Darkside comments on Hoseapple's review

[Ferris Leets]

I wanted to not hijack the other thread so I started this one.

The review he did was very indepth and interesting.  I have a little difference of opinion.  I was less happy with the tire until I raised the pressure to the 45#s.  I ride my IS moderately hard and the counter steering issue is noticeable.  It is harder to hold the line in a curve.  That doesn't bother me, it just rquires a little more pressure on the bars.  The bump steering is another point.  Yes, it does but I have gotten used to it.  The tracking on road imperfections is another point.  Again, after a few miles I got used to reflexively avoiding them if possible and if not able to avoid just riding through them.  Not a big difference to me.  I find that MC tires react to these also but not as much.  I don't feel like the ride is much softer with the big tire. 

      One thing he mentioned I really did not follow.  I thought he said that the tires did not track well and then he said that someone who rode the slab a lot would find that they tracked better.  I probably misunderstood something there.  I find that the bike tracks straight much better than it did before.  A consequence of the tire also being harder to turn.
      I would never say that there is no difference from a MC tires handling.  Just that for me the differences are not all negative.  I have had no issues with cornering where a sudden change in road surface caused me any alarm.  In this area potholes and road snakes are the norm.

     As everyone knows opinions are like assholes.  Everybody has one and most of them stink.  Except your own of course. 

 No disrespect to anyone here.  Not faulting his report or his conclusions for his riding style.  I like the tire I have for my style.
     

[bigguy]

Couldn't have said it better. I thought the guy did a very good job of reviewing his experience. I just reached a different conclusion. I think it's just a matter of what you want and what bothers you. I'm with Ferris Leets  in that the downs just weren't that worrisome. The pluses far out weighed them for me.

[SANDMAN5]

Yeah, I don't have a problem (why wouldI?) with someone trying the
Darkside and not liking it. I just think he could have worded some
things a little better.

[bigfish_Oh]

I guess I got a different take from his review. I was ready to go darkside when the times comes, but not now, I see zero upsides. I have no reason to "relearn" or second guess any riding conditions. I hope to avoid dryrot! The $ I would save in my lifetime vs a lot of aggravation seems like a no brainer for me. If I was riding a lot like a lot of you, it would be a different issue.

I assume a CT is better at the track ???  probably worth the price of a second wheel ?

[Valker]

I assume a CT is better at the track ???  probably worth the price of a second wheel ?

Depends on the track. If I go to the drag strip, the car tire is better. If I am at a roadrace track, I swap wheels and put the bike tires back on.

[Garry 2r's]

My car tire saved me from a major side swipe due to more aggressive counter steer. I was right beside a white Cadillac that frog leaped into my lane to avoid line up at light.Due to always counter steering I pushed  handle bar and dipped bike and gained enough clearance to avoid crunch which afterwards went to bar shaking and had a drink!! Oddly my last 2 tires have been MCT and 200s but will go back to darkside after my battleax is done. Had problem with rubbing drive shaft when 2 up. ( and not over weight)size was 205/60/16 Bridgestone Potenza  great traction and good rain grip. but pushed straight at slow speed when turning. I did over 20,000 on it. I currently have a Goodyear Assurance 205/55/16 ready to go on but not sure if that is what I should use. Might  try a 195. or any other suggestions.

[Choirboy]

I ride both, my VTX is a std metzler, my valk a CT.....I was riding CC two yrs ago and rode thru some heavy rain several times. When on a cc trip, rain is gonna happen. I attribute the CT with the kind of performance in those conditions that I wanted. We rode the Blue Ridge Pkway and several park style roads wo worry. I had a guy run a red light on us and two up the CT stopped much quicker and straighter than the mc tire would have. It depends on what you are gonna ride. The lifetime of a ct is approximately 35K (thats when I will change it). At $200 plus a tire times 3 thats $600 for mc tires vs $115 or so for the CT. My decision wasnt economic however. After talking to some people and doing some research, I decided that the CT was my answer. If I wanna go canyon blasting full time, I'll find a Magna and ride it. For my preferences, I'll probably go CT when this one wears down at the end of this season, who knows, someone might have even made one with a rounder profile. Mileage, braking, traction in bad weather and ease of plugging made it my decision.

With regard to the other post, my gripe is the poster acted like we were his students. When he told me to ride the CT and kill myself, he hit my button. Sorry, but he isnt entitled to talk that trash, I dont care how many exhaust systems he's welded up, he's just another dude, nothing more, a legend in his own mind. His BS is what kills forums like this.   

[Momz]

Choirboy,

Well said!

[Tropic traveler]

Well as a multi Valk owner, one with a car tire, I give Mark a bit of support on his observations. I do not agree with the assertions he makes about a flaming death & a CT being just plain dangerous on anybody's bike.
However absurd as the "flaming death" notion is, the "there is no difference" notion equals it. To tell a CT novice either of these things is flat wrong.
I have noticed in back to back Valk rides over the exact same roads these differences:
CT bad- low speed {parking lot} handling sucks. Low speed corners require more effort. Rubbing issues on some bikes, fixable. Depending on CT used, higher cruising RPM. Following ruts & tar snakes.. not too bad but noticeably more than MT. May have trouble finding shop to mount it for you.
CT good- longevity of tire. Rear braking VERY good!. Rain handling VERY good. Traction excellent, better than MT. Looks awesome/ gets noticed, kinda neat! Cannot tell the difference at higher speeds. I feel that a CT will "hold up" better than a MT encountering road hazards.
These are MY personal observations. I have NO bias either way, I really don't care what anyone wants to put on their own bike but I do want to be truthful to those who ask.  
The controversy befuddles me.  

[MarkT]

TT, thanks for a balanced report.  That's all I'm asking for.  However, I didn't say either of your assertions you attribute to me - "the assertions he makes about a flaming death & a CT being just plain dangerous on anybody's bike. "  Nowhere have I used the words "flaming death" or the latter statement.  I said repeatedly on my review, that a car tire "may be suitable for you, depending on your circumstances."  Specifically, long slab rides, good pavement riding, wet weather.  Especially these conditions together with cost savings.

All I'm saying is, be honest about it, especially when speaking to those who haven't tried it.  Even those who deny bad handling with a CT know they are having to compensate for the tire's behavior.  Might be automatic for them by now if they've done it long enough - but it's not automatic to someone who has never had the CT before.

[wizard -vrccds#125]

Over 100,000 on C T ! Never ever had a problem. Riding on a MT now feals unsafe to me !!!!                         

[Tropic traveler]

TT, thanks for a balanced report.  That's all I'm asking for.  However, I didn't say either of your assertions you attribute to me - "the assertions he makes about a flaming death & a CT being just plain dangerous on anybody's bike. "  Nowhere have I used the words "flaming death" or the latter statement.  I said repeatedly on my review, that a car tire "may be suitable for you, depending on your circumstances."  Specifically, long slab rides, good pavement riding, wet weather.  Especially these conditions together with cost savings.

All I'm saying is, be honest about it, especially when speaking to those who haven't tried it.  Even those who deny bad handling with a CT know they are having to compensate for the tire's behavior.  Might be automatic for them by now if they've done it long enough - but it's not automatic to someone who has never had the CT before.

 
Per

No problem Mark. I did not take your comments literally but I used your general points {taken out to the silly degree} to show the extremes of the CT & MT debate here. I understand the point you are trying to make.
All I'm after is some honesty here. This sight has become a major info supplier to new Valk riders & I feel honesty should rule.
Personally I am changing my '99 back to a MT simply because I have picked up a nail in my CT & I will not ride on a plugged or patched tire. Without the flat I would be riding merrily on with the CT.
I've said it before & I'll say it again... if I could find a 195/70/16 or a 185/70/16 CT I'd slap it on a Valk in a heartbeat. Slightly taller, less squeeze on the skinny Valk rim giving a more rounded sidewall may just be the ticket for the best of both worlds for a Valk. My search goes on but in the meantime, back to an Avon I go.  

[X Ring]

TT, have you considered a 195/55R16?  Just checked out that size cause some of the GW riders are using it.  Looked at the Hankook Ventus V4 and compared to the 205/55R16, it's section width is .7" narrower and it's tread width is .4" narrower.  Unfortunately, it is a .5 shorter also.  You can go to http://mcdarksiders.forumotion.com and check out the GW sub forum.  Lots of guys running all kinds of tires.  Might give you some ideas.

Marty

[Tropic traveler]

TT, have you considered a 195/55R16?  Just checked out that size cause some of the GW riders are using it.  Looked at the Hankook Ventus V4 and compared to the 205/55R16, it's section width is .7" narrower and it's tread width is .4" narrower.  Unfortunately, it is a .5 shorter also.  You can go to http://mcdarksiders.forumotion.com and check out the GW sub forum.  Lots of guys running all kinds of tires.  Might give you some ideas.

Marty

Marty, the RPM increase is a deal breaker for me. With all the highway riding we do I want to decrease the R's if possible. I was thinking of taking a 205-65 to a local shop that has a tire shaving machine to see if they could set it up to round the corners of the CT. That would get rid of most of the rotten low speed characteristics that the HydroEdge has on my bike. I've seen them true big ass mud boggin tires on their rig. Maybe if they could set it up to cut at an angle??
Maybe a future project but very soon the Avon is going back on the '99. I've been farting around too long & I want to get the '99 back on the road so I can do some maintenence on the '97.   

[X Ring]

Same reason I went with a 65 series.  I'm running the Toyo Proxes TPT in 205/65R16.  It's an all season H rated performance touring tire.  I've got plenty of room on my 97 Tourer.  In fact I can drop an 8mm allen wrench between the sidewall and swingarm. 

From what I have seen the 97s have a little more clearance.  I think it's cause the guys welding the swingarms were paying strict attention to their jigs as the model was new.  They seemed to pay less attention as the model years progressed.  Some Valks I have seen have maybe a credit card clearance.  I decided to go with a 205/60R16 Falken 512 for my I/S to make sure I had enough clearance cause of the added weight.

Marty   

[bigdog99]

i read a darkside article, not from here, long before i went to the car tire. i really cant remember where i read it, but i can say this much.
after reading the article and of what to expect, when i had the ct on and went for the first ride i looked for the issues well laid out. i encountered all of the unexpected's in just 2 miles from the house. i actually went into the worms, cornered real slow and did all of the new to the rider causes for the butt to pucker.
i will also say knowing that i read the article and experienced them right off, it was as if i had rode on one for a long time. the defense mechanism's were natural right out of the box. i did not go to the CT because everyone else was, i actually went before i was a member here. i would have gone with a different size and done the nut mod, but i would have still gone with the tire. the major reason i went with the ct was when i went to the "wing ding" i stopped and had Dunlop check my tires. i asked them why the tire went flat in the center so early on in its mileage. and when they told me that the tire was not the issue, i requested poiltely to put my bike down on the ground. i tried everything to get longer mileage on a mt but couldnt. i was skeptical when i heard of the ct on a bike, i had only seen 1 other on a VTX. when i made up my mind to go to it, i couldnt believe it. i have 3 times the mileage on a ct than i ever got on a mc. i do a lot of straight-a-ways, that may be one reason. but i will say that in the curves i have grown to be as confident with this tire as i was on an mt. i believe that in the -p- gravel it may give me more stability.
i do believe this is my stink of it, but for me also i believe it is the way to go.

i also believe that this is only one of many things we all dont agree on. i believe we all agree that a Valkyrie is a fantastic machine. so like all the bling, all the different colors, black still being the fastest, use whatever tire you want. if it gets you from point A to point B, you made it. just ride safe and wave when you see me go by.

[SANDMAN5]

I guess I got a different take from his review. I was ready to go darkside when the times comes, but not now, I see zero upsides.

Yeah, I know what you mean;
Lower cost
Much more tread life
Better braking
Better wet weather traction
More load capacity
More 'wow' factor
More puncture resistance

I'm sorry....what were you saying about 'zero upsides'? ???

[Walküre]

I said repeatedly on my review, that a car tire "may be suitable for you, depending on your circumstances."  Specifically, long slab rides, good pavement riding, wet weather.  Especially these conditions together with cost savings.

All I'm saying is, be honest about it, especially when speaking to those who haven't tried it.  Even those who deny bad handling with a CT know they are having to compensate for the tire's behavior.  Might be automatic for them by now if they've done it long enough - but it's not automatic to someone who has never had the CT before.

Well, I now have about 400 miles on my CT - General Tire Altimax. 42# pressure. All of them on a lousy, tar-snake filled asphalt road. Very crowned in places. Well, except for the 2 miles on a soft dirt/gravel road, AFTER the rains...

I was aware of all the "shortcomings" attributed to the car tire. Yeah, it was a little "different" the first 50 miles or so, but GOOD different, in my opinion. I do have to RIDE the motorcycle, now, not just be on top of it. I personally like the feel, and wasn't sure I would. Half a million miles on bikes, of ALL kinds, and it's FUN again! I don't feel like the tire is dangerous at all, but as has been said, I do have to stay alert. Nothing wrong with being alert on a motorcycle! And not long after the 50 miles, it WAS automatic, at least for me. Like I had ridden a CT from day one. Different isn't always bad, sometimes it's just "different"...

Now, the 2 miles on the soft dirt/gravel road are another story!! I will do EVERYthing I can, to avoid that again. The bike was ALL over the road, and I didn't feel like I was in good control of it, at all. Very uneasy feeling. Didn't matter if I went as slow as possible, or as fast as I dared. Nope, no more roads like that! But, I've been uneasy with a motorcycle tire, on my Wing, before on the same type of road.

I'll stick with my C/T, thanks.

[2qmedic]

Marty, the RPM increase is a deal breaker for me. I was thinking of taking a 205-65 to a local shop that has a tire shaving machine to see if they could set it up to round the corners of the CT.

I think that some one on the board was running a 195-55 tire that he had found and said it handled much more like a MC. But this would be a higher rmp tire.
195-55 = 24.5" x 7.9" = 825 rpm
205-60 = 25.6" x 8.2" = 785 rpm (stock height)
205-65 = 26.5" x 8.2" = 761 rpm (0.45" higher axle, approx 0.22" higher seat)

When I installed my GYTT I had the tire trued and edges rounded. He was reluctant to go too far with it. He used to round off tires for Harley riders years ago and knew what he was doing. I would have taken the out board 1 1/2" and rounded it. He just did the out board 1/2" to knock of the corner. I personally think the 1/2" did not do anything and was not nearly enough.

[Ricky-D]

Now, the 2 miles on the soft dirt/gravel road are another story!! I will do EVERYthing I can, to avoid that again. The bike was ALL over the road, and I didn't feel like I was in good control of it, at all. Very uneasy feeling. Didn't matter if I went as slow as possible, or as fast as I dared. Nope, no more roads like that! But, I've been uneasy with a motorcycle tire, on my Wing, before on the same type of road.

It would be just as bad with a m/c tire, maybe even worse. The larger footprint of the c/t will at least give some buoyancy in the soft dirt/sand for the rear and it's usually the front that wants to "plow" besides!

***

[2qmedic]

Yep, I have approx 150 yards of dirt (sand when it's really dry) into my drive way.
The car tire helps pull the bike right along, doesn't dig into the dirt/sand like the MC tire would.
The car tire wobbles with the ruts on the drive.
It's tic for tac.
I still prefer the CT any day.

[Tropic traveler]

Marty, the RPM increase is a deal breaker for me. I was thinking of taking a 205-65 to a local shop that has a tire shaving machine to see if they could set it up to round the corners of the CT.

I think that some one on the board was running a 195-55 tire that he had found and said it handled much more like a MC. But this would be a higher rmp tire.
195-55 = 24.5" x 7.9" = 825 rpm
205-60 = 25.6" x 8.2" = 785 rpm (stock height)
205-65 = 26.5" x 8.2" = 761 rpm (0.45" higher axle, approx 0.22" higher seat)

When I installed my GYTT I had the tire trued and edges rounded. He was reluctant to go too far with it. He used to round off tires for Harley riders years ago and knew what he was doing. I would have taken the out board 1 1/2" and rounded it. He just did the out board 1/2" to knock of the corner. I personally think the 1/2" did not do anything and was not nearly enough.

Hey Charles, how you been doing??
Is your tire guy still around? I may pick up another 205/65 & mount it up on a car rim for your guy to cut down for me. I really would like to try it.
I forgot to mention in my earlier posts that one of the biggest reasons I want to go back to a MT is to keep all 3 of our bikes handling the same. I want Kim to be able to hop on any of our Valks & have the same feel. She is not as experienced as most riders & I'm pretty sure it would be hard for her to adapt to.
Also gotta give the thumbs up to the CT for "off-road" traction. The Valk is VERY cumbersome in the dirt, VERY bad with a MT so any help is appreciated in the sand!

[2qmedic]

Been doing good,
I'll stop by where I purchased the tire and had it trued and see if he is still there.
BTW, I'll be at Silver River State park in June for several days, need to do lunch.

[Mildew]

The car tire is also less air pressure sensitive than the m/c tire. I check my front often but my rear, maybe once a week and it might be a pound difference which doesn't affect the wear one pound would do on a m/c tire. This is just info I'm passing along for someone thinking about the switch.