yeah really Dave...who gots 19K on those tires???And what might those be? :roll:
yeah really Dave...who gots 19K on those tires???And what might those be? :roll:
Yes, you do. Even on Florida roads. I hope to swap lies with you guys at CampStoc.no waste...just fun banter...I ride pretty good right? LOL..I think I can keep up with a cruiser...(I've got my beer muscles on!!!):
Awesome Dave!! Really look forward to seeing you again!!!Yes, you do. Even on Florida roads. I hope to swap lies with you guys at CampStoc.
Folks that you have to wait for at the end of the good road.yeah really Dave...who gots 19K on those tires???
:crackup :crackup :crackupI guarantee you would be hard pressed to keep up with me when I had my VTX 1800C with a GY Triple Tread 205-60-16.
Spencer, not flaming. But I notice that the rain grooves on that tire are diagonal, angled all to the same side of the tire...do you feel the bike tending to slip out to one side a bit more than the other? How about during heavy rain?Yup thats a V rated Dunlop Sport 3000A 195/55R 16 run flat on my GL so flame on :flame
I'm not really surprised, as I spotted your "way to many MX bikes to list" in your sig. I still did enjoy the entertaining imagery of your statement though, it would make a good cartoon big ol' car tire and all : I could see Todd?s expression inside his helmet as he closed in now, with one eyebrow arched like crazy Jack Nicholson...FWIW I also know where the hero nuts are on my ST, and know where they were on my VTX - what was left of them.
I'd be curious to know what you consider proof? The idea that you could run a "DOT approved" motorcycle tire on an 18-wheeler and not have an insurance coverage problem seems slightly unlikely...An insurance carrier cannot dictate what equipment you use on your bike, as long as it is DOT approved for road use, the correct size weight and speed rating they cannot refuse a claim. This has been tested and proven regarding CT usage.
Oh, dear, it appears that I have committed the heinous crime of the poor analogy! Please forgive me! :bow1:
You know what I mean, he knows what I mean, and the insurance companies' lawyers know what I mean. ( )
Ciao,
The law in question is the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975 (15USC2302), and the only thing it covers is manufacturers' warranty coverage. If you had a rear wheel failure that could be proven to be a result of using a tire that didn't meet spec, the manufacturer would be well within its rights to deny the claim.We have laws in this country that prevent manufacturers from dictating that we must use certain product for maintenance or repair. ... This also covers what is legal for an insurance company to base refusal of a claim.
The sticky point is whether or not DOT approval of a tire for passenger car or light truck service (which is what the "P" or "LT" in the size designator implies) qualifies it for service in an application that calls for a motorcycle ("M/C") tire. I wasn't able to find anything on NHTSA's web site that says for sure, but my guess would be that it doesn't. The compliance test for motorcycle tires is more stringent than it is for car tires: 100% of rated load vs. 85% and, IIRC, the tire has to be run longer at a higher speed.We are legally permitted to have the freedom to modify our vehicles within the rules and regulations set by the DOT.
Oh, look: my good friend/stalker Pablo offering his support! :capwin:Black Magic said:Meybe crime is trying to making clever point without having one.
Precedent? Are you sure--in a District Court? Which District? Was a decision published? The reason I ask is that people frequently refer to court decisions improperly, and when the legal claim being made goes against what I would expect to see based on my experience, alarm bells go off.Spencer said:Proof is that the precedent has been set in federal court. Insurance companies have tried to refuse claims and lost every time.