Time for a new rear tire, car tire or bike tire ?

[1olbull]

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but logic and reason are not Science.
Science uses logic and reason, it also uses imagination.
Logic and reason do not yield scientific results.
Experimentation yields scientific results.
If you need a lesson, I have the time.
Logic and reason are conjecture. You start with some premises, that may or may not be true, and go from there.
A 'fact' is an actual event.
It is a 'fact' that dark siders have ridden millions of miles with no tire failures.

"Science uses logic and reason, it also uses imagination. Logic and reason do not yield scientific results.
Experimentation yields scientific results."
EXACTLY! Now where is the experimentation that yields the scientific results that support a CT is better than a MCT?

 

[BehereNow]

"Science uses logic and reason, it also uses imagination. Logic and reason do not yield scientific results.
Experimentation yields scientific results."
EXACTLY! Now where is the experimentation that yields the scientific results that support a CT is better than a MCT?

The anecdotal evidence is overwhelming. Anecdotal is not scientific, but neither is logic and reasoning.
Which is the more convincing scientific evidence?
Anecdotal, million of miles. Strong circumstantial, but lacking scientific validity.
ZERO anecdotal, zero scientific to the contrary.

No science says CT not good. Zero.
No anecdotal says CT not good, creates failure. Minor opinion of 'feels squirrely', no failures.

On the flip side, a staggering amount of anecdotal evidence, with Zero failure.

[1) "The scientific method has, in recent decades, allowed the use of computer models, with varying degrees of success. The Scientific method requires actual, real world, experimentation, when it is possible.
"Very true, except I would say always rather than if possible. ]
The Scientific Method has accepted computer modeling since the 1980's.
Why you are not aware of this is beyond me.
I can only assume that concerning such things your knowledge is lacking.

 

[1olbull]

The anecdotal evidence is overwhelming. Anecdotal is not scientific, but neither is logic and reasoning.
Which is the more convincing scientific evidence?
Anecdotal, million of miles. Strong circumstantial, but lacking scientific validity.
ZERO anecdotal, zero scientific to the contrary.

No science says CT not good. Zero.
No anecdotal says CT not good, creates failure. Minor opinion of 'feels squirrely', no failures.

On the flip side, a staggering amount of anecdotal evidence, with Zero failure.

[1) "The scientific method has, in recent decades, allowed the use of computer models, with varying degrees of success. The Scientific method requires actual, real world, experimentation, when it is possible.
"Very true, except I would say always rather than if possible. ]
The Scientific Method has accepted computer modeling since the 1980's.
Why you are not aware of this is beyond me.
I can only assume that concerning such things your knowledge is lacking.

$hit! I need to go, but your arguments are so circular and ridiculous, I am caught in the trap to respond.
The scientific proof has been done and the resultant is the tires designed and used on motors today!!!
There is NONE to the contrary and most definitely NONE supporting a CT is better on a motorcycle!!!
Do you even READ my responses?
I happen to use physics and math based simulation programs on computers. Just where in the comments of mine that you have copied, does it say different?
Oh yes, and for your edification - computer simulation and modeling has been in use since MUCH before the 80's!

 

[IMFASTTOO]

YES I usually get around 10K from my rear MC tires and I do not ride slow But I have a freind that rides with us and he burns his up in around 3k and we call him CRACKHEAD JOHN and he has no idea how to conserve anything he lost his licence drag racing and speeding and hes usually DWUI and thats when hes not in jail and he blew up his Busa running flatout on the Hiway He put a con rod thru the front of the engine YES PHIL knows him well

 

[BehereNow]

$hit! I need to go, but your arguments are so circular and ridiculous, I am caught in the trap to respond.
The scientific proof has been done and the resultant is the tires designed and used on motors today!!!
There is NONE to the contrary and most definitely NONE supporting a CT is better on a motorcycle!!!
Do you even READ my responses?
I happen to use physics and math based simulation programs on computers. Just where in the comments of mine that you have copied, does it say different?
Oh yes, and for your edification - computer simulation and modeling has been in use since MUCH before the 80's!

"In use" is not the same as 'accepted as part of the Scientific method'.
You are the one who said the SM should always require experimentation.

Simulation programs are not replacement for light of day experimentation.

Science (actual science - with computer modeling) - along with mathematics and physics said rogue waves were 'scientifically not possible'.
There was even a noted explorer/scientist - Ernest Shackleton who experienced such an event, 1916.
For 80 more years his account of a factual event was denied, by science - actual science, following the scientific method - using physics and computer modeling once it was accepted.
Then one day, science itself witnessed such an event - with test instruments, etc, and they had to rewrite the textbooks.

I don't deny that computer models support what you seem to be saying, although you are not specific.
Yet you deny the validity of million of miles demonstrating the contrary.

This demonstrates your lack of logic:
"How many miles have been driven by folks NOT wearing seatbelts who were not injured? Does this mean the use of seatbelts is not safer? Does this mean seatbelts are a conspiracy? Again you refuse to understand that your opinion and those of anyone else, including myself, are meaningless if not supported by factual data. "


The point is, many not wearing seat belts, were injured.
If no one were injured in a car wreck, seat belt or not, you have no case to require seat belts
If we are to accept your analogy, you could show us the thousands of failures of CT.
No such evidence exists.
Your "factual data" is nothing but a social construct, not demonstrated in the real world.
My anecdotal data is real world.
There is ample opportunity to step out of the laboratory and show the failure of CT, yet, no one, ever, has done this.

Ride safe, shiny side up.

 

[TriumPhil]

Where I come from science means experimentation, which is another way of saying real world experience.
My science - that would be millions of miles of DS usage, from hundreds/thousands of users - on virtually every power cruiser produced, including BMW - says your science is lacking, insufficient, bogus.

An interesting excerpt that highlights your seemingly total lack of understanding the definition of science, which, FYI, in modern times is derived from and defined through the implementation of the scientific method, and which, BTW, your odd definition of what you call "my science" is actually only 20-25% of what constitutes the scientific method. You leave out some pertinent little components of the methodology that yields actual scientific fact or theory such as hypothesis formulation, testing, validation and providing or replicating reproduceable results from the conclusion(s) you've drawn by said methodology. That's actually what makes science fact, not this one-off, cockamamie, revisionist concept that you ludicrously claim to be science.

 

[dave64]

Do you have to be a complete nutter with too much time on your hands to use a car tyre on a motorcycle or is there no rules

 

[HansO]

Do you have to be a complete nutter with too much time on your hands to use a car tyre on a motorcycle or is there no rules

Just a Nutter will do you don't have to be Complete

 

[1olbull]

"In use" is not the same as 'accepted as part of the Scientific method'.
You are the one who said the SM should always require experimentation.

Simulation programs are not replacement for light of day experimentation.

Science (actual science - with computer modeling) - along with mathematics and physics said rogue waves were 'scientifically not possible'.
There was even a noted explorer/scientist - Ernest Shackleton who experienced such an event, 1916.
For 80 more years his account of a factual event was denied, by science - actual science, following the scientific method - using physics and computer modeling once it was accepted.
Then one day, science itself witnessed such an event - with test instruments, etc, and they had to rewrite the textbooks.
So just how does this pertain to a car tire on a MC?

I don't deny that computer models support what you seem to be saying, although you are not specific.
Yet you deny the validity of million of miles demonstrating the contrary.
DO you see car tires on the race tracks? What tires do ALL performance MCs use?
This is the result of engineering AND testing! Your "millions of miles ridden" is meaningless unless you can show the parameters of the "tests" skill of the riders and if the motors using these CTs were pushed to the same capabilities as those tests with MC tires.

This demonstrates your lack of logic:
"How many miles have been driven by folks NOT wearing seatbelts who were not injured? Does this mean the use of seatbelts is not safer? Does this mean seatbelts are a conspiracy? Again you refuse to understand that your opinion and those of anyone else, including myself, are meaningless if not supported by factual data. "
I shall simply let these fruitless waste of my time and effort exchanges with you speak for themselves!

The point is, many not wearing seat belts, were injured.
If no one were injured in a car wreck, seat belt or not, you have no case to require seat belts
If we are to accept your analogy, you could show us the thousands of failures of CT.
No such evidence exists.
Your "factual data" is nothing but a social construct, not demonstrated in the real world.
My anecdotal data is real world.
Unbelievable!

There is ample opportunity to step out of the laboratory and show the failure of CT, yet, no one, ever, has done this.
I don't have to because the motorcycle tire has already been designed AND TESTED in order to produce the BEST performance for a motorcycle!

Ride safe, shiny side up.

Sometimes I fall because I push the limits too far.
Pretty sure I'd fall more if I ran a car tire.

I quit!
Surely you are a fine person I'd enjoy meeting; however, you are NOT a man grounded in the laws of physics or in science. I find your unfounded circular arguments too exasperating to continue.
Please DO NOT put words in my mouth and misstate what I have written!
And you have not responded regarding ONE thing a CT does better, nor have you given ANY reason for your claims.
That some successfully use CTs is not a problem or in question. That you and some others FALSELY claim their superiority is the problem!

 

[1olbull]

what do ya think the average is on a typical R3 rear MT..6 or 7 thousand?..just wondering.

Depends how hard you ride, weight, burn outs?
I'd say most get 7 to 8K. The more adventurous perhaps 5 to 7K.
I got nearly 8K on my last Excedra Max and was ELATED!