Re: Cracked sidewall
R. LaCasse
|>
|>If a tire with a tube has a cracked sidewall, is it critical to replace
|>it?
|>
Critical? replace it when it needs it.
|>In another case, I recently noticed my CH80 front has cracked sidewalls.
|>It is tubeless however, so I figure it isn't safe even at city speeds.
|>
I don't think the smaller tires scoot tires of 11" and less have
real m/cycle sidewalls, since the tires are about the same as Cessna and
Piper/Cub light aircraft landing tyres.....
It doesn't really matter in that tyre size, since some ppl use car
tyres on m/cycles and it all works just almost as good and cost much less,
as a lot of youtube m/cycle tyre performance videos have shown.
Car tyres slip more rather than the thick soft rubber of harder
sidewalled m/cycle tyres.
--
National Association of Assault Research
Soul Yamaha Majesty400 2005, Grey, Night Rider!
(http://*remove*boblacasse.150.com/scooter.html)
http://*remove*pages.istar.ca/~vampire/YamyMajesty400.jpg
BryanUT
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:40:06 -0600, otaku...@webtv.net (Animeniac) wrote:
>
> |>
> |>If a tire with a tube has a cracked sidewall, is it critical to replace
> |>it?
> |>
> Critical? replace it when it needs it.
>
Cracked side wall? Replace the tire [1]. Sheesh.
[1] No, I haven't followed my own advice.
Ian Singer
> |>If a tire with a tube has a cracked sidewall, is it critical to replace
> |>it?
YES if you want to pass a safety inspection where I live.
Ian Singer
--
=========================================================================
See my homepage at http://www.iansinger.com
hosted on http://www.1and1.com/?k_id=10623894
All genealogy is stored in TMG from http://www.whollygenes.com
Charts and searching using TNG from http://www.tngsitebuilding.com
I am near Toronto Canada, can I tell where you are from your reply?
=========================================================================
S'mee
If you or the dweebtv idiot thinks it's okay...fine leave it until the
tread wears down. It's not MY ass and it's NOT my vehicle so what
happens isn't my problem. BUT having had a dry rotted tire like that
blow out at speed on my rat truck...I'd suggest he change the tire or
not. I'd change it but like I said....
It's not my bike
It's not my ass
So I really don't give a shit.
But he'd be a stupid fucker if he doesn't park the fucking thing UNTIL
it has two new tires adn the loose nut between the seat and the handle
bars gets a fucking clue knocked into his empty head with a 40 of colt
45. Fucking morons...think dry rotted tires are okay to drive on what
a STUPID FUCKING RETARDED WAY TO THINK!
TOG@Toil
> some ppl use car
> tyres on m/cycles and it all works just almost as good and cost much less,
> as a lot of youtube m/cycle tyre performance videos have shown.
This is utter nonsense. Dangerous nonsense, at that. About the only
things car tyres are good for on motorcycles is sidecar outfits and
very, very few cruisers which will never lean more than five dgerees
from the vertical.
> Car tyres slip more rather than the thick soft rubber of harder
> sidewalled m/cycle tyres.
And so is this. Maybe not dangerous nonsense, but nonsense all the
same.
M.Badger
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:40:06 -0600, otak...@webtv.net (Animeniac) wrote:
>
> |>
> |>If a tire with a tube has a cracked sidewall, is it critical to replace
> |>it?
Yes
> |>
> Critical? replace it when it needs it.
Which is now.
>
> |>In another case, I recently noticed my CH80 front has cracked sidewalls.
> |>It is tubeless however, so I figure it isn't safe even at city speeds.
> |>
> I don't think the smaller tires scoot tires of 11" and less have
> real m/cycle sidewalls, since the tires are about the same as Cessna and
> Piper/Cub light aircraft landing tyres.....
Eh?
> It doesn't really matter in that tyre size,
Oh yes it does.
> since some ppl use car
> tyres on m/cycles and it all works just almost as good and cost much less,
> as a lot of youtube m/cycle tyre performance videos have shown.
Which is relevant how?
J. Clarke
I remember the time I was riding along down a hill near my house and got
behind a couple of cruisers. They were having tremendous difficulty staying
in lane at 20 miles an hour. This is a hill that I routinely take at 35 in
a Jeep and ride easily at 50+ on the bike--when I'm in the mood 70 is within
my admittedly meager capabilities. But they were struggling at a very low
speed.
I suspect that for those particular riders car tires would have worked fine.
โอม มณี ปัทเม หุม
> And so is this. Maybe not dangerous nonsense, but nonsense all the
> same.
I don't know anything at all about tires, and I don't understand what
I've read and I have zero experience, so I should never offer advice
to anybody about anything.
TOG, OTOH, is a veritable fountain of wit and wisdom and I hope that
he will stay with all of us forever bestowing his beneficence upon us.
Thank you TOG so very much for everything you do for us. I don't know
what we would do without you.
TOG@Toil
Oh dear. Rattle alert. OK, genius. Tell us why fitting car tyres to
motorcycles is a good idea and I'll tell you precisely why it *isn't*.
TOG@Toil
Heh. Yes, I know what you mean.
Vito
> R. LaCasse <scoo...@yamaha.info> wrote:
> some ppl use car
> tyres on m/cycles and it all works just almost as good and cost much less,
> as a lot of youtube m/cycle tyre performance videos have shown.
[ This is utter nonsense. Dangerous nonsense, at that. ....
Absolutely! Cars are steered by pointing the tires in a direction.
Motorcycles are "steered" by leaning them over onto the conic sections of
the tires' contact patches. Car tires have/need no conic sections.
TOG@Toil
> "TOG@Toil" <totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
Plus there's the fact that car sidewalls are *designed* to flex and
deform over bumps, and the one thing you don't want on a motorcycle
tyre, when banked over, is a wobbly sidewall. KrustyUS seems to think
differently, though.
โอม มณี ปัทเม หุม
> Oh dear. Rattle alert. OK, genius. Tell us why fitting car tyres to
> motorcycles is a good idea and I'll tell you precisely why it *isn't*.
Well, I sure don't know the answer to that qustion, and I'm so very
very sorry that I can't help here.
I surely wish I could, but I don't know anything about any subject.
I wouldn't know a motorcycle tire from a chocolate covered donut.
I've never been anywhere or done anything in my whole life.
But TOG knows what the answer is. TOG knows everything. If he doesn't
know the answer, it's not worth knowing.
Once again, I want to thank TOG for his effulgent wisdom, on behalf of
all sentient beings who ride motorcycles and need his special kind of
help.
โอม มณี ปัทเม หุม
> Plus there's the fact that car sidewalls are *designed* to flex and
> deform over bumps, and the one thing you don't want on a motorcycle
> tyre, when banked over, is a wobbly sidewall. KrustyUS seems to think
> differently, though.
I really must apologize to everyone for trying to present myself as
somebody that
knows anything about any subject, and I'm so very, very sorry that I
can't help here.
I surely wish I could, but I don't know anything about any subject.
I wouldn't know a motorcycle tire or a car tire from a chocolate
TOG@Toil
You know, you're *already* about the most ridiculed poster on reeky.
Are you trying to make your position unassailable?
โอม มณี ปัทเม หุม
> You know, you're *already* about the most ridiculed poster on reeky.
> Are you trying to make your position unassailable?- Hide quoted text -
Regard him as one who points out treasure, the wise one who seeing
your faults rebukes you. Stay with this sort of sage. For the one who
stays with a sage of this sort, things get better, not worse. Let him
admonish, instruct, deflect you away from poor manners. To the good,
he's endearing; to the bad, he's not.
S'mee
Stop trying to suck his dick...he's straight and married. Not to
mention much older than your preffered poofters.
S'mee
Gee you really are a stupid psychopathic closet poofter...you aren't
faking it.
Bob
|>"TOG@Toil" <totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
|>> R. LaCasse <scoo...@yamaha.info> wrote:
|>
|>> some ppl use car
|>> tyres on m/cycles and it all works just almost as good and cost much less,
|>> as a lot of youtube m/cycle tyre performance videos have shown.
|>
|>[ This is utter nonsense. Dangerous nonsense, at that. ....
|>
I gather you did not view the youtube test results!
Easy to criticize, with no point made in contradiction....
|>Absolutely! Cars are steered by pointing the tires in a direction.
|>Motorcycles are "steered" by leaning them over onto the conic sections of
|>the tires' contact patches. Car tires have/need no conic sections.
Front Car tyres do lean some in turns, at least wishbone daytona formula 1
suspensions do as well!
"Lean Steering" That's been disproved a long time ago on this NG and
on the M/C threads under the Counter Steering threads.! Then again proven on
youtube that leaning doesn't steer, with welded handlebars...
"Lean Steering" keeps your front wheel on the ground when
shifting....
Where were you when all these tests were made and proven you wrong....
Bob
<totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
|>On 25 Nov, 01:38, R. LaCasse <scoo...@yamaha.info> wrote:
|>
|>> some ppl use car
|>> tyres on m/cycles and it all works just almost as good and cost much less,
|>> as a lot of youtube m/cycle tyre performance videos have shown.
|>
|>This is utter nonsense. Dangerous nonsense, at that. About the only
|>things car tyres are good for on motorcycles is sidecar outfits and
|>very, very few cruisers which will never lean more than five dgerees
|>from the vertical.
|>
Like I said videos have proven that they [car tyres] do work, not as good
but they do work for the financially limited, or daredevils!
My post is not untrue, I don't advocate the idea of car tyres on
M/Cycles, some do, but I like soft and sticky....
|>> � � � � Car tyres slip more rather than the thick soft rubber of harder
|>> sidewalled m/cycle tyres.
|>
|>And so is this. Maybe not dangerous nonsense, but nonsense all the
|>same.
My point is true, yours is an invalid contradiction...based on an
opinion off the top of your head.
Bob
Bob
<totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
|>> the tires' contact patches. Car tires have/need no conic sections.
|>
|>Plus there's the fact that car sidewalls are *designed* to flex and
|>deform over bumps, and the one thing you don't want on a motorcycle
|>tyre, when banked over, is a wobbly sidewall. KrustyUS seems to think
|>differently, though.
They do that, and I guess, some like that in some slow rocky road
conditions, mainly the places you don't want to ride a motorcycle anyway...
Hi velocity "scooter" M/cycle tyres don't control with a wobble, and
a wobble is even more dangerous in the larger tyres..
Although you can argue that the Sbarro Monotracer can't drive or
steer because of it's large rear Pirrelli Car tyre with the Yamy R1 in
it....at least,...that's what a lot of ppl thought, even though the M/Cycle
operated well in the video reportage I seen some years ago.
Bob
dizzy
> "Lean Steering" That's been disproved a long time ago on this NG and
>on the M/C threads under the Counter Steering threads.! Then again proven on
>youtube that leaning doesn't steer, with welded handlebars...
> "Lean Steering" keeps your front wheel on the ground when
>shifting....
>
>Where were you when all these tests were made and proven you wrong....
Idiot(s).
Vito
| Front Car tyres do lean some in turns, at least wishbone daytona formula 1
| suspensions do as well!
Yes, often the wrong way on production rwd cars to prevent oversteer.
|
| "Lean Steering" That's been disproved a long time ago on this NG and
| on the M/C threads under the Counter Steering threads.! Then again proven
on
| youtube that leaning doesn't steer, with welded handlebars...
Sorry, but you are mistaken. Many, including Code, believe as you do but
Code and others also believe the world is governed by aliens living in
volcanos. Welding the steering head (not the handle bars) makes a bike
difficult but not impossible to ride simply because the front and rear tire
contact patches are different. Thus some bikes need a little turn in and
others a tad of turn out to corner smoothly.
If you think counter steering makes a bike corner then I invite you to make
a simple experiment - tale a trike up to 50 mph and try to counter steer it.
That's not to say counter steering is useless. It is a quick way to get a
bike leaned over onto the tires' conic patches by steering the front tire
out from under the CG. It is especially effective on topheavy bikes.
frijoli
>
> If you think counter steering makes a bike corner then I invite you to make
> a simple experiment - tale a trike up to 50 mph and try to counter steer it.
>
> That's not to say counter steering is useless. It is a quick way to get a
> bike leaned over onto the tires' conic patches by steering the front tire
> out from under the CG. It is especially effective on topheavy bikes.
>
>
If you believe you can steer a motorcycle at above 20miles
per without counter steering, you are mistaken.
Having said that, you also can't counter steer, without
leaning, which is why it doesn't work on a trike.
turby
Wow. Is this the first CS thread this year? I don't remember the last
time we argued about it. (I'll predict at least 100 posts this time
around.)
The Older Gentleman
> Front Car tyres do lean some in turns, at least wishbone daytona formula 1
> suspensions do as well!
>
> "Lean Steering" That's been disproved a long time ago on this NG and
> on the M/C threads under the Counter Steering threads.! Then again proven on
> youtube that leaning doesn't steer, with welded handlebars...
> "Lean Steering" keeps your front wheel on the ground when
> shifting....
>
> Where were you when all these tests were made and proven you wrong....
Look, ma! An ignoranus!
--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple
Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes!
Try Googling before asking a damn silly question.
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
The Older Gentleman
> Like I said videos have proven that they [car tyres] do work, not as good
> but they do work for the financially limited, or daredevils!
"Not as good" is the understatement of the century
>
<snip>
> My point is true, yours is an invalid contradiction.
Wrong
>..based on an
> opinion off the top of your head.
Based on professional tyre testing and visits to a number of tyre
factories, actually.
The Older Gentleman
Nope, I read this three times and it still doesn't make sense. Fitting
car tyres to motorcycles is imbecilic.
S'mee
Oh you mean fruitcakse like bob...and even some good friends of mine
who've used car tyres on valks? Yeah, no accounting for dumb people.
S'mee
> "Bob" <r...@armageddon.info> wrote
BTDT...fist it goes up on two wheels and THEN it counter steers. No I
wont do that stupid human tick ever again.
Bob
Older Gentleman) wrote:
|>> Although you can argue that the Sbarro Monotracer can't drive or
|>> steer because of it's large rear Pirrelli Car tyre with the Yamy R1 in
|>> it....at least,...that's what a lot of ppl thought, even though the M/Cycle
|>> operated well in the video reportage I seen some years ago.
|>>
|>Nope, I read this three times and it still doesn't make sense. Fitting
Nope what??? what doesn't make sense?
|>car tyres to motorcycles is imbecilic.
Well that makes sense you've never tried or seen results on it and
your an expert....right?
imbecilic??? maybe careless or a bit dangerous for the reasons I
gave, not just well that's not right, well, so,.....it isn't right, but why?
Bob
Who 'se an idiot, the debunkers of counter steering lean theories,
or your scientific opinion here.
Bob
Bob
wrote:
|>> Idiot(s).
|>
|>Oh you mean fruitcakse like bob...and even some good friends of mine
|>who've used car tyres on valks? Yeah, no accounting for dumb people.
I don't advocate, condone it, or do it, some ppl do think and do
otherwise.
Bob
Bob
Older Gentleman) wrote:
|>> "Lean Steering" keeps your front wheel on the ground when
|>> shifting....
|>>
|>> Where were you when all these tests were made and proven you wrong....
|>
|>Look, ma! An ignoranus!
Keep your "personal" keyboard commando insults to yourself, before
your brains spill out my anal orphus....
Bob
Bob
|>Wouldn't you feel safer with good tires on your scooter than tires with
|>a cracked sidewall?
|>
|>Also, there is a good reason motorcycle tires and scooter tires are
|>different than car tires.
|>cuhulin
I'll *second that*, but we were discussing why, and why not....well
we all know that anyway...so what are talking about.
It's about as smart as saying motorcycle tyres for cars, and that's
not feasibly possible.
Car tires<----- M/Cycle tires = naw
Car tires<----> M/Cycle tires = works shitty
Twibil
>
>
> I gather you did not view the youtube test results!
Oh dear. Bob, you are stupid in so many different ways that you may
have just set an entirely new Usenet record. (Not easy, considering
your competition.)
But, just for starters, you do *not* find serious tire comparison
tests on You Tube.
> Easy to criticize, with no point made in contradiction....
Well, yes, it's easy to criticize because it's an amazing stupid thing
for you to have said, and if you're so dense that the fact that
motorcycle tires and car tires are -and have always been- designed and
built for entirely different purposes and vehicles makes no impression
on you, then nothing anyone else can say will do so either.
> "Lean Steering" That's been disproved a long time ago on this NG and
> on the M/C threads under the Counter Steering threads.!
It hasn't been "disproved" to anyone with a basic junior-high school
level understanding of physics.
> Then again proven on
> youtube that leaning doesn't steer, with welded handlebars...
Ah, wonderful! "You tube" again! So if I weld the steering arms of
your car it obviously proves that cars can't steer, right?
> "Lean Steering" keeps your front wheel on the ground when
> shifting....
This one's right up there with belief in the Tooth Fairy.
> Where were you when all these tests were made and proven you wrong....
Moi?
I was being a track instructor for the Motorcycle Safety Institute.
S'mee
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:16:43 -0800 (PST), "S'mee" <stevenkei...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> |>> Idiot(s).
> |>
> |>Oh you mean fruitcakse like bob...and even some good friends of mine
> |>who've used car tyres on valks? Yeah, no accounting for dumb people.
>
> I don't advocate, condone it, or do it, some ppl do think and do
> otherwise.
>
> Bob
Sure read that way to me...
S'mee
You poor stuipid moron...countersteering is real and IF you werren't a
lying sack of ball sucking shit you'd know that. But I digress,
obviously you aren't smart enough or educated enough to participate in
the discussion. I suggest you take your pansy little self off and cut
out some paper dolls while the adults talk about adult things.
S'mee
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:11:39 +0000, totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk (The
>
> Older Gentleman) wrote:
>
> |>> "Lean Steering" keeps your front wheel on the ground when
> |>> shifting....
> |>>
> |>> Where were you when all these tests were made and proven you wrong....
> |>
> |>Look, ma! An ignoranus!
>
> Keep your "personal" keyboard commando insults to yourself, before
> your brains spill out my anal orphus....
>
> Bob
Look tosser you know jack and SHIT about how anything steers. Much
less any thing useful about tyres.
S'mee
> On Nov 25, 11:30 pm, Bob <r...@armageddon.info> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I gather you did not view the youtube test results!
>
> Oh dear. Bob, you are stupid in so many different ways that you may
> have just set an entirely new Usenet record. (Not easy, considering
> your competition.)
>
> But, just for starters, you do *not* find serious tire comparison
> tests on You Tube.
>
> > Easy to criticize, with no point made in contradiction....
>
> Well, yes, it's easy to criticize because it's an amazing stupid thing
> for you to have said, and if you're so dense that the fact that
> motorcycle tires and car tires are -and have always been- designed and
> built for entirely different purposes and vehicles makes no impression
> on you, then nothing anyone else can say will do so either.
>
> > "Lean Steering" That's been disproved a long time ago on this NG and
> > on the M/C threads under the Counter Steering threads.!
>
> It hasn't been "disproved" to anyone with a basic junior-high school
> level understanding of physics.
I'm wondering WHICH newsgroup ol' bob the idiot is speaking of...sure
as fuck isn't reeky.
> > Then again proven on
> > youtube that leaning doesn't steer, with welded handlebars...
>
> Ah, wonderful! "You tube" again! So if I weld the steering arms of
> your car it obviously proves that cars can't steer, right?
Indeed and welding the steering head proves nothing. REAL moorcycles
have this thing at the front the flops back and forth and NEVER EVER
stays pointing straight ahead ridgedly on it's own...ever. Lean steer
does happen. I've only been doing it for over 30 years now...been
counter steering the whole time also. Anyone that says it can't be
done is an idiot.
> > "Lean Steering" keeps your front wheel on the ground when
> > shifting....
>
> This one's right up there with belief in the Tooth Fairy.
>
> > Where were you when all these tests were made and proven you wrong....
>
> Moi?
>
> I was being a track instructor for the Motorcycle Safety Institute.
Yeahbut that's saftey not how to ride or prove the physics! 8^)
when I want entertainment I go to youtube, when I want a good belly
laught at stupid people I listen to folk that think that youtube is
definative proof and that wiki is the font of all knowledge. 8^)
S'mee
You just keep digging your dumb ass into a deepr hole...you ignorant
dumbass.
Twibil
>
>
> Sorry, but you are mistaken. Many, including Code, believe as you do but
> Code and others also believe the world is governed by aliens living in
> volcanos. Welding the steering head (not the handle bars) makes a bike
> difficult but not impossible to ride simply because the front and rear tire
> contact patches are different. Thus some bikes need a little turn in and
> others a tad of turn out to corner smoothly.
Should have quit while you were ahead, Vito. (Ya see, it's moments
like this that convince us all that your claimed extensive motorcyle
background is pure bullshit.)
Alas for you, it's true that you can't steer *any* vehicle with a
welded steering system -and that includes motorcycles- but that
doesn't disprove that lean steering works: it just demonstrates that
the bars must remain free to move; which is exactly what they do
during lean steering. Neither does Code's demo bike have a welded
steering head: it simply has a seperate set of immobile bars with a
throttle, and the original steering system is still there and is
stock.
http://www.superbikeschool.com/machinery/no-bs-machine.php
The fact that you didn't even know those things puts you right up
there with good old Bob in terms of ignorance.
> If you think counter steering makes a bike corner then I invite you to make
> a simple experiment - take a trike up to 50 mph and try to counter steer it.
Again, you've shown us all that you have no idea of what counter-
steering really is and how it actually works.
That's why you don't understand why it doesn't work -*can't* possibly
work- on anything but bikes, scooters, and motorcycles. Trikes will
not counter-steer any more than will a cage, and have zilch to do with
the argument.
> That's not to say counter steering is useless. It is a quick way to get a
> bike leaned over onto the tires' conic patches by steering the front tire
> out from under the CG. It is especially effective on topheavy bikes.
Counter-steering is generally the *only* way we steer our bikes, and
top-heavy has (again) zilch to do with that fact. Nada. Zip. Zero.
Nothing.
The only times we're not using counter-steering to steer are when (A)
we're riding without hands, or (B) when we're holding the bike upright
with our feet at extemely low speeds, and pointing the front wheel in
the same direction we want to go.
It's that simple, and it's not subject to argument unless you can
point out the exact moment when physics suddenly stops working, and,
yes, explain *why* it stopped working.
Vito
| If you believe you can steer a motorcycle at above 20miles
| per without counter steering, you are mistaken.
I not only believe it, I have been doing it often for more than 55 years -
every time I take both hands off the bars. I easily change lanes and corner
whilst zipping a jacket, donning gloves, et cetera. Most every rider I know
does the same.
|
| Having said that, you also can't counter steer, without
| leaning, which is why it doesn't work on a trike.
Wrong again! Watch a flock of novice riders corner bolt upright, ass glued
to seat.
You don't ride yourself, do you?
The Older Gentleman
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:16:43 -0800 (PST), "S'mee" <steven...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> |>> Idiot(s).
> |>
> |>Oh you mean fruitcakse like bob...and even some good friends of mine
> |>who've used car tyres on valks? Yeah, no accounting for dumb people.
>
> I don't advocate, condone it,
Doesn't look that way.
> or do it, some ppl do think and do
> otherwise.
>
That makes them not very clever. You're in good company.
The Older Gentleman
> Oh dear. Bob, you are stupid in so many different ways that you may
> have just set an entirely new Usenet record. (Not easy, considering
> your competition.)
>
> But, just for starters, you do *not* find serious tire comparison
> tests on You Tube.
That just about sums it up :-))
The Older Gentleman
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:11:39 +0000, totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk (The
> Older Gentleman) wrote:
>
> |>>
> |>Nope, I read this three times and it still doesn't make sense. Fitting
>
> Nope what??? what doesn't make sense?
The bit you snipped: "Hi velocity "scooter" M/cycle tyres don't control
with a wobble, and a wobble is even more dangerous in the larger
tyres.."
And everything else, really.
>
> |>car tyres to motorcycles is imbecilic.
>
> Well that makes sense you've never tried or seen results on it and
> your an expert....right?
Yes. You'd be surprised. I've never played Russian roulette either, but
I don't need to try it to know it's not safe.
> imbecilic??? maybe careless or a bit dangerous for the reasons I
> gave, not just well that's not right, well, so,.....it isn't right, but why?
"A bit" dangerous?
Good enough for me. It ain't big and it ain't clever.
The Older Gentleman
Oh dear, another one.
Let me guess, you're posting from the scooter group, right?
The Older Gentleman
> It's about as smart as saying motorcycle tyres for cars, and that's
> not feasibly possible.
And again, in comprehensible English?
The Older Gentleman
>
> Who 'se an idiot, the debunkers of counter steering lean theories,
> or your scientific opinion here.
>
I'm not getting into the CS debate for the zillionth time, but I am
saying that putting car tyres on motorcycles, contrary to what you seem
to think, is stupid.
S'mee
>
> Older Gentleman) wrote:
>
> |>> "Lean Steering" keeps your front wheel on the ground when
> |>> shifting....
> |>>
> |>> Where were you when all these tests were made and proven you wrong....
> |>
> |>Look, ma! An ignoranus!
>
> Keep your "personal" keyboard commando insults to yourself, before
> your brains spill out my anal orphus....
>
> Bob
Well it fits...you to a tee so far.
paul c
> Vito wrote:
>
>>
>> If you think counter steering makes a bike corner then I invite you to
>> counter steer it.
>>
>> That's not to say counter steering is useless. It is a quick way to
>> get a bike leaned over onto the tires' conic patches by steering the
>> front tire out from under the CG. It is especially effective on
>> topheavy bikes.
>>
> counter steering, you are mistaken.
>
> is why it doesn't work on a trike.
Heh, human history generally shows that the majority's intuition is
usually wrong the first time. The only times I've ever turned without
counter-steering, both on bicycles and m/c's was when I had at least one
foot on the ground. The only times I didn't shift my weight to the
outside after the turn started, I fell off. It didn't matter whether I
was standing on the pegs or sitting but it was more obvious when
standing. Well, maybe I succeeded once or twice when I was drunk, but
even if I still did that, I wouldn't remember how I managed to.
don (Calgary)
(The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>Bob <rk...@armageddon.info> wrote:
>
>> It's about as smart as saying motorcycle tyres for cars, and that's
>> not feasibly possible.
>
>And again, in comprehensible English?
As is "in comprehensible".
โอม มณี ปัทเม หุม
Proclaimed Deity) wrote:
> Look, ma! An ignoranus!
Blessed TOG, who art in Britain,
Hallowed be Thy Brain;
Thy Bidders Come;
Thy Sale be done,
in Sutton as it is in London.
Give us this Day our daily Flame.
And forgive Us not our Errors,
As we forgive Them not that err against Us.
And Lead Us not into Ignorance;
But deliver Us from Septics.
For thine is the Honda,
The New Old Stock reflectors, and the Ebay,
Forever and Ever.
Sold!
frijoli
I ride almost everyday.
Countersteering:
This has been discussed over and over again. What you think
is happening and what is actually happening is not the same.
It has been proven, debunked, and de mystified by physics
professors, professional motorcycle racers, and experimenters.
As to novices, If you're bolt upright you're not leaning.
You can't countersteer a motorcycle without it leaning.
S'mee
Gentleman) wrote:
> Bob <r...@armageddon.info> wrote:
> > It's about as smart as saying motorcycle tyres for cars, and that's
> > not feasibly possible.
>
> And again, in comprehensible English?
<raises hand>
Say, what about those of us who don't speak english? I mean, after all
I speak american (which is decidedly NOT engliss) don and several
others also do not speak english OR american they speak
canadian...it's like the difference between spanish and mexican. 8^)
You know the same but VERY different.
S'mee
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 18:57:31 +0000, totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk
>
> (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
> >Bob <r...@armageddon.info> wrote:
>
> >> It's about as smart as saying motorcycle tyres for cars, and that's
> >> not feasibly possible.
>
> >And again, in comprehensible English?
>
> As is "in comprehensible".
I know we are communicating in at least three differnet languages
but...wtf? I'm not parsing something right.
The Older Gentleman
I think the two of you are posting in the same secret code. Whatever,
neither is making much sense. :-/
The Older Gentleman
<Shrug>
Don't ask me. It reads like somebody's posted something in between, and
your server and mine haven't picked it up.
Mark Olson
> don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 18:57:31 +0000, totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk
>> (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>>
>>> Bob <rk...@armageddon.info> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's about as smart as saying motorcycle tyres for cars, and that's
>>>> not feasibly possible.
>>> And again, in comprehensible English?
>> As is "in comprehensible".
>
> I think the two of you are posting in the same secret code. Whatever,
> neither is making much sense. :-/
in comprehensible
incomprehensible
don (Calgary)
(The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 18:57:31 +0000, totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk
>> (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>>
>> >Bob <rk...@armageddon.info> wrote:
>> >
>> >> It's about as smart as saying motorcycle tyres for cars, and that's
>> >> not feasibly possible.
>> >
>> >And again, in comprehensible English?
>>
>> As is "in comprehensible".
>
>I think the two of you are posting in the same secret code. Whatever,
>neither is making much sense. :-/
I was just looking for a clarification. Did you mean "in
comprehensible" or "incomprehensible". As you are oft muddled or
linguistically confused I wasn't sure.
S'mee
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:07:59 +0000, totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk
>
>
>
>
>
> (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
> >don (Calgary) <hd.f...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 18:57:31 +0000, totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk
> >> (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>
> >> >Bob <r...@armageddon.info> wrote:
>
> >> >> It's about as smart as saying motorcycle tyres for cars, and that's
> >> >> not feasibly possible.
>
> >> >And again, in comprehensible English?
>
> >> As is "in comprehensible".
>
> >I think the two of you are posting in the same secret code. Whatever,
> >neither is making much sense. :-/
>
> I was just looking for a clarification. Did you mean "in
> comprehensible" or "incomprehensible". As you are oft muddled or
Obviously you've confused TOG for me. Easy way to tell us apart is
he's the good looking guy without a beard and I look like the guy you
don't want your daughter to date. 8^)
don (Calgary)
I hate to spoil your rep Keith, but I am pretty sure I'd rather have
my daughter date you than Neil. ;-)
As for the rest, now I _am_ confused.
The Older Gentleman
Yes, I'm aware of the two words., their spelling, and their meaning. The
Canuck's posting still made no sense.
The Older Gentleman
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:07:59 +0000, totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk
> (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>
> >don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 18:57:31 +0000, totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk
> >> (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Bob <rk...@armageddon.info> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> It's about as smart as saying motorcycle tyres for cars, and
that's
> >> >> not feasibly possible.
> >> >
> >> >And again, in comprehensible English?
> >>
> >> As is "in comprehensible".
> >
> >I think the two of you are posting in the same secret code. Whatever,
> >neither is making much sense. :-/
>
> I was just looking for a clarification. Did you mean "in
> comprehensible" or "incomprehensible". As you are oft muddled or
> linguistically confused I wasn't sure.
You know, you really ought to try and give up this sort of thing. First,
it does you no favours to pop up in every thread and start sniping.
Secondly, you tend to get it wrong.
Once again, I invite you to go back and re-read.
What's the "as is" bit? Syntactically, it's meaningless.
Bob
Older Gentleman) wrote:
|>Bob <rk...@armageddon.info> wrote:
|>
|>>
|>> Who 'se an idiot, the debunkers of counter steering lean theories,
|>> or your scientific opinion here.
|>>
|>I'm not getting into the CS debate for the zillionth time, but I am
|>saying that putting car tyres on motorcycles
Wasn't CS fun *#$%^
So...mostly everybody knows that. car tyres are for cars....etc.
|>, contrary to what you seem
Is that what it looks like....I know someone who does this, so I am
responsible for his actions....makes me feel sooo responsible for the
actions of others..
|>to think, is stupid.
Right!
Bob
|>"frijoli" <c...@dud.gov> wrote
|>| If you believe you can steer a motorcycle at above 20miles
|>| per without counter steering, you are mistaken.
|>
|>I not only believe it, I have been doing it often for more than 55 years -
|>every time I take both hands off the bars. I easily change lanes and corner
|>whilst zipping a jacket, donning gloves, et cetera. Most every rider I know
|>does the same.
You ride a bit more brash than I do....I have those small 14"/13"
wheels on a top heavy majesty scooter.
Sometimes I remove the high/wide seat, and drive it
m/cycle....*seated just below the rear wheel*.
|>|
|>| Having said that, you also can't counter steer, without
|>| leaning, which is why it doesn't work on a trike.
|>
|>Wrong again! Watch a flock of novice riders corner bolt upright, ass glued
|>to seat.
|>
I always see that in the real world of (not so good as a race track)
road conditions....
|>You don't ride yourself, do you?
|>
The best way to ride and survive, is to just ride the fucking
thing, and screw the analogies....leave that to computer processors if
necessary....
Grab the Bull by the horns and argue with the road conditions.
Bob
Bob
|>> Having said that, you also can't counter steer, without leaning, which
|>> is why it doesn't work on a trike.
|>
|>Heh, human history generally shows that the majority's intuition is
|>usually wrong the first time. The only times I've ever turned without
I think "one stroke", or the 1st thing done, after a world of
scientific variations to improve, always return to the 1st thing you did
intuitively in 1st place.....
|>counter-steering, both on bicycles and m/c's was when I had at least one
|>foot on the ground. The only times I didn't shift my weight to the
|>outside after the turn started, I fell off. It didn't matter whether I
|>was standing on the pegs or sitting but it was more obvious when
|>standing. Well, maybe I succeeded once or twice when I was drunk, but
|>even if I still did that, I wouldn't remember how I managed to.
I think I seen you drive, Gray Suit on a Gray bike turning into
Renfrew St....you look like you were born on the maxi scoot...
Sometimes I get disassociated from the bike, and drive it as a
separate entity (not good), this is caused by lack of driving it, these dis
associations are usually the 1st 10-->15 minutes or some caveman paddling
slow weaving situation.
Bob
wrote:
|>Alas for you, it's true that you can't steer *any* vehicle with a
|>welded steering system -and that includes motorcycles- but that
|>doesn't disprove that lean steering works: it just demonstrates that
|>the bars must remain free to move; which is exactly what they do
|>during lean steering. Neither does Code's demo bike have a welded
|>steering head: it simply has a seperate set of immobile bars with a
|>throttle, and the original steering system is still there and is
|>stock.
|>
Right.....you can't turn by counter steering itself, tyres are oval,
they turn with the road....what's to know...
|>http://www.superbikeschool.com/machinery/no-bs-machine.php
|>
|>The fact that you didn't even know those things puts you right up
|>there with good old Bob in terms of ignorance.
I just drive the M/Cycle.....seems to work jus fine that way...
Bob
Bob
wrote:
|>On Nov 27, 12:44�am, Bob <r...@armageddon.info> wrote:
|>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:11:39 +0000, totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk (The
|>>
|>> Older Gentleman) wrote:
|>>
|>> |>> � � � "Lean Steering" keeps your front wheel on the ground when
|>> |>> shifting....
|>> |>>
|>> |>> Where were you when all these tests were made and proven you wrong....
|>> |>
|>> |>Look, ma! An ignoranus!
|>>
|>> � � � � Keep your "personal" keyboard commando insults to yourself, before
|>> your brains spill out my anal orphus....
|>>
|>> Bob
|>
|>Look tosser you know jack and SHIT about how anything steers. Much
|>less any thing useful about tyres.
Oh really (anything steers), are you running a bullshit ring,...I'd
toss you pussy...... Blighty is a wanker isn't he Mick!
Bob
Bob
wrote:
|>> I gather you did not view the youtube test results!
|>
|>Oh dear. Bob, you are stupid in so many different ways that you may
|>have just set an entirely new Usenet record. (Not easy, considering
|>your competition.)
|>
|>But, just for starters, you do *not* find serious tire comparison
|>tests on You Tube.
|>
Better than what you present by a long shot! try viewing it 1st!
|>> Easy to criticize, with no point made in contradiction....
|>
|>Well, yes, it's easy to criticize because it's an amazing stupid thing
|>for you to have said, and if you're so dense that the fact that
|>motorcycle tires and car tires are -and have always been- designed and
|>built for entirely different purposes and vehicles makes no impression
|>on you, then nothing anyone else can say will do so either.
|>
That's a lot of bullshit son, I never said such....ever....got that!
|>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 "Lean Steering" That's been disproved a long time ago on =
|>this NG and
|>> on the M/C threads under the Counter Steering threads.!
|>
|>It hasn't been "disproved" to anyone with a basic junior-high school
|>level understanding of physics.
|>
You got that....???? 1960 right?
|>> Then again proven on
|>> youtube that leaning doesn't steer, with welded handlebars...
|>
|>Ah, wonderful! "You tube" again! So if I weld the steering arms of
|>your car it obviously proves that cars can't steer, right?
|>
I suppose you can counter steer a car too right?
|>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 "Lean Steering" keeps your front wheel on the ground when
|>> shifting....
|>
|>This one's right up there with belief in the Tooth Fairy.
|>
OH???
|>> Where were you when all these tests were made and proven you wrong....
|>
|>Moi?
|>
No... your prince!
|>I was being a track instructor for the Motorcycle Safety Institute.
Bullshit!
Bob
wrote:
|>> And again, in comprehensible English?
|>
|><raises hand>
|>
|>Say, what about those of us who don't speak english? I mean, after all
|>I speak american (which is decidedly NOT engliss) don and several
|>others also do not speak english OR american they speak
|>canadian...it's like the difference between spanish and mexican. 8^)
|>You know the same but VERY different.
DAS Right....but I fail to see the relationship between English
Gram/Lit. and Scooters/M-cycle tyres....
Ever wonder why *V-Groove* M/cycle tyres are not found on
cars......right, they cost too much for cars, and car tyres, are not as
susceptibly affected by rocks between the threads, like M/Cycles are.
S'mee
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:19:25 -0800 (PST), "S'mee" <stevenkei...@hotmail.com>
And you would be fundementally wrong they are out there and they are
for sale for road use. Thankyou for playing the game and here's yoru
wonderful parting gift...a new cluebyfour!
S'mee
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 01:33:44 -0800 (PST), "S'mee" <stevenkei...@hotmail.com>
Yep and you are unable and incapbale of learning...just like krusty.
don (Calgary)
(The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:07:59 +0000, totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk
>> (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>>
>> >don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 18:57:31 +0000, totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk
>> >> (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Bob <rk...@armageddon.info> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> It's about as smart as saying motorcycle tyres for cars, and
>that's
>> >> >> not feasibly possible.
>> >> >
>> >> >And again, in comprehensible English?
>> >>
>> >> As is "in comprehensible".
>> >
>> >I think the two of you are posting in the same secret code. Whatever,
>> >neither is making much sense. :-/
>>
>> I was just looking for a clarification. Did you mean "in
>> comprehensible" or "incomprehensible". As you are oft muddled or
>> linguistically confused I wasn't sure.
>
>
>You know, you really ought to try and give up this sort of thing. First,
>it does you no favours to pop up in every thread and start sniping.
>
>Secondly, you tend to get it wrong.
>
>Once again, I invite you to go back and re-read.
>
>What's the "as is" bit? Syntactically, it's meaningless.
Well, Neil, when I am reading a message from one who has a consistent
track record of not knowing the meaning of the words he is using and
is oft muddled or confused, I think it is reasonable to request a
clarification.
There was no sniping here, cept by you, and my request was unfailingly
courteous. Still is for that matter.
While the OP's query about using car tires on motorcycles has been
dealt with a hundred times in this forum (Reeky) over the past few
years, I thought his question was sincere and not a deliberate troll.
Newbies often fall into the trap of buying into the "Dark Siders" line
of misleading crap.
Your response was filled with sarcasm, arrogance and ultimately
degenerated into name calling. See a pattern here?
You ought to chill out and try talking to people in a civil manner.
This repeated pattern does you no favours.
The Older Gentleman
> Well, Neil, when I am reading a message from one who has a consistent
> track record of not knowing the meaning of the words he is using and
> is oft muddled or confused,
Bwaahahahaha!!
>I think it is reasonable to request a
> clarification.
Look at your request. It makes no sense. ''As is "in comprehensible"'.
It's meaningless in the context. And not for the third, fourth or even
fifth time, I was not the only poster who thought so.
If you think it makes sense in the context in which it ws delivered,
you're mistaken.
>
> There was no sniping here, cept by you, and my request was unfailingly
> courteous. Still is for that matter.
You didn't think it needed clarification. You were just having a pop.
Trying to be clever. And you still are.
>
> While the OP's query about using car tires on motorcycles has been
> dealt with a hundred times in this forum (Reeky) over the past few
> years, I thought his question was sincere and not a deliberate troll.
> Newbies often fall into the trap of buying into the "Dark Siders" line
> of misleading crap.
It was sincere and not a troll. I quite agree.
>
> Your response was filled with sarcasm, arrogance and ultimately
> degenerated into name calling.
Only after reasoned debate failed.
>See a pattern here?
>
> You ought to chill out and try talking to people in a civil manner.
> This repeated pattern does you no favours.
If someone persists in being imbecilic, quite frankly my dear, I don't
give a damn.
Now, are you going to pop up in another thread and try to be clever? And
fail?
don (Calgary)
This kind of sarcasm is for winners Neil. It's not working too well
for you.
The Older Gentleman
> >Now, are you going to pop up in another thread and try to be clever? And
> >fail?
>
> This kind of sarcasm is for winners Neil. It's not working too well
> for you.
Oh, I dunno.
Now go back and look at your original 'request' which sparked this
latest exchange. It doesn't make sense.
I honestly couldn't work out what you were trying to say. Yes, I can see
what you were asking now (though it still seems pointless), but at the
time? Nope. And nor could another poster.
So do it. Go back. Re-read it. It's terribly simple. Just read it, parse
it, and then ask yourself whether it makes sense.
don (Calgary)
(The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> >Now, are you going to pop up in another thread and try to be clever? And
>> >fail?
>>
>> This kind of sarcasm is for winners Neil. It's not working too well
>> for you.
>
>Oh, I dunno.
>
>Now go back and look at your original 'request' which sparked this
>latest exchange. It doesn't make sense.
>
>I honestly couldn't work out what you were trying to say. Yes, I can see
>what you were asking now (though it still seems pointless), but at the
>time? Nope. And nor could another poster.
>
>So do it. Go back. Re-read it. It's terribly simple. Just read it, parse
>it, and then ask yourself whether it makes sense.
Neil, the instrument has yet to be invented that could measure my
indifference as to whether something makes sense to you or not.
I am clear on what you meant now and have little need to re-read
anything.
You are welcome to carry on with your sniping though. After all it is
what you do well and since you seem to derive some pleasure from it,
go nuts.
The Older Gentleman
> Neil, the instrument has yet to be invented that could measure my
> indifference as to whether something makes sense to you or not.
And others? If you don't care, that's fine, but starting a bitchfest on
the grounds of trying to poke holes in a posting by making a totally
unintelligible comment, and then spitting the dummy when I say I can't
understand it, suggests otherwise.
>
> I am clear on what you meant now
Erm, I don't think so. But if you say so, fine.
> and have little need to re-read
> anything.
Um, OK, fine, fine (again). It would benefit you to, though.
>
> You are welcome to carry on with your sniping though. After all it is
> what you do well and since you seem to derive some pleasure from it,
"Oh, the irony, the irony."
> go nuts.
I'll need this explained, because I don't understand it either. On my
side of the Atlantic, to 'go nuts' means to 'go crazy'. It obviously has
another meaning chez you. Every day's a schoolday etc.
paul c
...
> While the OP's query about using car tires on motorcycles has been
> dealt with a hundred times in this forum (Reeky) over the past few
> years, I thought his question was sincere and not a deliberate troll.
I'm with you, he's sincere. Personally I like an occasional distorted
or slightly absurd provocation to help clarify my own understanding. I
don't appreciate all the cross-posting but at least he tries to give
some backup for his conclusions. That's more tangible than smug, opaque
cracks like 'just ride it' from self-appointed editors. Sooner or
later, usenet makes a fool of everybody including the anointed among us.
The Older Gentleman
> don (Calgary) wrote:
> ...
> > While the OP's query about using car tires on motorcycles has been
> > dealt with a hundred times in this forum (Reeky) over the past few
> > years, I thought his question was sincere and not a deliberate troll.
> > ...
>
> I'm with you, he's sincere. Personally I like an occasional distorted
> or slightly absurd provocation to help clarify my own understanding. I
> don't appreciate all the cross-posting but at least he tries to give
> some backup for his conclusions.
He does, in the form of some antique YouTube clip. One step up from "It
must be true: it's on the web".
And he ignores the technical (and completely correct) info given by
others.
> That's more tangible than smug, opaque
> cracks like 'just ride it' from self-appointed editors.
"Just ride it" is good enough when the paranoid are agonising over a
fault that doesn't really exist.
>Sooner or
> later, usenet makes a fool of everybody including the anointed among us.
Oh yes.
don (Calgary)
wrote:
>don (Calgary) wrote:
>...
>> While the OP's query about using car tires on motorcycles has been
>> dealt with a hundred times in this forum (Reeky) over the past few
>> years, I thought his question was sincere and not a deliberate troll.
>> ...
>
>I'm with you, he's sincere. Personally I like an occasional distorted
>or slightly absurd provocation to help clarify my own understanding. I
>don't appreciate all the cross-posting but at least he tries to give
>some backup for his conclusions.
With the regular participant turnover in Reeky, I don't mind
occasionally going back to revisit topics like this. My sense is there
are many here who have not read anything on this topic, here before.
They might benefit from the collective experience of the more well
versed riders hanging around here. Note I am not including the ankle
biters in that group.
I have a riding buddy, one who can ride the wheels off his bike and
consistently puts me to shame when we ride the bendy bits. He has
slipped over to the dark side with his M109. He just put a car tire on
the back of it and claims it doesn't impact the handling one bit. I
don't believe him, but I haven't ridden with him since he made the
change. Next spring I will take him out to the nearest set of twisties
and see if he is still as fast as he used to be.
I do a lot of straight up highway riding and when my rear tire gets
squared off I know how it impacts the handling of my bike and I don't
like it. When I put new shoes on my bikes, after the tires are
scrubbed in a bit, they make it feel like I am riding a brand new
bike.
> That's more tangible than smug, opaque
>cracks like 'just ride it' from self-appointed editors. Sooner or
>later, usenet makes a fool of everybody including the anointed among us.
Reeky is especially well suited for that.
Mark Olson
> I have a riding buddy, one who can ride the wheels off his bike and
> consistently puts me to shame when we ride the bendy bits. He has
> slipped over to the dark side with his M109. He just put a car tire on
> the back of it and claims it doesn't impact the handling one bit. I
> don't believe him, but I haven't ridden with him since he made the
> change. Next spring I will take him out to the nearest set of twisties
> and see if he is still as fast as he used to be.
I'm not sure that would prove anything. There is no way in the world
that putting a car tire on the back of a bike would not make it handle
worse than it did before. This is assuming the bike tire was in good
shape, wasn't flat, was the correct size for the bike, etc.
There are guys on the FJR forums talking about putting car tires on
their bikes. Not meaning to offend anyone, but they're idiots.
don (Calgary)
(The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>paul c <toledob...@oohay.ac> wrote:
>
>> don (Calgary) wrote:
>> ...
>> > While the OP's query about using car tires on motorcycles has been
>> > dealt with a hundred times in this forum (Reeky) over the past few
>> > years, I thought his question was sincere and not a deliberate troll.
>> > ...
>>
>> I'm with you, he's sincere. Personally I like an occasional distorted
>> or slightly absurd provocation to help clarify my own understanding. I
>> don't appreciate all the cross-posting but at least he tries to give
>> some backup for his conclusions.
>
>He does, in the form of some antique YouTube clip. One step up from "It
>must be true: it's on the web".
>
>And he ignores the technical (and completely correct) info given by
>others.
I didn't get that. I saw him play devil's advocate and challenge a few
statements, but I didn't see an outright rejection. It didn't take
long for the discussion to degenerate to petty name calling, and I
pretty much lost interest in the specific exchanges.
I am guessing he is a scooter rider and very likely a beginner. I am
not now, nor have I ever been a brand snob. If you are riding on two
wheels you have my respect, until you do something to lose it. I don't
ridicule someone for their choice of motorcycle, nor do I ridicule
their bike. Never have and never will.
My sense is Newbies deserve a little bit of slack. Given a little
time, training and experience they just might be riding the wheels off
me in a few years.
paul c
...
> I have a riding buddy, one who can ride the wheels off his bike and
> consistently puts me to shame when we ride the bendy bits. He has
> slipped over to the dark side with his M109. He just put a car tire on
> the back of it and claims it doesn't impact the handling one bit. I
> don't believe him, but I haven't ridden with him since he made the
> change. Next spring I will take him out to the nearest set of twisties
> and see if he is still as fast as he used to be.
Is that similar to the Messerschmitt 262? I gather that car tires might
spend a little more time in the air than bike tires are meant to.
The Older Gentleman
My take on it, too.
Tyre construction (especially sidewalls) is totally different, and
suited for purpose in each case.
And bikes lean over on their tyres. Cars don't, so they don't have the
same tyre profile. OK, so you can camber a car wheel a few degrees, and
you might get away with a car tyre on a damn-all ground clearance
cruiser, but apart from that, forget it.
You're right. Idiots.
The Older Gentleman
> >And he ignores the technical (and completely correct) info given by
> >others.
>
> I didn't get that. I saw him play devil's advocate and challenge a few
> statements, but I didn't see an outright rejection.
No, you wouldn't have. Because, as I pointed out, he didn't make an
outright rejection, and I never said he did. So why do you suddenly
shift the goalposts?
He ignored this:
"car sidewalls are *designed* to flex and deform over bumps, and the one
thing you don't want on a motorcycle tyre, when banked over, is a wobbly
sidewall. "
Completely ignored. Instead, he went banging on about counter-steering
and I am *so* not getting involved in that.
>
> I am guessing he is a scooter rider
I reckon so.
> and very likely a beginner.
Not so sure about that.
>I am
> not now, nor have I ever been a brand snob. If you are riding on two
> wheels you have my respect, until you do something to lose it. I don't
> ridicule someone for their choice of motorcycle, nor do I ridicule
> their bike. Never have and never will.
I'm quite happy to be ridiculed for my choice of machine. Happens all
the time.
don (Calgary)
wrote:
>don (Calgary) wrote:
>
>> I have a riding buddy, one who can ride the wheels off his bike and
>> consistently puts me to shame when we ride the bendy bits. He has
>> slipped over to the dark side with his M109. He just put a car tire on
>> the back of it and claims it doesn't impact the handling one bit. I
>> don't believe him, but I haven't ridden with him since he made the
>> change. Next spring I will take him out to the nearest set of twisties
>> and see if he is still as fast as he used to be.
>
>I'm not sure that would prove anything. There is no way in the world
>that putting a car tire on the back of a bike would not make it handle
>worse than it did before.
I wouldn't be looking for proof. I have ridden enough spirited rides
with him to have a sense of a baseline for a comparison. If I can
keep up to him, or even be faster, it just might convince him to go
back to a proper tire. After all many people are severely embarrassed
when they are slower than a Harley. ;-)
>This is assuming the bike tire was in good
>shape, wasn't flat, was the correct size for the bike, etc.
>
>There are guys on the FJR forums talking about putting car tires on
>their bikes. Not meaning to offend anyone, but they're idiots.
While I wouldn't call my bud an idiot, since his last bike was an FJR
he just might have been on that forum.
don (Calgary)
wrote:
>don (Calgary) wrote:
The M109 is a Suzuki Boulevard Power Cruiser.
Mark Olson
>> There are guys on the FJR forums talking about putting car tires on
>> their bikes. Not meaning to offend anyone, but they're idiots.
>
> While I wouldn't call my bud an idiot, since his last bike was an FJR
> he just might have been on that forum.
It's just imbecilic to think that by happenstance (and that's the
only way it's going to happen) that a car tire, being expressly
designed for car use and no other purpose, is going to be better at
being a bike tire, than a bike tire. There are good reasons why
bike tires cost twice[1] what a car tire does even though they wear
out 10x faster[2] than a car tire. For sure the difference in the
size of the markets accounts for some if not all of the cost
differential.
As I said, I'm not meaning to offend anyone including you or your
friend.
[1][2] both are order-of-magnitude WAGs
don (Calgary)
wrote:
>don (Calgary) wrote:
>
>>> There are guys on the FJR forums talking about putting car tires on
>>> their bikes. Not meaning to offend anyone, but they're idiots.
>>
>> While I wouldn't call my bud an idiot, since his last bike was an FJR
>> he just might have been on that forum.
>
>It's just imbecilic to think that by happenstance (and that's the
>only way it's going to happen) that a car tire, being expressly
>designed for car use and no other purpose, is going to be better at
>being a bike tire, than a bike tire. There are good reasons why
>bike tires cost twice[1] what a car tire does even though they wear
>out 10x faster[2] than a car tire. For sure the difference in the
>size of the markets accounts for some if not all of the cost
>differential.
I don't think I suggested putting a car tire on a motorcycle makes
sense. In fact I think it is a ridiculous idea. I am just a little
more reluctant to refer to those that do as idiots or that the concept
is imbecilic. I suppose it is a matter of the degree of criticism.
>
>As I said, I'm not meaning to offend anyone including you or your
>friend.
>
I'm not offended and I only mentioned my riding bud to bring a little
real life experience into the conversation. Considering his riding
experience and skills I was very surprised he would make the switch.
That said I have known him for many years and he is far from an idiot.
The Older Gentleman
> I am just a little
> more reluctant to refer to those that do as idiots or that the concept
> is imbecilic
In most cases, they are and it is. The only case where a car tyre makes
absolutely perfect sense and is better for purpose than a motorcycle
tyre is when it is fitted to a sidecar.
In a very few instances (cruisers with no lean angle) you might get away
with it, for a while.
don (Calgary)
(The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> I am just a little
>> more reluctant to refer to those that do as idiots or that the concept
>> is imbecilic
>
>In most cases, they are and it is. The only case where a car tyre makes
>absolutely perfect sense and is better for purpose than a motorcycle
>tyre is when it is fitted to a sidecar.
Thanks for sharing. I am obviously a little more tolerant of others
opinions than you are.
>
>In a very few instances (cruisers with no lean angle) you might get away
>with it, for a while.
By the way, where did you get the idea Cruisers or Road Kings
specifically only have about five degrees of lean?
turby
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:07:59 +0000, totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk
>
>
>
> (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
> >don (Calgary) <hd.f...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 18:57:31 +0000, totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk
> >> (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>
> >> >Bob <r...@armageddon.info> wrote:
>
> >> >> It's about as smart as saying motorcycle tyres for cars, and that's
> >> >> not feasibly possible.
>
> >> >And again, in comprehensible English?
>
>
> >neither is making much sense. :-/
>
> I was just looking for a clarification. Did you mean "in
> comprehensible" or "incomprehensible". As you are oft muddled or
> linguistically confused I wasn't sure.
I think it stands on its own as written. If it were
"incomprehensible," it would be a declarative sentence with no need
for a question mark. OTOH, I'm not sure what's missing from your post,
but I think it's a verb.
turby
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:08:08 -0600, cuhu...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> |>Wouldn't you feel safer with good tires on your scooter than tires with
> |>a cracked sidewall?
> |>
> |>Also, there is a good reason motorcycle tires and scooter tires are
> |>different than car tires.
> |>cuhulin
>
> I'll *second that*, but we were discussing why, and why not....well
> we all know that anyway...so what are talking about.
>
> It's about as smart as saying motorcycle tyres for cars, and that's
> not feasibly possible.
>
> Car tires<----> M/Cycle tires = works shitty
C'mon. There's a great reason to use car tires on a bike - you don't
need a sidestand any more.
Mark Olson
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 12:57:28 -0600, Mark Olson <ols...@tiny.invalid>
> wrote:
> I don't think I suggested putting a car tire on a motorcycle makes
> sense. In fact I think it is a ridiculous idea. I am just a little
> more reluctant to refer to those that do as idiots or that the concept
> is imbecilic. I suppose it is a matter of the degree of criticism.
I never said or implied that *you* thought it was a good idea. If you
got that impression, I apologize.
>> As I said, I'm not meaning to offend anyone including you or your
>> friend.
> I'm not offended and I only mentioned my riding bud to bring a little
> real life experience into the conversation. Considering his riding
> experience and skills I was very surprised he would make the switch.
> That said I have known him for many years and he is far from an idiot.
It is possible for smart people to do dumb things. Cough.
Getting serious for a minute, I am sure your friend is not actually
an idiot. I also take your word for it that he's a good rider. The
guys on the FJR list who are putting car tires on their bikes are
also _probably_ not literally idiots, and some of them are almost
certainly better riders than me (not difficult). When I said I
thought they were idiots, I suppose what I really meant to say was
they are doing something an idiot might do.
Hmmm. I'm not sure if that helped.
Anyway, I do admit my mouth gets a bit ahead of my brain at times,
and I have been known to be impolitic when expressing an opinion.
You know, I can see one place where putting a car tire on a bike
makes perfect sense. At the drag strip, on a specially constructed
drag bike, a nice big wide flat car tire might be just the thing to
lay down lots of ponies. On a twisty road, nope, I have to agree
with you, it's not a good idea.
don (Calgary)
wrote:
Fair enough Turby. I can accept it was written as intended.
don (Calgary)
wrote:
>don (Calgary) wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 12:57:28 -0600, Mark Olson <ols...@tiny.invalid>
>> wrote:
>
> > I don't think I suggested putting a car tire on a motorcycle makes
> > sense. In fact I think it is a ridiculous idea. I am just a little
> > more reluctant to refer to those that do as idiots or that the concept
> > is imbecilic. I suppose it is a matter of the degree of criticism.
>
>I never said or implied that *you* thought it was a good idea. If you
>got that impression, I apologize.
>
No worries Mark.
> >> As I said, I'm not meaning to offend anyone including you or your
> >> friend.
>
> > I'm not offended and I only mentioned my riding bud to bring a little
> > real life experience into the conversation. Considering his riding
> > experience and skills I was very surprised he would make the switch.
> > That said I have known him for many years and he is far from an idiot.
>
>It is possible for smart people to do dumb things. Cough.
Ya think? ;-)
>
>Getting serious for a minute, I am sure your friend is not actually
>an idiot. I also take your word for it that he's a good rider. The
>guys on the FJR list who are putting car tires on their bikes are
>also _probably_ not literally idiots, and some of them are almost
>certainly better riders than me (not difficult). When I said I
>thought they were idiots, I suppose what I really meant to say was
>they are doing something an idiot might do.
>
>Hmmm. I'm not sure if that helped.
>
>Anyway, I do admit my mouth gets a bit ahead of my brain at times,
>and I have been known to be impolitic when expressing an opinion.
>
>You know, I can see one place where putting a car tire on a bike
>makes perfect sense. At the drag strip, on a specially constructed
>drag bike, a nice big wide flat car tire might be just the thing to
>lay down lots of ponies.
Burn outs would be a lot cheaper.
>On a twisty road, nope, I have to agree
>with you, it's not a good idea.
Frankly I am baffled why an experienced rider would do such a thing,
very limited and specific instances aside.
I have watched the You Tube videos taken from under the bike viewing
the rear car tire and wonder how can anyone think forcing that car
tire to climb over the edge and up on the sidewall can be a good
thing. Further riding on that edge must make the bike very squirrely.
I will not even comment on how rolling over on the edge deforms the
tire.
It just doesn't make sense.
The Older Gentleman
> Frankly I am baffled why an experienced rider would do such a thing,
> very limited and specific instances aside.
Quite.
The Older Gentleman
> >In most cases, they are and it is. The only case where a car tyre makes
> >absolutely perfect sense and is better for purpose than a motorcycle
> >tyre is when it is fitted to a sidecar.
>
> Thanks for sharing. I am obviously a little more tolerant of others
> opinions than you are.
It's not an opinion. It's fact. Car tyres are totally unsuited to
motorcycles.
OK, serious question. You and your not-stupid buddy: if he leaves you
for dead on his car tyre--shod bike, would you take that as pr5oof that
car tyres are *better* than bike tyres, on a bike?
> >
> >In a very few instances (cruisers with no lean angle) you might get away
> >with it, for a while.
>
> By the way, where did you get the idea Cruisers or Road Kings
> specifically only have about five degrees of lean?
I don't. I never said they all did. *Sigh*. Another lesson follows:-
You have cruisers as one set, and bikes with no lean angle as another
set, and a subset of both is cruisers with no lean angle. Might as well
apply to any bike with zero ground clearance, really, but these days
cruisers tend to be the worst offenders.
Not hard to understand.