CT tread profile

[pegscraper]

Here's an interesting pic that I spliced together showing the tread profile of my old worn out Avon vs. the Federal SS657. Each tire here is mounted and inflated to show its actual profile. Obviously I couldn't have both of them on the same rim at the same time, thus the splice. I may have gotten the scale of the Federal a hair smaller than that of the Avon, but they're pretty close. The new Federal is more rounded than the old worn out Avon. Of course the Avon would be more rounded when it was new. So it looks like the tread profile of the Federal would about match the profile of the Avon when it was about half worn down. It looks to me like a CT is not too square to use and is plenty rounded enough to have a good contact patch in a corner.

[Squeeze]

That's an interesting Shot

[SaltyDawg]

Only problem is the CT is not designed to be ridden on the side, the Avon is.

[greg_in_london]

Advantage is that the c/t is designed to take sideways cornering loads whereas the avon isn't - so the c/t remains much more interesting for bikes and sidecars. Shame I can't get a 145x16...

[PBJ]

Advantage is that the c/t is designed to take sideways cornering loads whereas the avon isn't - so the c/t remains much more interesting for bikes and sidecars. Shame I can't get a 145x16...

 

I agree the more i see them the more i think thats the way to go with my side car too.

[thebighop]

Only problem is the CT is not designed to be ridden on the side, the Avon is.

 

 

I have seen several videos that have the camera mounted so as to record the action right where the rubber meets the road...

The vids show the tire going through it's paces, and nowhere have I seen where the tire is being ridden on it's side.

Most CT's have a tread pattern the wraps around the 'edges' of the tire. When in motion, the sidewalls flex enough to allow the tire to stay on it footprint, and never go beyond the edge of the tread.

Most MT's are harder and don't have the sidewall flex a CT does, so it has no choice but to roll on it's sides.

I can lay my RSV over and scrape the pegs and the CT never comes close to losing it's grip, where as trying the same amount of lean with EliteIII's or Metzlers, they broke loose and slid on me....

Actually, as Greg points out, CT's are designed to be ridden somewhat on the sides, because there is no way to keep them flat footed in a high speed curve of sharp cornering maneuver..

I know that some of the things we say about how the CT's handle are unbelievable...but I don't need to make up stories to convince anyone...all you need to do is follow someone with a CT and see for yourself...

[MAINEAC]

Velly Interesting.... I'll have to try that when I get around to swapping my P.O.S. Avon with my Kumho Powerstar.

[flb_78]

Only problem is the CT is not designed to be ridden on the side, the Avon is.

 

I can drag my highway pegs on the road now and have yet to ride on the "side" of the tire.

[BradT]

Only problem is the CT is not designed to be ridden on the side, the Avon is.

 

Not too but ever see some CT tires underinflated on the roads, the sidewalls seem to take a lot of abuse, expecially a underinflated front tire. You can see the wear marks on the side of the tire

 

Brad

Edited July 19, 2008 by BradT

[SaltyDawg]

To each his own. It's obvious to me that you all are smarter than the engineers who design tires.

[flb_78]

To each his own. It's obvious to me that you all are smarter than the engineers who design tires.

 

Why thank you!!

[thebighop]

To each his own. It's obvious to me that you all are smarter than the engineers who design tires.

 

I might just have to agree with that notion...seeing as how I worked with engineers for some 32 years before retiring, and on more than one occasion was able to point out flaws in their engineering skills.

 

I don't claim to be an authority on car tires and the engineering there of, but I am well versed on first hand experience...and thus far, the experience has been nothing short of grand...

 

I can think of several products on the market that are used for a purpose other than what they were engineered for....

Could it be possible that a car tire, while engineered for the exclusive use on an automobile, could also work even better on a motorcycle? The possibilities are endless..

 

And what about something like the Boss Hoss? The motor was engineered to power an automobile, but it found it's way into a motorcycle frame. Should it labeled as unsafe along with the use of a CT, because the appliances were engineered for something else?

 

I can understand if you are reluctant to run a CT...I go through a similar thought process when it comes to okra...I hate it, but I have never tasted it....so I don't recommend eating it to anyone.

Who knows, a CT on your bike and my mouth full of okra might just change the opinion of the world on those two subjects...

[flb_78]

I can understand if you are reluctant to run a CT...I go through a similar thought process when it comes to okra...I hate it, but I have never tasted it....so I don't recommend eating it to anyone.

Who knows, a CT on your bike and my mouth full of okra might just change the opinion of the world on those two subjects...

 

Fried Okra rocks!!!

 

http://www.roadfood.com/recipephotos/mini_60.jpg

[greg_in_london]

To each his own. It's obvious to me that you all are smarter than the engineers who design tires.

 

I like to think I'm smarter than lots of people, but then I've got a degree in mechanical engineering and am a teacher now - if I don't have confidence in my own abilities I'd have to give up.

 

The simple facts are that a heavily loaded motocrycle (like mine - with a sidecar and 300kg trailer) is pushing the design limits of existing m/c tyres. Secondly, almost all design is a compromise between a number of factors and some requirements for a product will not apply when you use them. (I don't do 150mph).

[Most motorcycle manufacturers say don't fit a sidecar, full stop, not because you can't do it, but because some people could do it wrong.]

 

If existing products don't meet your needs, you either have to stop (or change) what you are doing, or find something else that will. On a solo, I don't believe that a car tyre will perform as well as a good motorcycle tyre, but for some people that won't matter.

 

(I know some have claimed that certain riders with car tyres could show anyone else a clean pair of heels on the twisty bits - well if that's a challenge, come on over and I'll take you along some nice local roads - except I don't think it was meant as a challenge, but if you're here, drop me a line anyway.)

 

Motorcycle tyres aren't designed for what I do, but they work. If you learn to ride within your vehicle's lmits then you will be safer and possibly ride faster too.

[pegscraper]

I've worked with engineers before myself in a manufacturing environment, and I will say that just because a guy has the title and position and pay of "engineer", has no bearing at all on what he actually knows. A couple of them were very good, many of them were mediocre, better at brown nosing than actually working, and for a couple of them it was clear that their being there had nothing whatsoever to do with their qualifications. Assuming that sound engineering decisions were made in the first place, then they have to get past the bean counters. Bean counters can turn good engineering decisions into bad ones. Some folks put too much faith in engineering and factory decisions. To blindly say that the factory must have done something a certain way for a reason, to assume that they made the best possible decision, and to think that no improvement can possibly ever be made, is very lousy logic and reasoning.

[hig4s]

I've worked with engineers before myself in a manufacturing environment, and I will say that just because a guy has the title and position and pay of "engineer", has no bearing at all on what he actually knows. A couple of them were very good, many of them were mediocre, better at brown nosing than actually working, and for a couple of them it was clear that their being there had nothing whatsoever to do with their qualifications. Assuming that sound engineering decisions were made in the first place, then they have to get past the bean counters. Bean counters can turn good engineering decisions into bad ones. Some folks put too much faith in engineering and factory decisions. To blindly say that the factory must have done something a certain way for a reason, to assume that they made the best possible decision, and to think that no improvement can possibly ever be made, is very lousy logic and reasoning.

 

++,,

 

good example, one of the best engineered minivans over the last 20 years was the Ford Aerostar, but by the time is was actually produced it was one of the least dependable and worst constructed.

[AmnChode]

When I hear that something wasn't designed for something, so you shouldn't use it as such....I remember that Viagra was never "designed" to be a treatment of erectile dysfunction, but as a treatment for pulmonary arterial hypertension...ie, it was made to treat high blood pressure but it made all the guys get a little stiff in the pants...viola, new purpose...hehehe

[PBJ]

Tire design hasn't been the job of ONE engineer or one company, or one circumstance. It is a process of design refinement based on purpose and need. Motorcycle tires as they exist today have evolved differently from car tires due to the fact that bike roll over onto the side of the tie as they turn. The more rounded profile put a larger foot preint to the ground in a turn.

 

Of course a c/t thats been deflated to be softer will warp to the condition exerted on it in a turn but a c/t side wall has been constructed to be more flexible to bend to the forces of a car in a turn Bike tires are firm to hold the weight. Engineers through road and race testing have proven the advantages.

 

Of course as bike tires get wider to accommidate Custom cruisers the tire design becomes flatter and more like a c/t. So the logical conclusion of C/T advocates that they are interchangable isn't outlandish.

 

If it was simple width and cost they'd all be making and excellent point. Still its becomes a bit obvious that there are coprimises to C/T use . Theres the danger that comes when some C/t 's have to be overinflated to seat the bead. This has been discussed in the Darkside thread and seeme to show that SOME tires my be damaged by broken cords in the tire compromising their strength and reliability

 

The other thing its that the tires take longer to "break in" due to facts of design and that members who use the c/t adapt to the tire as oppose to it being a simple switch' These are all the facts that I've seen on the Darkside thread.

 

Its comes down to choice after that but the engineering process has been an evolution which is why one tire has become two. Are they interchangaable? I'll believe it when i start seeing darksiders putting motorcycle tires on their car! LOL!

[greg_in_london]

A lot of (well, some) old sports cars with large wire rims used motorcycle tyres - something cheap with chunky tread or Avon SM11 3.25x19" or Avon sidecar triple duty.

 

I don't know that there's an equivalent car tyre in that size, but I understand that the bike tyres seem to work.

[pegscraper]

More faulty logic. I don't think anybody has said anything about them being interchangeable. A MT being inappropriate for a car doesn't make a CT inappropriate for a bike. Just because something is true going in one direction doesn't mean it will be true going the other direction. You might use either a spoon or a fork to eat a bowl of rice, but you wouldn't use a fork to eat a bowl of soup. All cumulous clouds are still clouds, but not all clouds are cumulous.

[PBJ]

Yes that is true on older cars a like an MGA for instance a bike tire of the older variety would work. But that was also back when car tires and bike tires wwere just tirs before the evolution of tires began to separarte the two.

 

Also on a sidecar, as I've stated before, the flatter profile of a c/t would best.

 

 

But Pegscraper, faulty logic?! Car tires and bike tires are also both Tires But, a car tire IS NOT a bike tire. As you said.

 

Which doesn't matter really if in your mind your happy with the compromises you or any other c/t user makes for a c/t then thats all thats really important.

 

I do have one last thought though. One of the stated advantages of the c/t beside longer wear and cost is the added braking factor the c/t gives a bike. But 60% of a bikes braking power is in the front tire because thats where the weight transfers during braking. Isn't there a chance that a rider with a c/t might rely too heavily on that presumptive better braking using the foot brake more readily despite the weight transfer of a quick stop?