Can-Am's position on tires

[ButterSmooth]

I understand that there is overwhelming support for the use of automotive tires on Spyders. What's less clear to me is why Can-Am is adamant about using only tires that they approve. I certainly can see the liability concerns of Can-Am in this matter, but if car tires improve handling and thus reduce risks, doesn't that also ease liability issues for Can-Am? What I really want to understand are the technical reasons Can-Am holds their position, since I've never seen them mentioned.

 

[bikerbillone]

Smooth, that is a dang good question, so I stay tuned. I know that Smoke on You Tube has been doing this mechanic biz for 25 years and he is a staunch supporter of Kenda's. And then there are those 'old timers' on this forum that know a lot about Spyders from actual miles of riding experience that trash the Kenda's, so go figure. I lean toward the car tires, but jury still out for me 'cause I used them on my GW. My problem is using a CT on the rear of my RTL, 'cause I'm not capable of pulling the wheel but when it time comes, I will see if I can get my tech to install one if I bring the tire his shop. If anyone wonders why I'm not capable, I'm 87 and I'm not pulling a rear wheel no matter how easy some think it is.

 

[Gwolf]

I don't think it has anything to do with handling or safety. I believe it is a legal issue because of a few words on the sidewall.

 

[Fatcycledaddy]

I understand that there is overwhelming support for the use of automotive tires on Spyders. What's less clear to me is why Can-Am is adamant about using only tires that they approve. I certainly can see the liability concerns of Can-Am in this matter, but if car tires improve handling and thus reduce risks, doesn't that also ease liability issues for Can-Am? What I really want to understand are the technical reasons Can-Am holds their position, since I've never seen them mentioned.

I wonder how much of it is commitment to a contract.
The Kenda tires are made for a car type rim, yet they will not work on a car because of the low ply sidewall, tread, and load carrying capability.
So what else can they be used on?
What was spent by Kenda to develop the tire, then they have to have enough sales to suffice the continued production of the tire.
So what kind of long term contract did BRP sign to get the tires made, and what type of agreement do they have to honor to fulfill that contract?
Just a thought.

 

[jcthorne]

It has nothing to do with technical aspects of the tire and everything to do with the flow of money.

 

[BajaRon]

I don't think it has anything to do with handling or safety. I believe it is a legal issue because of a few words on the sidewall.

The words on the sidewall have nothing to do with the Spyder. And everything to do with being able to sell a very lightweight, non car worthy car tire. The wording on the sidewall is there specifically to prevent someone unknowingly having them mounted and run on a car. This could very well end in catastrophic failure. And I don't think it would take very long.

An appropriate car tire is safer, better constructed and, many times, less expensive. I cannot fathom a tire knowledgeable person having a problem with swapping the poorly constructed Kendas for a much better car tire. But to each his own.

 

[ButterSmooth]

It has nothing to do with technical aspects of the tire and everything to do with the flow of money.

That may well be true, but in the back of my mind is 1963 and Nader's book, "Unsafe at any speed". The root of the problem with the old swing axle Corvairs was running tubeless tires below the recommended pressure. Side loads would tear the bead away from the rim resulting in an 'air out'. That of course led to a complete loss of control. Because automotive tires are designed with a much higher load rating than the Spyder requires, they are frequently run at a much reduced pressure, to provide the required compliance for both comfort and contact patch. I can't help but wonder if we aren't entering the same 'air out' territory that plagued GM.

 

[BajaRon]

That may well be true, but in the back of my mind is 1963 and Nader's book, "Unsafe at any speed". The root of the problem with the old swing axle Corvairs was running tubeless tires below the recommended pressure. Side loads would tear the bead away from the rim resulting in an 'air out'. That of course led to a complete loss of control. Because automotive tires are designed with a much higher load rating than the Spyder requires, they are frequently run at a much reduced pressure, to provide the required compliance for both comfort and contact patch. I can't help but wonder if we aren't entering the same 'air out' territory that plagued GM.

If it were a 'Plague'. I think we'd have heard about it in the (now 12) years that people have been doing it. As far as I know. Other than the few people who have installed inappropriate car tires. There have been zero issues. I know Spyder owners who have put more than 100k on 'Car' tires. As far as any reasonable doubt. I'd say the 'Hazard' issue on this has been put to rest. When considering the number of cord separations, out of round, and ridiculous amounts of weight needed to balance many Kenda tires. I'm surprised there isn't more angst about the OEM tires being a safety hazard.

I am sure that people would be up in arms if these same issues 'Plagued' their car tires.

 

[ButterSmooth]

Corvairs weren't 'plagued' by incidents, there we actually very few. Nader was a political opportunist, but a few people still died as a result. Nader was GM's plague, not the Corvair. Of course, the other things in our favor are the lack of swing axle suspension, which exacerbated the problem and the vast advance of tire technology. I still wonder why Can-Am is so intransigent.

 

[Mikey]

I understand that there is overwhelming support for the use of automotive tires on Spyders. What's less clear to me is why Can-Am is adamant about using only tires that they approve. I certainly can see the liability concerns of Can-Am in this matter, but if car tires improve handling and thus reduce risks, doesn't that also ease liability issues for Can-Am? What I really want to understand are the technical reasons Can-Am holds their position, since I've never seen them mentioned.

In a nut shell, IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY!!!!! And weather you want to go down that rabbit hole!! Myself the next time I need tire, I will be going to the dark side, even if I have to buy two tire irons and break the mothers down by hand!!!:2thumbs:

 

[JayBros]

You can bet your shorts BRP knows there are a ton of us running car tires and yes, we are running lower pressure than they specify for the Crapendas. The problem, in addition to the money they want for the junk tires, is the lawyers won't let them acknowledge, for liability reasons, that it is an acceptable practice. One can run automobile tires at the minimum recommended pressure specified in the operator's guide but the Spyder will not handle as well as with lower pressure.

 

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

It is not a technical issue, and the money aspect is secondary. It's a regulatory issue. Every tire manufactured for sale in the US must comply with the NHTSA regulations for vehicle tires. One of the requirements is the tire manufacturer cannot sell a tire for a particular use unless they have tested and certified it as suitable for that particular use, hence the letter P or LT, meaning Passenger vehicle or Light Truck in the tire designation. The words on the side of the Kenda do mean something. They mean the tire is designed and tested as suitable for use on a Can Am. Same with Slingshots. Suitable for use is why some tires are labeled "Not for highway use" or "Special Trailer".

It's a money issue in that I'll bet most tire companies do not see a sufficiently large market with Spyder owners to justify the cost of certifying their tires for Spyder use, so they don't market them. What we do not know is if there is in the archives of the major tire companies test data or engineering analysis that shows car tires really are not suited for light weight vehicles. Our experience shows CTs work very well, but none of us has the expertise or test data (not usage data) to unequivocally prove that CTs work great for Spyders. And for all we know BRP may have engineering or test data that shows CT are, or are not, ideal for Spyders. And you can be sure when the Spyder was initially being developed it was a lot easier to let Kenda tackle the engineering of tires than for BRP to do it. The big name tire companies probably wouldn't give BRP the time of day let alone seriously discuss providing tires.

 

[askitee]

I understand that there is overwhelming support for the use of automotive tires on Spyders. What's less clear to me is why Can-Am is adamant about using only tires that they approve. I certainly can see the liability concerns of Can-Am in this matter, but if car tires improve handling and thus reduce risks, doesn't that also ease liability issues for Can-Am? What I really want to understand are the technical reasons Can-Am holds their position, since I've never seen them mentioned.

I have always thought that because the Spyder is a Niche product, that very few tyre manufacturers would be interested in making a tyre specific to the Vehicle. I would bet Kenda is the only one willing. I think its more about protecting that arrangement than risk.

It would be hard to fathom the situation where better wet weather grip, better stopping power, better handling would be a liability to Can-Am. My insurers auto engineer feels the same.

If BRP want to prove me wrong or set the record straight publish the data behind their decision for us to review, and have reviewed by those who can provide an informed opinion. Example here in Australia so long as the tyre is equal to or exceeds those specified by the manufacture you are ok

 

[BLUEKNIGHT911]

I don't think it has anything to do with handling or safety. I believe it is a legal issue because of a few words on the sidewall.

I don't think it has Anything LEGAL to do with it ..... WHY ??? ... Harley Davidson puts DUNLOP Auto tires on all their Trikes - AT THE FACTORY ... This is FACT not my opinion ..... Canadian Law may require it, but I don't know Canadian Law .... I would think U.S. DOT regs would rule because Can-Am's are imported and MUST meet DOT requirements ..... Mike :thumbup:

 

[BLUEKNIGHT911]

It is not a technical issue, and the money aspect is secondary. It's a regulatory issue. Every tire manufactured for sale in the US must comply with the NHTSA regulations for vehicle tires. One of the requirements is the tire manufacturer cannot sell a tire for a particular use unless they have tested and certified it as suitable for that particular use, hence the letter P or LT, meaning Passenger vehicle or Light Truck in the tire designation. The words on the side of the Kenda do mean something. They mean the tire is designed and tested as suitable for use on a Can Am. Same with Slingshots. Suitable for use is why some tires are labeled "Not for highway use" or "Special Trailer".

It's a money issue in that I'll bet most tire companies do not see a sufficiently large market with Spyder owners to justify the cost of certifying their tires for Spyder use, so they don't market them. What we do not know is if there is in the archives of the major tire companies test data or engineering analysis that shows car tires really are not suited for light weight vehicles. Our experience shows CTs work very well, but none of us has the expertise or test data (not usage data) to unequivocally prove that CTs work great for Spyders. And for all we know BRP may have engineering or test data that shows CT are, or are not, ideal for Spyders. And you can be sure when the Spyder was initially being developed it was a lot easier to let Kenda tackle the engineering of tires than for BRP to do it. The big name tire companies probably wouldn't give BRP the time of day let alone seriously discuss providing tires.

We've been round and round on this I M S .... question - how does Harley Davidson sell & deliver ALL their Trikes with Dunlop AUTO tire on them ???? ..... Mike :thumbup:

 

[BLUEKNIGHT911]

I wonder how much of it is commitment to a contract.
The Kenda tires are made for a car type rim, yet they will not work on a car because of the low ply sidewall, tread, and load carrying capability.
So what else can they be used on?
What was spent by Kenda to develop the tire, then they have to have enough sales to suffice the continued production of the tire.
So what kind of long term contract did BRP sign to get the tires made, and what type of agreement do they have to honor to fulfill that contract?
Just a thought.

I did a bit of research on this Mandatory Kenda question almost a Decade ago .... In the beginning, before any production Spyders were made Kenda ( which makes so many different types of tires your head will spin ) agreed to make Spyder tires, and they ( imho ) made the proverbial " sweetheart deal " ( did you know Mitt Romney's wife bankrolled the Spyder ) .... NO one other than a Can-Am Spyder dealer can even get or sell " Kenda Spyder tires " ..... ( Not even KENDA product DISTRIBUTORS !!! ) so this is why Kenda can Command such a High price for an inferior product.... I would not be surprised to learn that BRP doesn't pay for the new tires put on at the factory ...... Mike :thumbup:

 

[BLUEKNIGHT911]

The words on the sidewall have nothing to do with the Spyder. And everything to do with being able to sell a very lightweight, non car worthy car tire. The wording on the sidewall is there specifically to prevent someone unknowingly having them mounted and run on a car. This could very well end in catastrophic failure. And I don't think it would take very long.

An appropriate car tire is safer, better constructed and, many times, less expensive. I cannot fathom a tire knowledgeable person having a problem with swapping the poorly constructed Kendas for a much better car tire. But to each his own.

:agree: .... However imho, the most important thing they printed on the sidewall is that the Crapenda ... MUST ... be mounted on a " J " type rim / wheel..... and guess what the OEM BRP wheel is ...................... yup a " J " type wheel ..... Mike :thumbup:

 

[BLUEKNIGHT911]

I have always thought that because the Spyder is a Niche product, that very few tyre manufacturers would be interested in making a tyre specific to the Vehicle. I would bet Kenda is the only one willing. I think its more about protecting that arrangement than risk.

It would be hard to fathom the situation where better wet weather grip, better stopping power, better handling would be a liability to Can-Am. My insurers auto engineer feels the same.

If BRP want to prove me wrong or set the record straight publish the data behind their decision for us to review, and have reviewed by those who can provide an informed opinion. Example here in Australia so long as the tyre is equal to or exceeds those specified by the manufacture you are ok

:agree: .......... annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd BRP isn't going to Reveal anything..... it's not in their best interest, plus the bean counters and lawyers would have heart attacks :gaah:.... Mike :thumbup:

 

[ButterSmooth]

:agree: .......... annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd BRP isn't going to Reveal anything..... it's not in their best interest, plus the bean counters and lawyers would have heart attacks :gaah:.... Mike :thumbup:

Wow Mike, five posts in a row! Did I find a button? Actually it's all very enlightening. I'm leaning heavily to the car tire camp, especially if Can-Am has no technical support for their position.

 

[bikerbillone]

Oh yeah Smooth, me too.