire manufacturers, and those who designed the cross-incompatible rims for specific, separate uses.

You mad?
Click to expand...
Me mad?Not at all.Just wondering if you actually have any real life experience at all with big bikes?As I've stated(and it's there for everyone to read) there are hundreds of bikes that have logged millions of miles on CT's and no catastrophic failures.If you can show me anything different then I'll bow down and pay homage to your ultimate wisdom.Until then I'll file your opinion in circular 13 with the rest of the naysayers that have no experience in the matter.

The reality that you choose to ignore as well as a lot of others is that there is no evidence of a CT popping off of a MC rim ever even though the engineers will tell you it's inevidable.Prove me wrong if you can.If not go back and play with your hacked up hack.I'm sure it's legal.
 
Fatwing said:
Me mad?Not at all.Just wondering if you actually have any real life experience at all with big bikes?As I've stated(and it's there for everyone to read) there are hundreds of bikes that have logged millions of miles on CT's and no catastrophic failures.If you can show me anything different then I'll bow down and pay homage to your ultimate wisdom.Until then I'll file your opinion in circular 13 with the rest of the naysayers that have no experience in the matter.

The reality that you choose to ignore as well as a lot of others is that there is no evidence of a CT popping off of a MC rim ever even though the engineers will tell you it's inevidable.Prove me wrong if you can.If not go back and play with your hacked up hack.I'm sure it's legal.
Click to expand...

LOL, ok buddy.. go back to your flat-earth society meeting, then.
 
GUESS WHO? said:
Wait....... What? People put car tires on their motorcycles!? LOL That's the first time I've heard of this.
Click to expand...
IMG_8356B.jpg


IMG_5174Large2.jpg


https://www.google.ca/search?q=killboy+darkside&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X
 
Wow your misunderstanding of the legal system is amazing. For legislation to be written there are safety considerations, testing done, and input is sought from the vehicle, (in this case bike), manufacturers as well as tire manufacturers, (seeing this piece of legislation deals with tires). After all this info is compiled then a bill is written and eventually enacted into law. Now the legislation "may" in VERY VERY few bikes, be flawed. Perhaps a goldwing 1800, (yes there may also be others but seeing you choose the 1800 I will limit the discussion to that bike), "can" run with a car tire. Does that make it safe?? I have no idea I am not an engineer, nor have I studied it in depth, (I don't need to, I am not writing laws, nor do I own this model bike), instead I choose to rely upon the safety EXPERTS, (which I am pretty sure your not one of them and haven't done exhaustive testing).

All this to say it wasn't the "cops opinion" that it was an improper tire, (you keep saying it is safe). The charge was improper tire not UNSAFE tire. The officer wasn't on patrol, peeked over at the Vulcan and said "oh that isn't safe in my opinion". He followed the legislation which was written after consulting the above noted experts. Even IF for a minute we accept your argument in regards to the bike you pointed out, (goldwing 1800), can YOU state a car tire is also good for a Vulcan 900?? What about a ducati sport bike?

The legislation covers a CLASS of vehicles, (bikes), it does not spell out each make and model. I have no idea if the gold wing 1800, (yes I know there are other makes as well, that the same argument was made in regards to using car tires), can run a car tire. I also have no idea if during the testing that make and model were even tested. My ATV can be fitted with car tires, does that make it a proper tire for that class of vehicle? I wouldn't think so.

Just as some Toyotas experienced accelerator issues, they didn't recall every model of Toyota nor did they state that ALL vehicles were unsafe. Primarily because the auto manufacturers were able to prove which models were affected. Only some of those models ever experienced an issue, so should the gov't simply have noit done testing and ruled everything was "proper"? Now SOME goldwing 1800 owners may run car tires, not ALL do. So there are likely many who feel the experts got it right when they wrote a law stating a car tire is improper for a bike. If every goldwing owner felt it was acceptable to run only car tires then they should lobby the gov't and have the legislation amended.

But it is unfair to go after the cop and the judge saying basically they hold the wrong opinion. It isn't THEIR opinion it is how the legislation is written and they followed that legislation. Both parties did what they are supposed to do... follow the LAW. Now you keep arguing it is in YOUR opinion to acceptable to run a car tire on a goldwing 1800 but this wasn't a goldwing 1800 that was charged it was a Vulcan 900. So what PROOF do you have that this is indeed a PROPER tire for a Vulcan 900? If you have none then it is indeed your OPINION which is wrong. Again I doubt you have engineering reports and testing to show that this is the case for a Vulcan 900.

I get your argument but until YOU can run the same series of tests that the engineers used to determine if a car tire is proper for these bikes, your argument is unsubstantiated. So let's see YOUR "other facts"

Fatwing said:
So what genius told you it was 5 hours to change a rear wheel on an 1800,the same guy that told you a CT wouldn't be safe?It's a single sided swingarm.It takes less than 15 minutes.Bottom line is that it was the cops OINION that it wasn't safe and nothing else unless he can enlighten us as to some other facts.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Thanks. So if this fellow can buy a MC tire that is that large and wide, why can't the goldwings, etc. buy the same tire?
 
hedo2002 said:
Wow your misunderstanding of the legal system is amazing. For legislation to be written there are safety considerations, testing done, and input is sought from the vehicle, (in this case bike), manufacturers as well as tire manufacturers, (seeing this piece of legislation deals with tires). After all this info is compiled then a bill is written and eventually enacted into law. Now the legislation "may" in VERY VERY few bikes, be flawed. Perhaps a goldwing 1800, (yes there may also be others but seeing you choose the 1800 I will limit the discussion to that bike), "can" run with a car tire. Does that make it safe?? I have no idea I am not an engineer, nor have I studied it in depth, (I don't need to, I am not writing laws, nor do I own this model bike), instead I choose to rely upon the safety EXPERTS, (which I am pretty sure your not one of them and haven't done exhaustive testing).

All this to say it wasn't the "cops opinion" that it was an improper tire, (you keep saying it is safe). The charge was improper tire not UNSAFE tire. The officer wasn't on patrol, peeked over at the Vulcan and said "oh that isn't safe in my opinion". He followed the legislation which was written after consulting the above noted experts. Even IF for a minute we accept your argument in regards to the bike you pointed out, (goldwing 1800), can YOU state a car tire is also good for a Vulcan 900?? What about a ducati sport bike?

The legislation covers a CLASS of vehicles, (bikes), it does not spell out each make and model. I have no idea if the gold wing 1800, (yes I know there are other makes as well, that the same argument was made in regards to using car tires), can run a car tire. I also have no idea if during the testing that make and model were even tested. My ATV can be fitted with car tires, does that make it a proper tire for that class of vehicle? I wouldn't think so.

Just as some Toyotas experienced accelerator issues, they didn't recall every model of Toyota nor did they state that ALL vehicles were unsafe. Primarily because the auto manufacturers were able to prove which models were affected. Only some of those models ever experienced an issue, so should the gov't simply have noit done testing and ruled everything was "proper"? Now SOME goldwing 1800 owners may run car tires, not ALL do. So there are likely many who feel the experts got it right when they wrote a law stating a car tire is improper for a bike. If every goldwing owner felt it was acceptable to run only car tires then they should lobby the gov't and have the legislation amended.

But it is unfair to go after the cop and the judge saying basically they hold the wrong opinion. It isn't THEIR opinion it is how the legislation is written and they followed that legislation. Both parties did what they are supposed to do... follow the LAW. Now you keep arguing it is in YOUR opinion to acceptable to run a car tire on a goldwing 1800 but this wasn't a goldwing 1800 that was charged it was a Vulcan 900. So what PROOF do you have that this is indeed a PROPER tire for a Vulcan 900? If you have none then it is indeed your OPINION which is wrong. Again I doubt you have engineering reports and testing to show that this is the case for a Vulcan 900.

I get your argument but until YOU can run the same series of tests that the engineers used to determine if a car tire is proper for these bikes, your argument is unsubstantiated. So let's see YOUR "other facts"
Click to expand...

Actually if you go back to the cops original post he said in his opinion it was unsafe.
 
Sunspark said:
Thanks. So if this fellow can buy a MC tire that is that large and wide, why can't the goldwings, etc. buy the same tire?
Click to expand...

It's not the size of tire at issue, it's the wear rate. A Goldwing is a heavy bike, and eats tires relatively rapidly. A Goldwing is equipped with a comparatively low-wear, harder compound tire than that stretched sportbike, stock.

No motorcycle tire will cut the mustard, when economy is first and foremost in mind.
 
Last edited:
Re hedo's reply (Basically, don't shoot the messenger)

The bones of the argument is anecdotal evidence versus legally documented evidence.

The problem with anecdotal evidence is that it is largely hearsay and has the potential for being inaccurate. People may discount an event thinking it unimportant because they were able to handle it. People forget stuff when it isn't their full time focused job to record all findings.

I worked for a company that made a product that should have lasted thirty to fifty years. Because of an inaccurate call the stuff only lasted ten years but it took ten years before a problem was recognized and corrected. The problem was only recognized because the company at that time had a good feedback loop on failures.

Some different housing bad examples are UFFI insulation and small gauge aluminum wiring, and they went through testing.

Bluntly, I don't see a change in the legislation unless someone is prepared to come up with hundreds of thousands of dollars to do the testing on a specific tire for a specific rim. If so, the legislation could take five to ten years to enact. Since the legislation would only cover a specific tire to a specific rim, if either the rim or tire manufacturer changed their product all would be for nothing.

The only logical route is for a tire manufacturer to make a motorcycle tire with the car tire characteristics desired by the heavy cruiser market. There doesn't seem to be any interest from the tire manufacturers.

What is the perspective from the LEO?

In the case of the Vulcan, the tire was rubbing so IMO failure to give a ticket would be negligence. However in the case of a Goldwing or HD with no obvious signs of disaster would this be looked at like going 105 KPH on the 400 in light traffic or a zero tolerance issue?

To the LEOs, the question is rhetorical. The answer is zero tolerance unless you want to lose all hope of promotion.

For the darksiders the question is why are you running darkside. If it's strictly a cost factor then you have to factor in the cost of the ticket and insurance boost. What are the odds of getting caught? What's it going to cost?

In my case I would be more interested in pursuing a run-flat tire for safety not cost. However the bead / rim dynamics of the run-flat could be even more complex. If I seriously thought a run-flat would save my life I'd risk paying the fines. It's my choice.

Don't expect any compassion from the public or government. Motorcycles are seen as toys, we are in a vast minority, loud pipes and brat behavior don't elicit sympathy.
 
I agree 100%, the change to the legislation would take years and tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. But for a darksider to simply say, (as it seems fatwing is). that if these tires have been run a "millions of miles" without one incident is oversimplifying the issue. that is my point to his post. he can argue in his mind it is safe, Mainly due to his belief that there has never been a single failure, as you eluded to, sometimes a failure may be a contributing factor in a crash, but other factors are considered primary therefore, the tire issue goes unreported. Think of it, as I seen when I was on patrol, a collision occurred where a tire, (on a cage) had a failure but the driver was at the time, (I kid you not reading his news paper while drinking a coffee and steering with his knees). In this case the accident was attributed to driver inattention and not the tire failure by the traffic reconstructionist. But does that mean that the tire didn't fail??

It would be nice if the rim manufacturer and the tire manufacturer got together and created a product which would pass testing. but given the VERY small percentage of riders who would ride the darkside it just isn't financially viable for them to spend the money on the R&D testing to get regulatory approval.

As I said Bill done his home work and he did the modifications that he feel were required to give him a "safe" setup but in all likelihood he still would have been charged

I also agree if someone wants to darkside it I could care less not going to affect me or my riding one iota. Same as those who drive Side by Side off road vehicles on the roads. It is illegal, i am part of an organization that has been lobbying heavily. but as of now it is illegal do i care if someone does it? Not really on one hand it will be them that gets the ticket and the resulting insurance increases. On the other hand it hurts our lobbying efforts as our opponents point the behavior and say "see they won't follow the rules anyway.

Interesting sidebar I was at a show yesterday for off road bikes and vehicles and related the story to another biker of this thread and the rider being charged. I said it was a Vulcan 900. Ironically the fellow, (a local) asked is that the blue and white Vulcan that runs around town all the time? I said I had no idea. If it is then it shows he is also drawing attention from the community at large. If not then it seems Vulcans near Barrie are an issue..lol

One last point of interest to Bike Cop. Was the rider permitted to continue or was the bike towed?

For Sunspark another reason, is a tire of the size on that bike in your photo would never fit on a goldwing... They have fenders..lol But as Bill said the darkside isn't about size it is about cost saving on tire wear.

nobbie48 said:
Re hedo's reply (Basically, don't shoot the messenger)

The bones of the argument is anecdotal evidence versus legally documented evidence.

The problem with anecdotal evidence is that it is largely hearsay and has the potential for being inaccurate. People may discount an event thinking it unimportant because they were able to handle it. People forget stuff when it isn't their full time focused job to record all findings.

I worked for a company that made a product that should have lasted thirty to fifty years. Because of an inaccurate call the stuff only lasted ten years but it took ten years before a problem was recognized and corrected. The problem was only recognized because the company at that time had a good feedback loop on failures.

Some different housing bad examples are UFFI insulation and small gauge aluminum wiring, and they went through testing.

Bluntly, I don't see a change in the legislation unless someone is prepared to come up with hundreds of thousands of dollars to do the testing on a specific tire for a specific rim. If so, the legislation could take five to ten years to enact. Since the legislation would only cover a specific tire to a specific rim, if either the rim or tire manufacturer changed their product all would be for nothing.

The only logical route is for a tire manufacturer to make a motorcycle tire with the car tire characteristics desired by the heavy cruiser market. There doesn't seem to be any interest from the tire manufacturers.

What is the perspective from the LEO?

In the case of the Vulcan, the tire was rubbing so IMO failure to give a ticket would be negligence. However in the case of a Goldwing or HD with no obvious signs of disaster would this be looked at like going 105 KPH on the 400 in light traffic or a zero tolerance issue?

To the LEOs, the question is rhetorical. The answer is zero tolerance unless you want to lose all hope of promotion.

For the darksiders the question is why are you running darkside. If it's strictly a cost factor then you have to factor in the cost of the ticket and insurance boost. What are the odds of getting caught? What's it going to cost?

In my case I would be more interested in pursuing a run-flat tire for safety not cost. However the bead / rim dynamics of the run-flat could be even more complex. If I seriously thought a run-flat would save my life I'd risk paying the fines. It's my choice.

Don't expect any compassion from the public or government. Motorcycles are seen as toys, we are in a vast minority, loud pipes and brat behavior don't elicit sympathy.
Click to expand...
 
Oh yay! I got to be made a quote on Wingboy's topic on that forum.

http://gl1800riders.com/forums/showthread.php?479641-Ticket-for-car-tire&

It's nice to see that they at least put a nice liability warning regarding the installation of and use of CT as a sticky. I'm betting that the issue has costed that forum Mod many hours of cleaning up controversy threads there!

The car tire debate has been a hot topic on our boards for some time now and it has been brought to our attention that because we have not said anything against the car tire debate that in fact we are encouraging such a modification. That is not the case at all. A car tire is not recommended by anyone other than those who have chosen to ignore the manufactures recommendations. If you choose to run a car tire on your motorcycle you do so at your own risk.

Please keep the car tire threads on this board. All car tire threads that are started on another board will be moved here.

The rules are the same on this board so please keep it civil so I don't have to spend my time deleting post and banning users. Thanks
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Oh, and here's Fatwing's post over there. He's a very new convert, having gone over to the darkside 2 weeks ago - reason cited, it was a $100.00 tire he picked up last fall.

He also says that he bought and tried out a tire that few/no one else in his knowledge have utilized, or otherwise tested.

I'll take the experts opinion's in writing at face-value, over your's of 2 weeks experience.. sorry Fatwing.

http://gl1800riders.com/forums/showthread.php?470330-Darkside
 
Last edited:
Bandit Bill said:
It's not the size of tire at issue, it's the wear rate. A Goldwing is a heavy bike, and eats tires relatively rapidly. A Goldwing is equipped with a comparatively low-wear, harder compound tire than that stretched sportbike, stock.

No motorcycle tire will cut the mustard, when economy is first and foremost in mind.
Click to expand...

You would think someone could make a Car like tire that would fit the bill specifically for these big *** cruisers that would address the economy side of it.
 
Two50noob said:
You would think someone could make a Car like tire that would fit the bill specifically for these big *** cruisers that would address the economy side of it.
Click to expand...

I agree also - perhaps the size, weight and performance envelope of these large scale tourers have out-stripped current developed motorcycle tire technology. Lot's of people on that wing site citing safety as the reason to switch, due to tread blistering and blowouts with motorcycle tires.

I suspect that current motorcycle tires don't see a return on significant investment in the cards, for designing a limited run purpose built tire for a niche market as this.
 
The rider was not allowed to continue, partly due to the tire, but also due to the eight other equipment infractions and lack of insurance.
 
In other words, to quote Rob MacLennan on this board, it was a "Do you want fries with that?" situation, and there was plenty more going on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom