Darksider - conviction registered

[Brian P]

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.

But there are lots of Gold Wings out there on the roads. It has been a long-running model and lots of owners put on lots of mileage and it is a model that is still being sold. It seems to me that tire manufacturers ought to be able to respond to the demand and address whatever tread-life or load-capacity issues are being reported - unless there is some technical reason why they can't.

It will not be cheap, though. If the car-tire alternative is a 175/55-15, apparently from the rear of a smart, those tires are dirt cheap (and they are probably horrible Continental ContiProContact hockey pucks that I wouldn't wish on anyone - seen enough of those as OEM on european cars and I've hated them every time).

 

[johnscruiser]

I know how my bike handles when the rear tire is due for replacement (worn flat in the middle from Ontario roads).

I saw a picture just posted today that illustrates what you're saying:

 

[RockerGuy]

.

It will not be cheap, though. If the car-tire alternative is a 175/55-15, apparently from the rear of a smart, those tires are dirt cheap (and they are probably horrible Continental ContiProContact hockey pucks that I wouldn't wish on anyone - seen enough of those as OEM on european cars and I've hated them every time).

Have those on my car. Thought they were good tires. Then I was wondering why my suspension was so crappy, upon swapping tires I realize it was the tires' fault. Felt like if I was riding on a balloon

 

[nobbie48]

I continue to flog the anecdotal horse but consider that in 2012 Toyota recalled 7.43 million vehicles over a power window switch. No accidents or deaths were caused by the switch but a fire was a possibility if a sticky switch was incorrectly greased.

How much documentation would be needed to get the ball rolling on getting car tires approved on bikes if this is the type of standard that has to be met?

I'm not holding my breath.

50 years ago, if the door fell off your car you'd be told to fix it yourself with duct tape.

 

[Fatwing]

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

What about the millions of miles that have been accumulated in the last 13-14 years along with my 2 weeks?
You really know how to take a post out of context I'll give you that.What I said was that the tire was already on the rim that I bought for a spare.I said it was a $100 for both.Nowhere did I say that I bought it because it was cheap.Yes I recently went Darkside after a lot of studying the subject.In no way did I do this because it was cheaper,but because it has been proven to work and work well.I've been buying $250 + rear tires since the 80's,so believe me cost has next to nothing to do with this move.You want to play you got to pay.You think bikes are expensive by a boat.

BTW I missed the part about the tire rubbing.That's a different story obviously.

 

[Bandit Bill]

If cost of tires isn't the point, and ergo neither is the frequency or expense of changing tires on a single-sided swing-arm as you corrected me on earlier, then why f$#@ with your safety? ..

My comment about you buying it because it was cheap, is a misplaced attribution. Sorry. However i will amend it to say that i think you are being cheap at the potential expense of your safety. A tire and a spare goldwing rim assembly .. a bargoon at $100 eh? How used is the tire? Did you inspect your wheel bearings in that Honda hub before you installed it - bearings also tend to wear harder under the increased centrifugal stresses acting upon them from the increased overall weight of the rotating rubber. Or was it a new darkside assembly that someone chickened out on/didn't follow through with?

Not sure what you are inferring with 'you think bikes are expensive by a boat'. As for the boat (what's the point of this, in this discussion?), if i wanted a boat and had money to waste, i'd just as soon pour a bucket of money straight in the lake, and save me the trouble of scrubbing a hull at the end of season. No thanks. You are also not the only one riding and buying assorted expensive bits since the 80's, so you can stow that holier than thou declaration - again not sure why you feel the need to bring that up.

My 'pointing out of context' was to indicate that YOU have two weeks experience, on an undocumented tire, "that you were gonna give a try, but wasn't sure of" .. that is hardly the safe way of going about this.. taking a second hand rim, with an already mounted, undocumented (second-hand, used?) tire with an unknown history of installation or usage.. and lets give it a try on this darksider thing! You are certainly no voice of experience at this point, to be defending the honor of car tires on motorcycle rims.

PS: I read a few threads about the handling getting all funky at about 5 mph on your darkside forum, as some darksiders transition over a driveway lip onto a roadway.. were you aware - at all, that this is the point at which a fair amount of mis-match bead seat failures occur? That uncomfortable handling feeling is the tire carcass deforming the bead seal as it rolls over the point of the driveway/roadway curb transition and is the precursor to the bead rolling off of the rim while leaned over low speed. All it takes is the softer sidewall to deform more than the bead can maintain seal on the rim. Funnily enough, some of your fellow wing darksiders can't even seem to decide between "speed it up a bit over the transition" or alternatively "just take it easy" as the solution. What an innovative approach on what is symptomatic of a potentially serious safety issue.

The other guys with 13-14 years with millions of miles.. again, unless i see the tire and rim engineers saying it's safe on a single-track motorcycle, IMHO, it really isn't. I've certainly heard of incidents over the years myself.. including incidents on single-track motorcycles, and involving car tires mounted on unmodded motorcycle rim assemblies on sidecar rigs as well.

Also - correct me if i am wrong - but were there not recommendations made for minimum tire inflation at 42-45 psi to compensate for the soft shoulders of these automotive tires, as seen in posts on the darksider's forum?

How does an increase of 5-6 PSI sound, from road friction/changing air temperature internally/external conditions increasing the tires PSI under operation, these darksider wheels are now essentially over-inflating to 47-51 PSI, with dynamic road use stresses involved? Would this not also increase the risk of a bead seal failure in the form of a blow-out, or a roll-off scenario occurring, if there are cornering demands taking place with the tire at the same time? Would this not increase the risk of blistering of the carcass, de-lamination of the tread, or a blowout caused by road-FOD - even on an automotive tire, on an automotive rim, mounted on a car - the correct application for the tire?

The last time that i looked, the Kumho's on my sidecar rig specs label indicated max inflation value being at 35 PSI. I run them just a few PSI less, for a little extra traction in certain road conditions.

But whatever i guess.. there is nothing more to do, but to do your own thing, Fatwing! It's obvious that i am neither going to convince, nor agree with you - and nor will you, with I.

What about the millions of miles that have been accumulated in the last 13-14 years along with my 2 weeks?
You really know how to take a post out of context I'll give you that.What I said was that the tire was already on the rim that I bought for a spare.I said it was a $100 for both.Nowhere did I say that I bought it because it was cheap.Yes I recently went Darkside after a lot of studying the subject.In no way did I do this because it was cheaper,but because it has been proven to work and work well.I've been buying $250 + rear tires since the 80's,so believe me cost has next to nothing to do with this move.You want to play you got to pay.You think bikes are expensive by a boat.

BTW I missed the part about the tire rubbing.That's a different story obviously.

 

[Fatwing]

If cost of tires isn't the point, and ergo neither is the frequency or expense of changing tires on a single-sided swing-arm as you corrected me on earlier, then why f$#@ with your safety? ..

My comment about you buying it because it was cheap, is a misplaced attribution. Sorry. However i will amend it to say that i think you are being cheap at the potential expense of your safety. A tire and a spare goldwing rim assembly .. a bargoon at $100 eh? How used is the tire? Did you inspect your wheel bearings in that Honda hub before you installed it - bearings also tend to wear harder under the increased centrifugal stresses acting upon them from the increased overall weight of the rotating rubber. Or was it a new darkside assembly that someone chickened out on/didn't follow through with?

Not sure what you are inferring with 'you think bikes are expensive by a boat'. As for the boat (what's the point of this, in this discussion?), if i wanted a boat and had money to waste, i'd just as soon pour a bucket of money straight in the lake, and save me the trouble of scrubbing a hull at the end of season. No thanks. You are also not the only one riding and buying assorted expensive bits since the 80's, so you can stow that holier than thou declaration - again not sure why you feel the need to bring that up.

My 'pointing out of context' was to indicate that YOU have two weeks experience, on an undocumented tire, "that you were gonna give a try, but wasn't sure of" .. that is hardly the safe way of going about this.. taking a second hand rim, with an already mounted, undocumented (second-hand, used?) tire with an unknown history of installation or usage.. and lets give it a try on this darksider thing! You are certainly no voice of experience at this point, to be defending the honor of car tires on motorcycle rims.

PS: I read a few threads about the handling getting all funky at about 5 mph on your darkside forum, as some darksiders transition over a driveway lip onto a roadway.. were you aware - at all, that this is the point at which a fair amount of mis-match bead seat failures occur? That uncomfortable handling feeling is the tire carcass deforming the bead seal as it rolls over the point of the driveway/roadway curb transition and is the precursor to the bead rolling off of the rim while leaned over low speed. All it takes is the softer sidewall to deform more than the bead can maintain seal on the rim. Funnily enough, some of your fellow wing darksiders can't even seem to decide between "speed it up a bit over the transition" or alternatively "just take it easy" as the solution. What an innovative approach on what is symptomatic of a potentially serious safety issue.

The other guys with 13-14 years with millions of miles.. again, unless i see the tire and rim engineers saying it's safe on a single-track motorcycle, IMHO, it really isn't. I've certainly heard of incidents over the years myself.. including incidents on single-track motorcycles, and involving car tires mounted on unmodded motorcycle rim assemblies on sidecar rigs as well.

Also - correct me if i am wrong - but were there not recommendations made for minimum tire inflation at 42-45 psi to compensate for the soft shoulders of these automotive tires, as seen in posts on the darksider's forum?

How does an increase of 5-6 PSI sound, from road friction/changing air temperature internally/external conditions increasing the tires PSI under operation, these darksider wheels are now essentially over-inflating to 47-51 PSI, with dynamic road use stresses involved? Would this not also increase the risk of a bead seal failure in the form of a blow-out, or a roll-off scenario occurring, if there are cornering demands taking place with the tire at the same time? Would this not increase the risk of blistering of the carcass, de-lamination of the tread, or a blowout caused by road-FOD - even on an automotive tire, on an automotive rim, mounted on a car - the correct application for the tire?

The last time that i looked, the Kumho's on my sidecar rig specs label indicated max inflation value being at 35 PSI. I run them just a few PSI less, for a little extra traction in certain road conditions.

But whatever i guess.. there is nothing more to do, but to do your own thing, Fatwing! It's obvious that i am neither going to convince, nor agree with you - and nor will you, with I.

Well finally something we agree on.
Right off the bat that so called engineers drawing that's floating around looks like something we did in grade 9 mechanical drafting and a bit exaggerated at that.As far as what the tire looks like after it's aired up and ridden for a while to seat it in no one knows what a CT will look like on the rim.Some run a higher pressure on the non runflats,but the runflats are usually run at the same pressure as on a car.Most of the guys using CT's are using TPMS systems and a lot of those also show tire temps.The CT's run at lower temps than a MT.
You say I'm taking my safety in my hands,but the millions of miles ridden have proven that the CT is a safer tire on a bike this heavy.The MC tire load rating is border line.CT has a higher load rating,you can get a higher speed rating,better traction wet or dry-strait and cornering and a better ride.One of the tire used is approx $400,so being cheap is way down the list on most of the Darksiders priorities.There's a ton of people that run the cheapest MC tires they can lay their hands on also,I know I work with a couple of them.
You think I'm taking my life in my hands with a CT(YOUR OPINION),but in my opinion I'm improving my odds.

BTW There are probably a couple of dozen tires at least that guys have used regularily.The one I have just isn't on that list yet.They all had to be tried by someone at some point.The tire I picked up came off a bike with a hack and only had about a 1000 k on it when they decided to trike it instead.I did get the swingarm and the rear diff assembly with it,so even if there was enough extra stress with the CT to take out the diff I have a spare.Diffs have been known to go out on these bikes,but doesn't happen anymore with CT's than MC's.The other thing is that there are so many of these being triked that you can buy brand new diffs for a $100 or less.I've seen them for $60 zero miles.

I've got about 400 klms(Fri) on this tire and love it,but if it really is illegal then I guess that I'll have to go back to the 4 or 5 ****** bike tires that the best of barely do the job on the Wing.I sure won't be happy about it,but I don't need hassle.At that point I'll be one of the few that actually ride legally on this site.Cheers!

 

[nobbie48]

What does the MOT say regarding a mechanic certifying for sale, a motorcycle with a car tire?

If the bike meets everything asked for by the MOT can a court overrule the safety certificate?

FWIW and IMO the pertinent phrases are:

tire inspected for ...........proper size and application

no vehicle shall be fitted with a tire that

(i) bears the wording "Not for highway use"............

(ii) bears the letters "SL" "NHS" or "TG"

The rest is common sense re worn, cut etc.

The only vague word is "application". Is there an expanded definition for this purpose?

 

[Bike Cop]

What does the MOT say regarding a mechanic certifying for sale, a motorcycle with a car tire?

If the bike meets everything asked for by the MOT can a court overrule the safety certificate?

FWIW and IMO the pertinent phrases are:

tire inspected for ...........proper size and application

no vehicle shall be fitted with a tire that

(i) bears the wording "Not for highway use"............

(ii) bears the letters "SL" "NHS" or "TG"

The rest is common sense re worn, cut etc.

The only vague word is "application". Is there an expanded definition for this purpose?

Not to my knowledge. I would think that the word was intended for circumstances like these. Or if someone were to try and put a trailer specific tire on their Honda Accord or something. Or an MC tire on their car. Bear in mind that the person making the decision ultimately will be the JP, who may or may not have had any legal background prior to being appointed. So what would a layperson think of the word "application"? The prosecution will make submissions and attempt to walk them through the finer points but in the end it will be decided by a layperson, not a lawyer or a mechanic.

 

[hedo2002]

Again, not that I would ever be called upon to rule on anything like this but as Bike Cop eluded to it wo9uld be a layperson, (JP), making the decision. But if I "were" asked to interpret that section of the safety. I would likely go by the wording proper size and application. If the owners manual calls for say a 180/90 16 for the bike and the bike is sporting a car tire of say 205/55 16 Then to me that would not be the "proper size". I would think that a JP with that and the fact that one is labelled as a car tire and the other a motorcycle tire, then they would likely conclude it to also be an "improper application".

But we are getting into a VERY VERY limited sector. In all likelihood darksider bikes when sold and need safety likely have the MC tires reinstalled, (if only for the safety). I am sure a "reputable mechanic" wouldn't safety a darkside bike not because of what the safety certificate requirements are but rather for the increased liability. Think about it the previous owner likely had a fair amount of experience with the darkside and knew the "handling characterisitics" of the bike with the darkside tire. The new owner may have never ridden darkside. If he crashes and it was discovered a mechanic had certified it that way, (if it were one of my family), the mechanic, (if it were a small indy shop), may as well just give me the shop keys..lol A dealership isn't likely to "let" their mechanic certify it like that. You "might" sneak it by a Canadian tire monkey..lol

What does the MOT say regarding a mechanic certifying for sale, a motorcycle with a car tire?

If the bike meets everything asked for by the MOT can a court overrule the safety certificate?

FWIW and IMO the pertinent phrases are:

tire inspected for ...........proper size and application

no vehicle shall be fitted with a tire that

(i) bears the wording "Not for highway use"............

(ii) bears the letters "SL" "NHS" or "TG"

The rest is common sense re worn, cut etc.

The only vague word is "application". Is there an expanded definition for this purpose?

 

[nobbie48]

Again, not that I would ever be called upon to rule on anything like this but as Bike Cop eluded to it wo9uld be a layperson, (JP), making the decision. But if I "were" asked to interpret that section of the safety. I would likely go by the wording proper size and application. If the owners manual calls for say a 180/90 16 for the bike and the bike is sporting a car tire of say 205/55 16 Then to me that would not be the "proper size". I would think that a JP with that and the fact that one is labelled as a car tire and the other a motorcycle tire, then they would likely conclude it to also be an "improper application".

But we are getting into a VERY VERY limited sector. In all likelihood darksider bikes when sold and need safety likely have the MC tires reinstalled, (if only for the safety). I am sure a "reputable mechanic" wouldn't safety a darkside bike not because of what the safety certificate requirements are but rather for the increased liability. Think about it the previous owner likely had a fair amount of experience with the darkside and knew the "handling characterisitics" of the bike with the darkside tire. The new owner may have never ridden darkside. If he crashes and it was discovered a mechanic had certified it that way, (if it were one of my family), the mechanic, (if it were a small indy shop), may as well just give me the shop keys..lol A dealership isn't likely to "let" their mechanic certify it like that. You "might" sneak it by a Canadian tire monkey..lol

I looked at a darkside tire and there was no marking saying for car use only. No vehicle type was mentioned.

Size is only a factor if the tire is undersized or oversized to the point where it rubs.

(f) no tire shall be of a smaller size than the motorcycle manufacturer's specified minimum size or be sufficiently oversized as to contact any vehicle component........

The mechanic doesn't make the laws. A tire has to have 1.5 mm of tread left. If it does it passes. The mechanic doesn't say HMMM this guy this guy looks like a high mileage rider so I'm going to reject the tire because he might wear it out pretty soon. If I was a mechanic I would point it out (and put it on the invoice) that the tire barely meets spec and should be changed ASAP.

The mechanic's job is to verify that the bike meets the safety standards set out by the MOT. A different division of the MOT has set up a graduated licencing system to theoretically make sure the riders are competent. They are separate systems.

Does a mechanic refuse to certify a crotch rocket because he feels the buyer might crash?

Who is at greater risk, a 16 year old on a crotch rocket or a 40 year old on a Goldwing with a car tire? Where's the focus?

I know a very reputable mechanic who has no problems with a car tire on a bike. It would be an insult to call his ethics into question because of a difference in opinions where both sides can make justifiable statements.

I looked at a tire on a Chevy and there was no wording that said Do not use on a M/C, trailer, light aircraft, truck, tire swing etc.

Are there markings on your GM, Ford, VW tires that say "Not for M/C" or "Car only"?

I'm not trying to stir the pot but there is a tendency in an argument to read into the subject things that aren't there. That is happening on both sides of this "Friendly discussion"

The laws of the land are not perfect.

Case 1) A marginally competent 350 pound person rides an e-bike (600-700 pound combo). He has no licence and therefore has not demonstrated to any certified body any level of competence or knowledge of the law. The vehicle is unlicensed and uninsured. The vehicle is not required to have a safety certificate when sold.

Case 2) A mature "M" licenced rider on a Goldwing. The LICENCED rider has demonstrated competence and the knowledge of the laws. The bike is plated (Therefore traceable) and insured. It has a safety certificate.

Which case has the potential of more harm to society?

FWIW I have never seen a Goldwing being ridden on a sidewalk carrying more than the number of persons intended. Several times with e-bikes.

While a lot of interesting points have been made in this thread there are a lot of ifs.

If the biker only made the one questionable decision would biker cop have noticed or pursued the matter? There were numerous serious violations.

Did the biker try to fight this or any of the charges in a logical manner or just give up?

Would a higher court hear an appeal and how would it judge?

Is this going to be a witch hunt or just a cautionary issue?

Do we need to clarify the HTA or can using common sense do the same thing?

 

[Sunspark]

One risk item I haven't yet seen mentioned in this thread (if it has been mentioned I apologize), are insurance issues. Much of the discussion is focused on safety and LEOs.

Speaking specifically about 2 wheels, if one was to have an incident that would qualify to make an insurance claim, is it at all possible that someone could make the argument that the vehicle was "modified" beyond expected parameters and as such no longer the same vehicle as was insured? Thus disallowing claim or turning a not-at-fault into an at-fault?

 

[hedo2002]

You are 100% correct it doesn't say on a Car tire it is NOT for yuse on a mc nor does it say on a MC tire that it can't be used on a car. THAT is why there are laws which spell these things out. If a bike manufacturer states in the owners manual that the "PROPER" tire for that bike is a 180/90 16 and someone puts a 205/55/16 on the bike then by definition it is not the "proper' tire, which contravenes the legislation as it is written.

Again your correct the mechanic doesn't make the laws BUT he IS required to follow the standards set out by the MTO otherwise his mechanics licence becomes jeopardized., (again not a function of MTO or the Police, but there is a licencing body to deal with issues. Just ask Rosey Toes. I believe it was last year there was thread about his doing safeties in a manner that someone didn't approve of.

The mechanic, (at least any I have used), if there was an issue with tread depth, they would if it was getting close but not too close put it on the invoice to CYA, (Cover Your ***), that it should be replaced soon. If it was ANYWHERE near close to the standard they wouldn't sign until it was replaced.

As for your "point" that should a mechanic refuse to certify a crotch rocket if he feels the rider may crash... There is NO requirement in the Safety standards in regards to rider ability. There IS a section about tires. My point was if a mechanic values their licence, (hence my use of the term "reputable"), they won't contravene the safety standards. Now having said that there are all kinds of mechanics who will "look the other way" just as there are those who will pass an etest. But if they are caught it is their licence that will be revoked or suspended.

I have spoken to a number of bike mechanics and they have all said they would fail a bike which is darksided. One said he wouldn't even mount a car tire on a bike rim if someone brought it to him. His reason. If something goes wrong, (Rider crashed), the rider, knew the risks and likely wouldn't sue BUT that doesn't meant their family members wouldn't or if they hit a car or a pedestrian their lawyers WOULD sue. He said it is simply not worth the price of a tire mount for his business.

As for your contention that size, (under or over unless rubbing), means nothing. Well I would respectfully disagree and I am sure so would the tire manufacturers. If it is a non issue, then why do you think they make the donut spare tires with bold warnings right on the tire stating it is only for temporary use and not to be driven at speeds over 80Km/h??? One word. Liability. It is not the "proper" tire for the vehicle.

I looked at a darkside tire and there was no marking saying for car use only. No vehicle type was mentioned.

Size is only a factor if the tire is undersized or oversized to the point where it rubs.

(f) no tire shall be of a smaller size than the motorcycle manufacturer's specified minimum size or be sufficiently oversized as to contact any vehicle component........

The mechanic doesn't make the laws. A tire has to have 1.5 mm of tread left. If it does it passes. The mechanic doesn't say HMMM this guy this guy looks like a high mileage rider so I'm going to reject the tire because he might wear it out pretty soon. If I was a mechanic I would point it out (and put it on the invoice) that the tire barely meets spec and should be changed ASAP.

The mechanic's job is to verify that the bike meets the safety standards set out by the MOT. A different division of the MOT has set up a graduated licencing system to theoretically make sure the riders are competent. They are separate systems.

Does a mechanic refuse to certify a crotch rocket because he feels the buyer might crash?

Who is at greater risk, a 16 year old on a crotch rocket or a 40 year old on a Goldwing with a car tire? Where's the focus?

I know a very reputable mechanic who has no problems with a car tire on a bike. It would be an insult to call his ethics into question because of a difference in opinions where both sides can make justifiable statements.

I looked at a tire on a Chevy and there was no wording that said Do not use on a M/C, trailer, light aircraft, truck, tire swing etc.

Are there markings on your GM, Ford, VW tires that say "Not for M/C" or "Car only"?

I'm not trying to stir the pot but there is a tendency in an argument to read into the subject things that aren't there. That is happening on both sides of this "Friendly discussion"

The laws of the land are not perfect.

Case 1) A marginally competent 350 pound person rides an e-bike (600-700 pound combo). He has no licence and therefore has not demonstrated to any certified body any level of competence or knowledge of the law. The vehicle is unlicensed and uninsured. The vehicle is not required to have a safety certificate when sold.

Case 2) A mature "M" licenced rider on a Goldwing. The LICENCED rider has demonstrated competence and the knowledge of the laws. The bike is plated (Therefore traceable) and insured. It has a safety certificate.

Which case has the potential of more harm to society?

FWIW I have never seen a Goldwing being ridden on a sidewalk carrying more than the number of persons intended. Several times with e-bikes.

While a lot of interesting points have been made in this thread there are a lot of ifs.

If the biker only made the one questionable decision would biker cop have noticed or pursued the matter? There were numerous serious violations.

Did the biker try to fight this or any of the charges in a logical manner or just give up?

Would a higher court hear an appeal and how would it judge?

Is this going to be a witch hunt or just a cautionary issue?

Do we need to clarify the HTA or can using common sense do the same thing?

 

[nobbie48]

You are 100% correct it doesn't say on a Car tire it is NOT for yuse on a mc nor does it say on a MC tire that it can't be used on a car. THAT is why there are laws which spell these things out. If a bike manufacturer states in the owners manual that the "PROPER" tire for that bike is a 180/90 16 and someone puts a 205/55/16 on the bike then by definition it is not the "proper' tire, which contravenes the legislation as it is written.

Again your correct the mechanic doesn't make the laws BUT he IS required to follow the standards set out by the MTO otherwise his mechanics licence becomes jeopardized., (again not a function of MTO or the Police, but there is a licencing body to deal with issues. Just ask Rosey Toes. I believe it was last year there was thread about his doing safeties in a manner that someone didn't approve of.

The mechanic, (at least any I have used), if there was an issue with tread depth, they would if it was getting close but not too close put it on the invoice to CYA, (Cover Your ***), that it should be replaced soon. If it was ANYWHERE near close to the standard they wouldn't sign until it was replaced.

As for your "point" that should a mechanic refuse to certify a crotch rocket if he feels the rider may crash... There is NO requirement in the Safety standards in regards to rider ability. There IS a section about tires. My point was if a mechanic values their licence, (hence my use of the term "reputable"), they won't contravene the safety standards. Now having said that there are all kinds of mechanics who will "look the other way" just as there are those who will pass an etest. But if they are caught it is their licence that will be revoked or suspended.

I have spoken to a number of bike mechanics and they have all said they would fail a bike which is darksided. One said he wouldn't even mount a car tire on a bike rim if someone brought it to him. His reason. If something goes wrong, (Rider crashed), the rider, knew the risks and likely wouldn't sue BUT that doesn't meant their family members wouldn't or if they hit a car or a pedestrian their lawyers WOULD sue. He said it is simply not worth the price of a tire mount for his business.

As for your contention that size, (under or over unless rubbing), means nothing. Well I would respectfully disagree and I am sure so would the tire manufacturers. If it is a non issue, then why do you think they make the donut spare tires with bold warnings right on the tire stating it is only for temporary use and not to be driven at speeds over 80Km/h??? One word. Liability. It is not the "proper" tire for the vehicle.

You keep reading what isn't there. A manufacture will state the standard tire not the proper tire. If one wants to use factory equipment as the basis of the law then it should clear the roads of loud pipes, tinted windows in cars, slammed ricers, jacked up trucks, non-factory mag wheels, bar risers, aftermarket windscreens etc.

"THAT is why there are laws that spell these things out." SHOW ME WHERE THAT IS CLEARLY DEFINED. (I can hear you without the caps. Can you hear me?)

You obviously have a hate on for car tires on bikes. You have that right. Others are more open minded on the subject and with intelligent discussion may see and take your point of view. That isn't going to happen with me if your only response to open minded dialog is to insult anyone who doesn't agree with you.

In your post #90 you refer to a novice having handling problems and resulting liabilities. Then three posts later you switch lanes and say that the mechanic has nothing to do with the riders ability.

I am neutral on the subject. Don't run a car tire but if sufficient evidence was presented to me that one was safer I would like the option of going dark. The key word is evidence, not opinion either pro or con.

BTW if size matter either up or down how many bikes would be pulled for the "Wrong" sized tire? I assume a wrong sized motorcycle tire is illegal too.

The donut spare is the right tire for the vehicle in a given situation, under 80KPH and IIRC 50 KM. It is clearly written on the tire. No confusion. You keep reading what isn't there.

Show me facts or show me clear legislation and I can run with it. For the darksiders it's the same. Show me documented evidence. What your brother-in-law's cousin did in Alabama three years ago doesn't count.

 

[hedo2002]

You say I am reading things that aren't there. Well feel free to enlighten me. If a bike manufacturer states that the tires size for that bike is 180/50 16 then how do you suddenly come to the conclusion that this isn't the proper tire for that bike? Just because someone chooses to put another sized tire on the bike is there choice. The legislation as Bike Cop said would be interpreted by a layman, (JP). Having been in traffic court several hundred if not thousand times and seeing the rulings they make. I feel confident enough to say that is the crown showed the JP that the "proper" tire, (as recommended by the manufacturer) is 190/50 16 then the crown says however the rider was charged with an improper tire as he had mounted a 205/55 16 car tire, (I am sure the crown would emphasize car tire), on the bike. The JP is likely going to rule that is not the "proper" tire. The bike manufacturers spend millions on R&D. They recommend a certain tire size, (they may put say Dunlops on as OEM but that doesn't prevent you from going to a metzler), the bike is "tested" with that size tire and they determine it to be an optimal setup.

Let's not dilute the discussion by saying people with tinted or jacked up trucks should be charged. I am sure if there is a regulation against it then they may be. We are discussing a specific incident. As for your point "BTW if size matter either up or down how many bikes would be pulled for the "Wrong" sized tire? I assume a wrong sized motorcycle tire is illegal too." Again feel free to show me the regulation that says the BIKE tire must be a certain size it only states "proper tire" nothing about size. I would assume given the lack of such a regulation if you want to put 22" bike tires on your bike it is not illegal. I can't say why the MTO wrote a law intended to stop the use of car tires on bikes, (perhaps has to due with info from the tire and or bike manufacturers, as they have to submit safety data when getting a vehicle approved for sale in Ontario). Again I agree with an earlier poster, the law, (as are most laws), written with some rather vague terms. I guess the good point is for now, this case has not set precedence. It would take an appeal and a higher court ruling to do that.

As for my comment about rider ability you stated should a mechanic deny a safety to a crotch rocket IF he "thinks the rider will crash". Show me in the safety standards where it says anything about rider ability. In fact one can obtain a valid safety without the registered owner ever setting foot in the shop, where the safety is completed. Re read MY post I said if the mechanic certifies the bike with the improper tire, (which we have a conviction in Ontario which states that the car tire was indeed the improper tire). Like it or not, (and I am undecided despite, you believing I am anti dark side), this is a good law or not. I am merely expressing my point of view. If you read all my posts on this thread I have said more than once I could care less if someone chooses to ride the darkside not going to affect me or my ride.

Now what I said if the mechanic certifies a bike with a darkside tire on it and the rider, (note I didn't say anything about them being a novice, only that they may not have darkside experience), crashes the mechanic, In a civil suit and perhaps with his licencing body could be held liable. I am an experienced rider, But I have not ridden darkside, therefore, as was my point earlier I may not be aware of the difference in handling characteristics of the bike with a car tire on it. That has nothing to do with my abilities, it has everything to due with the fact that a bike with a car tire will handle differently than with a bike tire. But as I also said there is nothing in the safety standards about the riders ability. doesn't mean the family can't sue and may actually win, because there is a section stating the bike should have a proper tire. I am sure that families lawyer would use that conviction case in his civil suit. To show the mechanic certified the bike with an "improper tire"

"I am neutral on the subject. Don't run a car tire but if sufficient evidence was presented to me that one was safer I would like the option of going dark. The key word is evidence, not opinion either pro or con."

I agree 100% with this, unfortunately if said evidence were available it would need to be presented to the MTO and the regulation changed to give anyone who choose to do so the option of going darkside. At this point ALL we have is as you wisely pointed out is "anecdotal evidence" and one conviction. If such evidence came to be then I would be right beside you fighting for your right to choose. It is about choice, I also said the goldwing owners that are convinced this is the only way to go should lobby the gov't to change the regulation with facts and evidence, not opinions. Just as Paul Magder done with Sunday shopping. He was convinced he had the proof that Sunday shopping wouldn't ruin the fabric of society. He had conviction in his beliefs and was jailed, (because he had conviction of his beliefs, he was willing to face fines and go to jail) until the law was changed. Now do I think Goldwing woners should go to jail?? LOL Not at all but if they have conviction in their beliefs then they should be prepared to accept the consequences, (tickets) of those beliefs.

Fatwing was pretty convinced there is no evidence against darksiding, yet when Bandit Bill called him on it he said he was "going to ride legally". If he truly believed that a car tire is the right tire for his goldwing then IMHO he should be willing to get the tickets and fight them for his cause.

You keep reading what isn't there. A manufacture will state the standard tire not the proper tire. If one wants to use factory equipment as the basis of the law then it should clear the roads of loud pipes, tinted windows in cars, slammed ricers, jacked up trucks, non-factory mag wheels, bar risers, aftermarket windscreens etc.

"THAT is why there are laws that spell these things out." SHOW ME WHERE THAT IS CLEARLY DEFINED. (I can hear you without the caps. Can you hear me?)

You obviously have a hate on for car tires on bikes. You have that right. Others are more open minded on the subject and with intelligent discussion may see and take your point of view. That isn't going to happen with me if your only response to open minded dialog is to insult anyone who doesn't agree with you.

In your post #90 you refer to a novice having handling problems and resulting liabilities. Then three posts later you switch lanes and say that the mechanic has nothing to do with the riders ability.

I am neutral on the subject. Don't run a car tire but if sufficient evidence was presented to me that one was safer I would like the option of going dark. The key word is evidence, not opinion either pro or con.

BTW if size matter either up or down how many bikes would be pulled for the "Wrong" sized tire? I assume a wrong sized motorcycle tire is illegal too.

The donut spare is the right tire for the vehicle in a given situation, under 80KPH and IIRC 50 KM. It is clearly written on the tire. No confusion. You keep reading what isn't there.

Show me facts or show me clear legislation and I can run with it. For the darksiders it's the same. Show me documented evidence. What your brother-in-law's cousin did in Alabama three years ago doesn't count.

 

[Fatwing]

You say I am reading things that aren't there. Well feel free to enlighten me. If a bike manufacturer states that the tires size for that bike is 180/50 16 then how do you suddenly come to the conclusion that this isn't the proper tire for that bike? Just because someone chooses to put another sized tire on the bike is there choice. The legislation as Bike Cop said would be interpreted by a layman, (JP). Having been in traffic court several hundred if not thousand times and seeing the rulings they make. I feel confident enough to say that is the crown showed the JP that the "proper" tire, (as recommended by the manufacturer) is 190/50 16 then the crown says however the rider was charged with an improper tire as he had mounted a 205/55 16 car tire, (I am sure the crown would emphasize car tire), on the bike. The JP is likely going to rule that is not the "proper" tire. The bike manufacturers spend millions on R&D. They recommend a certain tire size, (they may put say Dunlops on as OEM but that doesn't prevent you from going to a metzler), the bike is "tested" with that size tire and they determine it to be an optimal setup.

Let's not dilute the discussion by saying people with tinted or jacked up trucks should be charged. I am sure if there is a regulation against it then they may be. We are discussing a specific incident. As for your point "BTW if size matter either up or down how many bikes would be pulled for the "Wrong" sized tire? I assume a wrong sized motorcycle tire is illegal too." Again feel free to show me the regulation that says the BIKE tire must be a certain size it only states "proper tire" nothing about size. I would assume given the lack of such a regulation if you want to put 22" bike tires on your bike it is not illegal. I can't say why the MTO wrote a law intended to stop the use of car tires on bikes, (perhaps has to due with info from the tire and or bike manufacturers, as they have to submit safety data when getting a vehicle approved for sale in Ontario). Again I agree with an earlier poster, the law, (as are most laws), written with some rather vague terms. I guess the good point is for now, this case has not set precedence. It would take an appeal and a higher court ruling to do that.

As for my comment about rider ability you stated should a mechanic deny a safety to a crotch rocket IF he "thinks the rider will crash". Show me in the safety standards where it says anything about rider ability. In fact one can obtain a valid safety without the registered owner ever setting foot in the shop, where the safety is completed. Re read MY post I said if the mechanic certifies the bike with the improper tire, (which we have a conviction in Ontario which states that the car tire was indeed the improper tire). Like it or not, (and I am undecided despite, you believing I am anti dark side), this is a good law or not. I am merely expressing my point of view. If you read all my posts on this thread I have said more than once I could care less if someone chooses to ride the darkside not going to affect me or my ride.

Now what I said if the mechanic certifies a bike with a darkside tire on it and the rider, (note I didn't say anything about them being a novice, only that they may not have darkside experience), crashes the mechanic, In a civil suit and perhaps with his licencing body could be held liable. I am an experienced rider, But I have not ridden darkside, therefore, as was my point earlier I may not be aware of the difference in handling characteristics of the bike with a car tire on it. That has nothing to do with my abilities, it has everything to due with the fact that a bike with a car tire will handle differently than with a bike tire. But as I also said there is nothing in the safety standards about the riders ability. doesn't mean the family can't sue and may actually win, because there is a section stating the bike should have a proper tire. I am sure that families lawyer would use that conviction case in his civil suit. To show the mechanic certified the bike with an "improper tire"

"I am neutral on the subject. Don't run a car tire but if sufficient evidence was presented to me that one was safer I would like the option of going dark. The key word is evidence, not opinion either pro or con."

I agree 100% with this, unfortunately if said evidence were available it would need to be presented to the MTO and the regulation changed to give anyone who choose to do so the option of going darkside. At this point ALL we have is as you wisely pointed out is "anecdotal evidence" and one conviction. If such evidence came to be then I would be right beside you fighting for your right to choose. It is about choice, I also said the goldwing owners that are convinced this is the only way to go should lobby the gov't to change the regulation with facts and evidence, not opinions. Just as Paul Magder done with Sunday shopping. He was convinced he had the proof that Sunday shopping wouldn't ruin the fabric of society. He had conviction in his beliefs and was jailed, (because he had conviction of his beliefs, he was willing to face fines and go to jail) until the law was changed. Now do I think Goldwing woners should go to jail?? LOL Not at all but if they have conviction in their beliefs then they should be prepared to accept the consequences, (tickets) of those beliefs.

Fatwing was pretty convinced there is no evidence against darksiding, yet when Bandit Bill called him on it he said he was "going to ride legally". If he truly believed that a car tire is the right tire for his goldwing then IMHO he should be willing to get the tickets and fight them for his cause.

Actually I lied,I'm sticking with the CT and what I said was if it was proven to be illegal(I still only see an opinion that was backed by a JP that may or may not have been right)that I would go back.I asked Bikecop via PM to outline the sec/subsec. of the HTA and the exact charge for the tire so I could run it by some people I know and guess what?No reply,so I've put out some feelers elsewhere.
As far as fighting it there isn't enough Darksiders in Ontario to make a difference.In the States(and here until now)it's never been an issue with the law that I've read about in my last years worth of research and as reported on other sites the insurance companies only care that it's a hiway tire and in good shape.

Where is this MTO law(didn't know MTO wrote laws)you speak of?

I can't say why the MTO wrote a law intended to stop the use of car tires on bikes(quote)

 

[Fatwing]

The only reason I got involved in this thread at all was because BIKECOP seemed pretty excited about convicting a darksider,not about pulling an unsafe bike off the road or catching a guy with no insurance(that seems to me to be a way bigger deal) or any of the other charges that he didn't explain.Just excited about the CT conviction.If the guy had of had a decent looking bike and wasn't doing anything stupid would he have still gone after the CT or even have noticed it?

 

[peterm15]

It seemd to me that bikecop was just trying to let users know that a car tire on a bike can lead to a conviction. Which I think is only a $110 fine.

There was also other issues mentioned in the thread. The fact that the tire was rubbing.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

 

[Bandit Bill]

Actually I lied,I'm sticking with the CT and what I said was if it was proven to be illegal(I still only see an opinion that was backed by a JP that may or may not have been right)that I would go back.I asked Bikecop via PM to outline the sec/subsec. of the HTA and the exact charge for the tire so I could run it by some people I know and guess what?No reply,so I've put out some feelers elsewhere.

Where is this MTO law(didn't know MTO wrote laws)you speak of?

I can't say why the MTO wrote a law intended to stop the use of car tires on bikes

Simple. Engineering.. the info that you poo-poo as being amateur, made up Scientific Wive's tales against the Church of Darkside.

The (non-MTO) evidence is right there .. the data that i posted early in this thread indicates this - as far as the engineered differences in car vs mc rims.

MC tires are built structurally different from car tires.

MC tires are built for different road forces, which an MC experiences - than that a car tire experiences for different road handling forces in turn. It's all about handling physics. A solo motorcycle handles dramatically different from a car. The road interaction of the tire, differs accordingly. They've been designed accordingly - and to be technically incompatible with each other by design for these reasons. I've said that before - i say it again.

I have noted the difference in manners of a car vs a good sized motorcycle radial, properly mounted in similar usage sidecar rig conditions. I have no experience of a car tire on a motorcycle rim. In my application, a properly mounted auto tire is vastly superior over any motorcycle rubber - EXCEPT when it comes to any significant lean angle. I have felt automotive radial tire "squat" under comparative suspension loading, drive-line torquing under acceleration, and CofG loading shift - and a sway-bar linkage was designed to combat that undesirable attribute of a weaker sidewall - it serves to transfer a good portion of CofG loading to the suspension of the rest of the rig - not to the tire sidewall carcass on the driven wheel, while keeping the vehicle suspension and chassis comparatively parallel to the ground, like a car. A car tire is designed for those conditions.

I know that failure occurs at the point of least resistance, and greatest weakness. The car tire on a motorcycle rim issue, was one of the greatest concerns of safety when i project planned my "hacked up hack", as you have so eloquently put it. Unless the motorcycle rim is re-machined or otherwise modified to conform to an automotive radial bead, it's always going to be the weak point in the safety chain of going Darkside - two wheels or three.

By the bye.. did you know my "hacked up hack" was originally built for the 1500 Wing? If you are as old-school as you make out to be.. can you bend your mind around the scale of re-engineering to adapt a 350 lb sidecar to a 450 lb motorcycle, when it was essentially made for a 700 lb tug-boat with a more substantial frame and longer wheel-base design? Can you bend your mind around getting it all to work very well together, as individual components and a sum total, without posing a safety hazard or creating a significant point of failure?

Can you figure out why i'd be very critical of mating two different technologies together, without considering, consulting, adapting, modifying and as necessary eliminating any engineering incompatibilities, first?

For myself, it was all about Safety.. not expediency, or experimentation based on blind faith, as seems to be commonly practiced in the Church of Darkside..

The same principles of concern that i considered about car tires on motorcycle rims, as applied to sidecar rigs - are amplified issues on solo motorcycles.

Why do I keep going around and around (pun intended), here?

I'm sure that there is some sort of reference to, or sound engineering advice documented in MTO records to back this HTA charge. Hopefully Bike Cop backs up the badge, with the documentation citation.. i can't be arsed.. this post took long enough.

It's fun arguing with you.. but damn, you are as stubborn as a mule.

 

[nobbie48]

It seemd to me that bikecop was just trying to let users know that a car tire on a bike can lead to a conviction. Which I think is only a $110 fine.

There was also other issues mentioned in the thread. The fact that the tire was rubbing.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

I took it with a similar view but questions remain.

Is this going to be an issue for an otherwise legal bike and rider? (The legality is still debated)

The charge was upheld but did the rider try to fight it? (His goose was so cooked already)

If a rider fought it would the charge hold up with a JP? That all seems to revolve round the word "Approved" in section 4 (3)

I guess we won't know the final verdict until there is an all out challenge in the courts, if that ever happens.