FAQ

Commonly asked questions here

Please keep in mind this is not written by a tire Engineer or an expert and is only an attempt to provide some of the more common traits exhibited by a given tire.

There has been much discussion, and many postings on this message board, regarding the choice of tire brands and types, and the performance/safety thereof, especially when it comes to using a Car Tire (CT) on the rear of a wing. As a result, I thought I’d try to compile some of that information in one place (here) to assist others with questions they might have as they evaluate different tire choices. By doing this, hopefully, one will understand it is just not a simple answer to the question of “What tire should I use?”

Slow Speed

First let’s look at SLOW speed (say backing out of a parking space) handling with a CT.

The bike wants to be supported by the tire. Unfortunately, in the above picture, most of the tire is hanging off “over a ledge” and the bike wants to fall (to the left) until the tire is supporting the bike. Not too surprising. It also should be no surprise that a Motorcycle Tire (MT) doesn’t exhibit this characteristic due to the shape of the tire. During these slow speed maneuvers there is very little momentum built up in the bike or the tire/wheel.

If the above is true, how can a bike ever lean through a turn? As the bike gains speed it is also gaining momentum. This momentum (laws of nature) wants to keep the bike headed in the same direction until some outside force, namely the rider, acts upon it. Visualize it like this:

You roll two identical tires down the road. One tire you roll at one mph; the other you roll at two mph. Assuming no other outside force, besides the friction of the tire/road interface, acts upon either tire, which tire will stop first? The tire that started its travels at one mph will stop first because it has less momentum (energy).

Picking up the speed a little.

As you cruise down the road the bike has momentum and will continue along its path until something acts upon the bike to alter its direction (momentum). In this case that something is the rider. The rider forces a counter-steer and pushes the bike from its current (normal) path, and into a turn. The “push” required to counter-steer is slightly more with a heavier tire, and the flat bottom of a CT’s tread slightly adds to the amount of push required. This is where conversations arise regarding a CT taking more “push”, or counter-steer to initiate a turn. Remember, that flat bottom CT wants to stay on the ground.

We also hear about the bike wanting to “stand-up” coming out of a turn. Do you think that might be, in part, because that flat bottom tire wants to be on the ground again? That is part of it.

This is probably a good place to provide a WARNING for those switching back from a CT to a MT. There have been several accounts where a rider switches from a CT to a MT, enters into a turn (even a city street corner), and is not prepared for the quicker response provided by the MT-equipped bike, resulting in loss of control.

Traction and Contact Patch

It has often been discussed on this message board about CTs exhibiting superior traction under any condition. Many suggest this is due to the CTs larger contact patch, and this is probably true. However, when one examines the formula for simple friction, one discovers that the surface area (contact patch) is not a readily apparent variable in the formula. Since it is beyond the scope of this writing, interested folks can read http://insideracingtechnology.com/tirebkexerpt1.htm,

and gain a better understanding of how the contact patch enters into the equation.

Below is a picture posted by member trialsman showing the difference in contact patch between a MT and a CT, with the wing on its sidestand.

Safety, Responsiveness and Unsprung Weight

People cite many reasons for choosing a CT over a MT. Some of those reasons include lower tire cost, better tire mileage, smoother ride, better traction, higher load rated tire, tire delamination, sidewall stiffness, etc. People also site reasons for why they prefer one type of CT over another (i.e., a run-flat CT versus a non run-flat tire). Many of the tire choices are interrelated and often times contradictory. For example, choosing the tire that provides the longest tire wear (harder rubber), may not provide the best traction.

Whether we are talking MTs or CTs, choosing a heavier tire reduces the “flickability” of the bike, however, choosing the lightest tire may decrease the tire’s ability to support the wing in the event the tire loses air pressure. So let’s look at some common tires and what they weigh.

Motorcycle (MT) tires/OEM sizes
Avon Cobra weighs 17.6 lb
Bridgestone-G704 Radial weighs 19.6 lb.
Dunlop E3 Radial weighs 21.135 lb.

Car tires (CT) from mfg data

Run-Flat (RF)
Kumho 195/55-16 CT weighs 24.7 lb.
Pirelli 195/55-16 Eufori@ CT weighs 25 lb.
Michelin 195/55-16 Primacy Alpin PA3 ZP 24.5 lb.

Non Run-Flat (NRF)

Falken 195/55-16 CT weighs 20.4 lb.

Toyo Proxes T1R 195/55-16 weighs 18.3 lb.

Bridgestone EP100 195/55-16 weighs 21 lb.

From the “natural laws” mentioned earlier, the 17.6 lb Avon Cobra, at speed, should be more responsive (flickable) than the heavier 21.5 lb Dunlop E3, and while I have never run an Avon, I would bet that responsiveness is noticeable during tight cornering. Why? The heavier tire has more momentum (energy) than the lighter tire and therefore it takes more effort to change its direction. Many on this message board have also written about the strong, thick sidewalls of the E3 and the (good) job it does supporting the wing during a loss of air condition. So maybe the question should be “How much weight are you comfortable with given your riding requirements and riding style?”.

Quite simply, the rotating wheel/tire sets-up a gyroscopic effect; the more weight in motion, the more force needed to change its direction.

When applying this same logic with CTs, it follows that the 18.3 lb Toyo NRF and the 20.4 lb Falken NRF should be more responsive than the heavier 24.7 lb Kumho RF. In fact, both the Falken and the Toyo are more responsive than their heavier, RF cousin the Kumho. In road tests of the Kumho and the Toyo tires, one finds a very pliable sidewall on the Toyo, and stiffer sidewall on the Kumho, with the sidewall stiffness of the Falken falling somewhere in-between the Toyo and the Kumho. These more pliable sidewalls are precisely the reason riders operate NRF tires at higher pressures: 1) to prevent excessive heat build-up in the tires & 2) maintain a rigid enough sidewall to get the wing safely through the turns without over flexing the sidewalls. It also seems reasonable that thinner, less stiff sidewalls may provide a softer ride and may not be as susceptible to throwing the bike off-balance with uneven pavement, as mentioned above, when backing out of a parking space. In my particular trials of these three tires the Toyo was run at 49 psi; Falken at 44 psi and Kumho at 32 psi. It is also important to note that the higher the tire pressure, the more the CT takes on the rounded shape and handling characteristics of a MT; too high of pressure will cause premature wear in the center of the tread.

It has been reported that the 21 lb Bridgestone EP100 NRF can be operated at lower pressures without excessive sidewall flex. Look at the weight of the Bridgestone above and compare it to the other CTs listed. Weight wise, it falls right in the middle of the NRF and RF tires. Tire manufacturers don’t make tires heavier for no reason, due in part to the negatives of unsprung weight. Is this extra weight due to heavier constructed sidewalls?

Run Flat designations by Tire Manufacturers
ROF = RunOnFlat > Goodyear
EMT = Extended Mobility Technology > Goodyear
RFT = Run Flat Technology/Tyre > Pirelli, Firestone, Bridgestone
ZP = Zero Pressure > Michelin
SSR = Self Supporting Run Flat > Continental
DSST = Dunlop Self Supporting Technology > Dunlop

Flickability in Handling

In the above ramblings just what is meant by “Flickability”? Flickability is the ability to alter the direction of the wing quickly, be it in accident avoidance or shooting a set of turns quicker. Obviously if a fraction of a second helps a rider to avoid an accident, that is important. But what does it translate to under normal riding conditions? Given a series of 4, 5 or 6 back-to-back, left-right-left-right turns, the five or six pound difference in lighter tire weight (18.3 lb versus 24.7 lb) equates to an estimated fractions of a second improvement in times “through the chute”. It is uncommon to find such a series of tight back-to-back turns in mountains such as those found in VA and WV. Also note that the heavier tires, which are less “flickable”, require more effort to pilot through the turns and require a little extra work from the rider.

One rider’s write up comparing the 175/60, the 195/55 and the OEM 180/60

The 175/60 is 24.3" tall; the 195/60 is 25.2" tall. Compare this to the Dunlop D250 OEM MC equipment, which is 24.81." tall. The observed height differences have to be cut in half, as any increase in bike height is measured in the radius, not the diameter. Make sense?

Having said that, the OEM MC tire spins about about 815 revs per mile, the 175/60 about 832 revs per mile, and the 195/60 about 800 revs per mile. Unfortunately, with the 175/60, your speedo is going to be even further off than with a MC tire. But it does flick side to side faster and it will pull a trailer up a steep hill longer before you have to downshift...

I think it's the thickness and strength of the RF sidewalls gives you the extra load rating, but you may pay a price with the added unsprung tire weight. The lighter the tire, the faster the wheel (and suspension system) can respond to bumps, which results in less vibration, better ride, improved grip, and less wear and tear on the driver, passenger, shock and suspension system.

There are tradeoffs to all tire size differences, but, as all of us doomed-to-a-fiery-death Dark Siders know, they're all mucho better than a MC tire

How many miles are you getting out of your CT's? Brand and mileage?

“I keep records & precise measurements of the 4 tires I have tried. 25% more than moto rear tires.A few are partially wore only, but calculations still say 25% more. Lowest is 23% highest @ 28% more.”

“Kumho 195 RF (w/dynabeads), 32 psi, 1-up (165 lbs), variety of roads, 18.5k miles”

“Just took off a dunlop wintersport 205/55 with 17k miles”

“Kumho--12,300 with lots of miles with a Rollahome tent camper”

Do you still have the "scuff" break-in period with a CT?

Yes, a few miles on a new tire would help with a little scuffing and slower speeds.

What affect does the CT have on gas mileage?

Most have reported ‘no change’.

I would love to have one of those cool Darkside stickers:

Send TJ Ranch a PM. Link

What is a good starting air pressure to run?

As with all things, what will work for one rider may not work while for another. But, with all the messages I have read, I am beginning to see a pattern.

Run Flats: Pressures any from 28-36 PSI. 33-34 to be the most popular.

Non-Run Flats: 44 PSI would be a good starting pressure.

What does it look like while under way?

Here is a youtube link of a Kumho RF.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoNDo7o1d6Q&feature=player_embedded#at=204

My tire dealer (Brick & Mortar or On-Line) is asking what kind of vehicle is the intended purchase for?

OE Applications for Tire Size 195/55R16

Make Model/Option Years
Hyundai Tiburon FX 2000–2000
Mini Cooper Hardtop 2002–2009
Nissan Cube SL 2009–2009
Nissan Sentra SE-R 2000–2006
Toyota Prius Touring 2007–2009
Toyota Corolla S 2005–2008

I have the factory TPMS system. How will it work with the system that is used to seeing the higher settings?

I run 32 psi cold with the Pirelli in hot South Florida climates on my 09. The TPMS will blink until the tire pressure rises to about 36 psi. Depending on ambient temperatures, this can take about 15 to 30 minutes.

If there is any rain or you stop for a break, then the tire pressure may drop below 36 psi. the TPMS indicator will start to blink again.

Using non-run flats have the added advantage of using higher pressures that will play will with the integrated TPMS.

Another rider:

I have an '09, with TPMS, & use a rear tire with 28-30 PSI.

I check air pressure every morning with a gauge. Front was set at 39-41 PSI, rear 28-30 PSI. It takes about 30 miles for the rear to build up enough, for the TPMS to quit flashing. Anytime we stop, even for 3-4 minutes the TPMS would start flashing again, although it didn't take long for it to stop, once underway.

When traveling through Banff & Jasper National parks, the OAT was 34 degrees F. The light didn't quit flashing until temps rose to 38 and above.

ANYTIME the roads were wet, the TPMS would flash...didn't make any difference what the OAT's were.

From Boldwing:

Dummies Guide to resetting TPMS sensors

I just successfully registered my Tire pressure sensors on my 2012 GW. I needed to do this because I installed a new rear wheel and tire from a trike takeoff of another 2012 wing. I thought I would document my experience. This information is summarized from the 2012 Goldwing Service Manual. It applies to Goldwings manufactured 2009-2012.

Tools needed:

ATEQ VT-15 available from TireRack.com for about $100.

Fork terminal (or paper clip) to short the connector.

I used a commonly available fork terminal because it fits perfectly in the connector. There is a special Honda tool for this called the Honda SCS Service Connector 07WPZ-0010100 for about $20.

1. Place the bike on the center stand.

2. Rotate both tires so that the valve stems are at six o'clock.

3. remove the seat.

4. remove the TPMS short connector from the boot. This is a red connector located aft on the left frame rail. Take off the dummy cap to expose the two connector terminals.

5. add air to both tires to put the sensors in programming mode. This requires that the tire pressures be at least 51 psi. I used 55 psi. After adding air, wait for at least 1 minute for the sensors to go into programming mode.

6. place the VT-15 tool next to the front wheel sensor. I placed the VT-15 on a block of wood about 1 inch off the ground and within 6 inches of the front sensor.

7. turn on the ignition, then within 15 seconds insert the fork terminal in the short connector.

8. turn on the VT-15 (click left button). The nice thing about the VT-15 is that you don't have to hold the button on, it stays on so you can be standing to look at the TPMS indicator light on the dash.

9. in 3 or 4 seconds the TPMS indicator light should begin blinking at 1 Hz. The front sensor is now registered successfully.

10. within 1 minute point the VT-15 at the rear sensor. The TPMS indicator light will begin to blink at 3 Hz. The rear sensor is now successfully registered.

11. remove the fork terminal from the short connector.

12. turn off the ignition.

You're Done.

Now bleed the air pressure down to 36 front/ 41 rear. Put the short connector back in the boot and install seat.
Important: Go for a 5 minute ride to get the sensors out of programming mode.

Additional comments:

You have to leave the tires inflated to 51psi for one full minute before they enter the "test mode" so be sure to wait a minute before trying to ping them with the tool.

Also, after you get done, you can confirm proper operation by turning off the ignition, and then shorting the connector and leaving it shorted. Now turn on the ignition and start the bike. Both the Low pressure and TPMS lights will come on. Now go for a short ride with the connector still shorted. When the front tire sensor is picked up, the Low Tire light will go out and when the rear one is picked up, the TPMS light will go out. When both lights go out, you know that both sensors are registered properly, and you can remove the short.

Also, it is not possible to register just one wheel. You have to do them both together, even if you only changed one sensor.

(Editor Comment) If you are running a CT with lower PSI than the front tire, switch the order of which tire sensor gets programmed first.

Mounting and Balancing Questions:

Is there any product similar to Dyna-beads but cheaper?

I have been using the Airsoft BBs for quite a long time now (two sets of tires or more). I tried the Copperheads... but they make this funny 'Raining metal' sound when you stop... the Air Soft don't make any noticeable noise. They don't rust, corrode, or degrade as near as I can tell. Takes a little more volume to get the same weight... I just used a postal scale.

How the static balancers sold by NoMar, HF, & others compare to a dynamic spin balancer as far as accuracy?

Narrow tires like MC tires static balance just fine. The wider the tire the more you need to dynamic balance them. ( Because the heavy spot is frequently off center) Same with Dyna-beads, they don't work well in wide tires but they work great in narrow tires because they stay in the middle of the tire. It is always better to have the weight lined up opposite of the heavy spot in the tire.

Static balance just works to keep the tire from hopping up and down.

Dynamic balancing does the same plus keeps it from shaking side to side too, but to dynamic balance the weights have to be as close to the sides of the tires as possible. (hard to do on a MC rim, easy on a car rim) To static balance you want the weight in the center of the tire if possible. (MC clip on weights)

Directional and Asymmetrical Tires

Barry's Tire Tech has some great information with regards to tire direction and the asymmetrical tread patterns.

Directional Tires will have an arrow on the sidewall. If it doesn't have an arrow, it's non-directional! And, it doesn't matter which way it rotates.

Directional tires are primarily about wet traction - although snow traction is sometimes the intent in the design. As a general rule, directional tires will have an "arrowhead-like" tread pattern - it seems to point in the direction of travel.

If you mount a directional tire backwards - so that it is rotating the wrong direction - the only problem caused is wet (or snow) traction. It does not affect wear, pull, dry traction, ride, or any other characteristics. If you have one of those problems, then the problem has nothing to do with the direction of rotation of the tires.

Read more about Directional and Asymmetrical Tires here:

http://www.barrystiretech.com/directionalandasymmetricaltires.html

Do you NOT need to balance the tire if you're installing Dyna-beads?

No, you don't have to balance the tire the Dyna-beads will do the trick for the life of the tire.

I have a Kumho 195-55-16 run flat on the back & a BS 709 front. I am looking at getting a changer which will allow me to do these 2 tires as they seem to be a good combination.

You need to buy the changer and the Motorcycle Adapter, you can throw away the top section of arm because it is just in the way, and have less than $100 in you changer not including another $100 for a MoJo Lever, I separate that cost because you need to buy that bar anyway regardless what changer you use.. The Run Flat differs because of the stiff sidewall and that make it a little harder to push it into the drop center on the wheel but you will have this problem whichever changer you use. NoMar sells a clamp called Helping Hands, they say it is not for GW tires but I use them and they push the sidewall into the drop center making it easier to mount the bead you can easily do the same thing with 2 or 3 strips of oak flooring pushed in. I made a static balancer it is not hard to do but now I use Dyna Beads so you do not need one if you use Beads. I do not use the lube or soap. I use spray Silicone. The Silicone is absorbed by the rubber and I do not want the lube or soap balling up the beads in the tire. Last but not least you can post what area you live and see if someone around you will do it for you. I do it for anyone that wants to come here as long as they want to help, it is not a problem for me and there may be someone around you that does the same.

I already have a "Centramatic Balancer" is this a good choice over the beads?

If you have Centramatics you should be good to go. I am running Centramatics and have had absolutely no issues. Not sure if Centramatics are better or worse that Dyna Beads.

Can you still use the Cycle Hill Tire Changer (http://www.cyclehilltirechanger.com/) with a CT?

BOUGHT THE CYCLE HILL TIRE CHANGER JUST FOR THE CAR TIRE AND IT WORKS GREAT. JUST USE A LOT OF LUBE. HAVE MOUNTED 3 TIRES SO FAR AND I AM PLEASED WITH IT

How to remove/install a mount wheel

Since the tire is wider, it will be a tighter fit when removing and placing the mounted tire in the back of the bike. Once in place there shouldn’t be any problems with rubbing if you are using the 195/55/16.

1) Set the rear suspension pre-load on 12 (for my Traxxion bike).
2) Put bike in gear.
3) Lay the bike down on right side.
4) Extend the center stand.
5) Remove the lug nuts.
6) Put the bike in neutral.
7) Remove old tire/wheel.
8)Insert the new tire/wheel, fully aired to 32 psi, into the wheel well. As push the tire up into the well you will feel it hit something. Stop and take a look up into the cavity so you can see what it is hitting. You will see it is hitting the inner fender, which is at about the 10 O'clock position. That is the hump you are trying to get over. So what you want to do is lift on the lower edge of the tire/wheel at about the 5 O'clock position at the same time you give the wheel a couple of nudges with your knee (in other words it is like kicking it up in there). As it goes in it will actually move forward of the axle center line, and up into the well. Once in, you will have all the room you need to move it around and get it onto the wheel lugs.
9) Reverse above steps to reassemble.

I have not used a plastic (i.e., Wal-mart) bag in between the tire and the fender well hump. However, on the first one I mounted I had trouble (I was afraid to give it a good shove up into the hole) and I sprayed silicon spray all over the plastic fender well and the tire. Good luck.

Can I mount a CT on a GL1500?

http://gl1800riders.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2798229&postcount=1

Tire: Rear: 175/60/16 Dunlop Wintersport ROF Radial
Tire: Front: Dunlop-E3 Bias
Bike: GL1500

Test: 1,400 miles, mostly freeway, some canyon; dry

Mounting on Rim:
Pro: Easily mounted at automotive shop. Note that it has a Directional Arrow on sidewall, showing the rotational direction.
Con: Tire shop mis-seated the bead due to not using enough pressure to pop it onto the rim... Be sure to visually check the seating prior to leaving the shop.
Con: Not possible manually (eg Using Harbor Freight Machine)... the sidewalls are just too tough. (Worse experience than when I mounted a 195CT non-rf)

Mounting on Bike:
Pro: Easy.
Pro: 1/4" clearance remains on right side, same as for a Dunlop E3

195mm on a Gl1500

A friend just pulled in my driveway with a 195mm General NRF on his 1500 GW bike..... Had to take a pic... I don't know if you can see the curve on the sidewall... It's pretty radical.... He says it works well.... Told him I had a new 175mm I would sell him.. However, he had just mounted the tire.... He's running it at 51 pounds.

Should I be concerned with any potential legal ramifications?

Here are two different point of views in the sense of whether is would be legal.

One darksider’s view:

"Experts" that say don't use a CT are often brought up as why you shouldn't use a CT on a motorcycle. Why shouldn't we use a CT on a motorcycle? The best reason I can find is "it wasn't designed for it". This sounds similar to what any good designer/engineer would say of their product. If they didn't design if for a certain use then they can't be assured it will operate to their design specs.

I'll venture to guess that a CT doesn't operate within the designs specs when on a motorcycle (a stretch I know). I don't think whether or not a CT is designed to work on a motorcycle is up for debate. Seems pretty straight forward to me. But I want to know what other reasons they have for not recommending it. Does the tire failure prematurely? Does the tire provide inferior traction? Are there handling problems that a CT invokes? "It wasn't designed for it" isn't a reasonable response/answer to not using a CT. What are the consequences? That's what I want to know. The tire manufacturers appear unwilling to address this.

So just because a product isn't designed for a certain use doesn't mean that the product is unsafe. It also doesn't mean it is illegal to operate a CT on a motorcycle.

There are far to many people running CTs on far to many different brands/models of motorcycles to reasonably conclude that the practice is unsafe. Not at least when used on heavy cruisers/touring motorcycles with limit cornering clearance. I would expect the handling characteristics of a CT on a 400lb sport bike would be unacceptable for street riding. But we are discussing this practice of CTs on heavy bikes.

If it were unsafe, I would expect many examples of CT failures. This evidence doesn't exist in any serious volume. Are "darksiders" all hiding their CT failures out of saving face? Perhaps if I were more of a conspiracy believer I could buy into the lack of evidence. I just think there is a lack of evidence because it just doesn't happen.

So now we come to the "you could be sued" or "your insurance company may deny your claim". I just see the "law suit" reasoning as another scare tactic. Folks can no longer stand on the "crash and burn" scare tactic because there have been far to many people for far to long running CTs and not crashing because of it. Seeing folks using things different seems to invoke such reactions of fear. Something I don't subscribe to.

Could I be sued for negligence for using a CT if I was involved in an accident? Sure. I could also be sued for negligence for any number of other reasons. I don't see the use of a CT any higher on the scale of sue-able offenses.

I am responsible for operating the vehicle in a responsible manner. For me that means I should use all due care to be as safe as possible for both myself and others. For me, having experienced 2 MT tire failures, I see it as being responsible to myself and passenger to investigate other options.

Any lawyer/client looking to point to a CT (not just a tire but because it is a car tire) as the root cause would have a very hard battle ahead of them. For all the "experts" the prosecutor brings up, the defense can show contrary evidence. It would all come down to whom the better attorney is, not who is right.

Doing anything "unusual" is a risk in this litigious society but to deny myself the potential additional safety that a CT could provide doesn't seem reasonable to me. A say "could" because I've just begun using a CT. I only have 1,500 miles on it. So far, I have had no problem scraping hard parts and performing all the maneuvers I could perform with a MT. I have observed significantly less heat (something I believe caused my previous MT failures) by 40-50%. I did my research. It was clear to me that the use of a CT wasn't dangerous. I see no reason why a jury couldn't also come to the same conclusion.

I just see the "law suit" reasoning as a scare tactic. Folks can no longer stand on the "crash and burn" scare tactic because there have been far to many people for far to long running CTs and not crashing because of it. Seeing folks using things different seems to invoke such reactions of fear. Something I don't subscribe to. I'm more curious and like to investigate and learn more instead.

If the MT developers would provide a tire that wasn't so stressed on a Wing so that it didn't have such a high failure rate, I'd use it. Until then, it would be negligent for me to not continue to look for a better alternative. At this point, the alternative I'm testing is a CT.

A non-darksider view:

“There are 250 million registered passenger vehicles in the US, and almost 10 million motorcycles. For arguments sake, let's say there are 2000 riders out there with car tires on their bikes.

That's 0.0008% of the vehicles on the road running the wrong tire on their bike. It is such a small amount that virtually nobody outside the motorcycle community would even be aware that this is being done. (Most motorcycle riders are probably not even aware of it.)

Being that far under the radar, it is unlikely an insurance company would ever think to even look for such a thing in an accident. I imagine there probably are a few inspectors out there that have noticed it and caused riders problems with claims. But it would still be a rarity.

If CT use did become widespread, (highly unlikely), then maybe at some point down the road insurance companies might start looking a little closer and this might become an issue. But for now, it isn't.”

“First of all, states don't develop motor vehicle safety standards. Those standards are set by the NHTSA, which enforces the FMVSS. The states simply enforce Federal law. I guess from that standpoint he is right. PA doesn't have such a law. Why would they?

Secondly, tires are certified by the DOT for their intended use. If you run a tire on any vehicle that is not intended for that use, you are not running a DOT approved tire, despite the labeling on the tire. You can't run a tire that is DOT certified for light truck use on a truck that has a GVWR over 10,000 pounds. A prosecuting attorney in an injury case would have an easy day in court proving negligence, despite the DOT approval on the tire. He wouldn't have to bother with load ratings and all sorts of other numbers.

This is not a matter of what is legal and what is illegal. It is the liability that results from willfully doing something negligent. The law doesn't require that I keep snow and ice off my sidewalk in the winter. But if someone were to slip and fall, and get hurt, I could still be held liable due to negligence.

As I said earlier, this issue is so far under the radar that it is unlikely to ever be a problem. But that doesn't mean it couldn't. All it takes is a gung ho investigator looking for anything he can find, and you could be faced with a problem, even if the tire had nothing to do with it. Sometimes just the appearance of impropriety can work against you.

If you want to run a car tire, do it. But don't kid yourself by trying to convince yourself and others that the law and courts support you in your decision. They don't. You and your fellow supporters stand alone in this.”

Why I didn’t like the CT.

The main thing was I had two things happen that put me off. One was it slipped on a paint stripe when dry. Ok, I could deal with that. Then I had a problem where the tire wanted to track with the cracks in the road. Happened in a turn on me where the bike wanted to track with the crack instead of taking the line I wanted to take.

I did not like how if you were on a road with to much of an angle and stopped the bike did not want to stay up straight, the tire would want to lay flat.

If you do the twisties hard there is a split second delay switching side to side. Did not like that.

I didn't like how it felt in general in the turns. To me it does not feel safe. The thought was not in my mind that I need to get used to it. The thought in my mind was this does not feel safe. The only time I thought it was good was when I was going in a straight line.

Anyone can ride what they want, but in my mind I think it's crazy. I'm sorry but after trying it, I really feel that a car tire is not for a motorcycle. I just really have to question if they are so great like the folks state on the forum why is it that not a single motorcycle manufacturer uses them. There are thousands of models out there and not one of them use them. Even BossHoss bikes stopped using them. There has to be a reason and I now have my own personal opinions as to why from actual experience. (-FUSE 7/1/11)

Tire Choices

Polls by Stick!

Front Tire Used with Rear Car Tire
Results of Poll 11/4/2010…


Bridgestone G709 Radial 130/70R-18 (63H)____75
Battlax BT-45____________________________30
Avon AV71 Cobra________________________10

Metz Lasertec 130/70H18 Bias______________10

Dunlop Elite 3 Front Tire___________________9

Metzler 880 Marathon Bias Ply_______________3

Michelin Pilot Activ________________________1

Pirelli Sport Demon_______________________1

Compare with a poll from last year (9/30/09):

Bridgestone 709_________________________43

Bridgestone Battlax BT45__________________35

Avon Cobra_____________________________08

Dunlop Elite III Bias______________________07

Michelin Pilot Activ_______________________04

Pirelli Sport Demon______________________04

Metzler Lasertec_________________________03

Avon Roadrunner ________________________02

Avon Venom R__________________________01

Metzler ME880__________________________01

Michelin GT Pilot ________________________00

Poll: What Car Tire are you Running
Results 11/04/2010 - 237 Votes


Kumho ECSTA Run Flat…..195/55-16 …High Perf..Summer_______88
Pirelli eufori…195/55R16…….Run Flat …High Perf Summer________43
Falken Ziex ZE-912…….Non Run Flat High Perf.
Touring Winter_________________________________________19
Dunlop SP Winter Sport 175/60/R16……. Run Flat..
Winter________________________________________________16
Dunlop SP Sport 5000 DSST…….. All Season Radial
Non Run Flat___________________________________________11
Dunlop DSST 3000……..Run Flat All Season Radial______________11

Dunlop Winter Sport 195/55HR16 3D………
Run Flat Winter__________________________________________8
Hankook Ventus…….Non RF_________________________________6
Goodyear Assurance radial TripleTread…….N Run Flat…
All Season ______________________________________________6
Continental Vanco…….Non Run Flat High Mileage LT______________6
Bridgestone Potenza G 019……Non Run Flat All Season____________6
Toyo Proxes T1R…..High Perf…Non RunFlat_____________________4
Michelin Alpin pa3 R…… Run Flat…Winter_______________________3
Goodyear Eagle NTC5 RFCT……. Run Flat Summer________________2
Federal Evo High Perf…… Non Run Flat Summer Tire______________2
Bridgestone Ecopia EP100 Non Run Flat….. Grand Touring All Season_2
Michelin Primacy__________________________________________1
Michelin Pilot Sport________________________________________1
Dunlop 175 55 16 XL……..Extra Load RunFlat Winter______________1
Continental Conti Pro SSR ( runflat )195/55/16__________________1
Federal FORMOZA FD2 175/60 R16 82H……All Season_____________0
Yokohoma Avid Envigur….All Season Perf…Non Run Flat___________0
Goodyear Eagle GT 205/60R16 Non Run Flat High Perf….All Season__0

Compare to last year’s poll 5/09:

Kumho ECSTA RF 195/55/16 Summer________________________38

ContiPro SSR 195/55/16 All Season__________________________24

Goodyear Eagle Ultra Grip GW3 EMT 195/55/16 Winter___________12

Dunlop 175/60R16 - 82H SP 3D DSST ROF Winter Sport__________12

Pirelli Eufori@ RF 195/55/16 Summer_________________________08

Dunlop 195/55HR16 3D ROF Winter Sport_____________________06

Eufori@ 195/55 R16 Run Flat Summer________________________04

Goodyear Assurance Triple 205/55/R16 All-Season______________03

Continental Vanco 2 195/65R16 Rear. 35 PSI Summer___________03

Dunlop 5000 195/60X16 All-Season__________________________03

Firestone Firehawk 195-55-16 All-Season ______________________03

Goodyear Excellence R/F 195/55-16 Summer___________________01

Michelin Pilot Sport A/S plus 205/55-16 All-Season______________01

Riken 205/55X16 ________________________________________01

Yokohama Sport 205/55/16 Summer_________________________01

Bridgestone Blizzak LM-25 RFT 195/55 Winter__________________01

Continental 205/55 Summer _______________________________01

Michelin Primacy HP RF 195-55-16 Grand Touring Summer ________00

Bridgestone Turanza EL400-02 195/55-16 All Season____________00

I was wondering if 195 60 16 works as well as the 55’s

I am running a 195 60 16 and it works real well. If you want to run a run-flat, they are limited to availability in 195 60 16 but, they are available in 195 55 16.

Who has tried a 205/55/16?

I use the 205 size currently Dunlop Wintersport, 17k from the last one, not that hard to get in no rubbing issues, a bit higher load rating vs the 195, a little more ground clearance, although not that much drop in rpms at highway speed, speedo a bit closer 2mph high as to actual speed by GPS. I like this size and it handles great, I also use a Kumho 205 for twisties, it has a bit more sportier ride, somewhat more rounded than the winter sport handles more like a MT.

What happens if a I select a taller tire for my bike? Will it change the handling?

I was running a 70 series tire and had Traxxion installed. The forks were set at 10 MM above as Traxxion suggested. The handling on the bike was TERRIBLE. Just going down the road, pulling a trailer, if I wiggled in the seat the trailer would start whipping back and forth and I wore out a set of trailer tires in less than 10K. The uneven grooves of the road would cause the bike to transmit a (for lack of a better term) wave action up to me on the bike and although the bike didn't feel like it was wobbling, my head would be going back and forth about and inch or so. I called Traxxion and they said I had two choices....go with a 60 series or take the struts back to flush. They said that some people had reported the same problems I had. I had a 60 Series in the garage so I threw it on and everything was back to normal. I guess it is a rake/trail issue.
Again, this was MY impressions and I would have loved for an expert rider to experience what I was and tell me if I was wrong. It was bad enough that cars would either race ahead or drop back when it started wobbling.

I was wondering if anyone here has used a CT while pulling a trailer?

Pulled the Escapade 1100 miles and the tire still looks the same as I put it on. I know your pain a trailer and you were over weighted on the bike caused the 880 to flatten out. You will not do that with a ct.