Latest as well as Employed in Ohio upon You yield the First I had the bestir turn a Web. A finished "HO Tyrannise Which Grows" is some-more fondle wanting than a conflicting layouts I am highlighting, burgers? Often employed in Basw ft Arthropod cruise boats.
It was all good.
On my third car tire and needing another, I will certainly stay on the darkside. If dynamic limitations dominate the safety side of the car tire vs. Or am I missing something? You are missing one other point. If motorcycle manufacturers are so carefully matching their products with adequate tires, how come virtually every customer replaces the universally crappy OEM rubber with vastly superior aftermarket motorcycle tires that better suit their riding style and their motorcycle?
Anyone who says different needs to get their head out of �. Sorry Vlad, you are wrong. Ducati uses Diablo Rossos�..
Apples and oranges. Neither Ducati nor Harley are typical. I have yet to read a test where they did not replace OEM tires with something different as soon as they were worn or even sooner.
Man, you hit that one on the head. My HD stock tires lasted like miles. R u , kidding? Next, Rider will try to justify why motorcycle batteries cost more than car batteries, and why most bikes cost as much or more than a car does.
Car tires are great example. Even if it were true. Funny, that most bike reviews put on non stock tires, after a few miles. Helmets are only good for X amount of years, whether you drop it, or not.
Oh wait, if you drop it from over 4 feet, it needs to be replaced. I agree on the cheap OEM tires. But the last one, even though it is a touring model, came with a cheap standard seat, and as indicated, cheap OEM tires. So when I get ready to buy a new bike, those are two things I am going to consider intially.
So pick your poison. I love riding, and will continue to ride. One more comment, or really a question: Tires are too important to try and cut corners, but I am wondering about the possibility of a car tire on the back of a bike, but a motorcycle tire on the front?
Any info would be appreciated. Usually going double dark reference is to putting a rear motorcycle tire on the front.. Even worn to slick on sides before tread wore out in middle. They went the liability route which is justifiable if wimpy.
Went with a Metzler and proceeded to drag my floor pans around just about every corner. If I was ever to start logging serious highway miles I would feel comfortable using a quality car tire if the bead looks up well. Manufacturers compromise. Thats why most people change out oem tires to suit their style. As for oils and filters I have often found oem to be cheaper than the aftermarket, but that just might be where I live.
However oils are usually designed with additives based again on how the manufacturer designed other parts like the clutches and engine tolerances. If you know what you want out of your tires and oil and filters than more power too you. I have worked in manufacturing for 25 years. Dave, I have been riding the darkside on my Yamaha Roadstar for the last 19, miles and love it.
Scientifically, they should never leave the ground�. I know I can ride 90 safely with mine. I have a higher load rating for riding 2 up with full saddlebags and luggage on the pack. I have better stopping power and that makes me feel good on wet or snow covered roads I ride all winter in Wisconsin too.
BTW, I only run a CT on the rear of the bike, and to start another argument, I run a MC rear tire mounted in reverse on the front� also adds more stopping power.
There are established aerodynamic principles that explain exactly why helicopters are able to fly. In fact, every helicopter designer and manufacturer has used those principles to build their machines. It is bumblebees which should not be able to fly, according to now antiquated aerodynamic theory. Thank you for your input on this site!!!!
All that said, the next tire on my scooter will be a car tire and my sport-touring bike will remain on MT. Actual use sure does prove that car tires work. Too much exaggeration! This after I had ridden , miles them and found NO handling problems. Those tires lasted me 18, to 20, miles besides. If someone runs a sportbike they may have a reason to stay with MC tires but they are usually kids and push their luck way too hard. After riding for 51 years I want a tire that lasts not one that helps me take curves at foolish speeds.
After all, I just rode Km of gravel on a scooter with a car tire, so I am not like other people :. No amount of academic discussion, graphs and numbers means anything to those that tried it and liked it. Those scared of their own shadow are just trying to persuade themselves that they are not doing it because of safety concerns.
I can respect that. Everybody has a right to their personal preference. Everybody also has a right to the reasons they they apply to support their preference. Why do car tires on motorcycle rear wheels last longer than motorcycle tires mounted on same.
If you are comparing tires of equivalent speed ratings the following applies: High power-to-weight ratio, speed, size of footprint and other aspects explain why motorcycle tires wear out quicker than car tires.
The design of automotive tires and motorcycle tires are very different. The profile of automotive and motorcycle rims are different with a different bead seating area. An automotive tire will not seat properly on a motorcycle rim, making it more susceptible to problems such as rim slip, which can cause balance problems. Motorcycles are designed specifically with a unique tread profile for leaning over when cornering.
Under emergency or extreme maneuvering conditions, an automotive tire on a motorcycle may not allow the bike to handle as it was intended, which can lead to accident, injury or death. This response is something of a mixture of truth and lie.
You CAN use a car tire on your rear motorcycle wheel. Folks do it all the time. The rest of the answer is something of a mixture. The video above of the sports bike demonstrating handling performance while riding on a car tire should put the issue to rest as to whether cornering abilities are compromised with a car tire.
Obviously they are not. When the rear tire on my Nomad wears out, I will be most likely be replacing it with a car tire. Many other people have similar experience � a vast majority of those who bother to share their experience. What makes them more believable is the fact that they have experience with both. I ran 2 rear hankook tires on. My ST Got 20k out of each, could have stretched to 23k. I would run car tires again, and stop this dark side bs. I am not aware of anyone who has mounted a car tire to the front wheel of their motorcycle.
Do the testing that all the manufacturers refuse to do? Riders who actually TRY it claim differently. After the first rear Metzler ME Marathon motorcycle tire on my Kawasaki Vulcan only lasted miles before wearing out flat in the middle , I researched carefully and decided to try a car tire General Altimax HP on my motorcycle two years ago, which I have ridden with for almost miles now.
They provide better traction because of their softer rubber compound than a motorcycle tire. I challenge Rider magazine to do some thorough investigation of the issue instead of allowing bias to determine the result.
A friend told me the same thing. I followed his Gold Wing with a car tire across West Virginia and observed the opposite. The side wall did not flex enough to keep the tread on the pavement. In every corner it rode up on the edge so that only a narrow strip of rubber was on the road. The more he leaned, the less rubber was on the road. At a stop you could see how the tread was rounded on the edges.
This tread was not designed to be the only point of traction in a curve and was designed to act against cornering forces from the opposite direction. He kept the pressure low enough that I could see the tire deforming over bumps. This added a weave when the bump was in a corner. In spite of this, he claimed it held a steady line. After what I saw, I would never try a car tire on a bike. Bruce, Great observation. After it wore out, he changed back to the motorcycle tire.
Even though he got about 20, miles out of the car tire, he said the trade off of poor handling in the curves bike would not hold a line was not worth the savings.
Most everyone I have seen that runs a car tire, never comes close to riding a bike to its potential. It is just natures way of thinning the herd. Actually� the 1st car tire I ran was a Goodyear TT and it had more of a squared profile and therefore caused increased counter-steer pressure. The 2nd tire current had a more rounded profile and handles very much like a MT.
The bottom line� the CT works, and works well. For those that have concerns about sidewall loads with a car tire on a 1, lbs or les motorcycle, explain this�. For a short time and at low speed, at least. There is not a single moment where I thought an MC tire would perform better, and I rode both back-to-back-to-back on the same bike.
From now on, my only response to naysayers will be to get some first hand experience or shut up. Well, with 10, miles on my 14 inch Bridgestone on the rear of my 09 Burgman, I can report no problems, very little wear, and I suspect at least , more miles of use.
My daily riding is 44 miles mixed secondary and freeway. Darksiding seems to be a bit more popular with us scooter riders. If I were sport riding and touring, I would have stayed with the recommended scooter tire. I have not changed the front from OEM recommendations, although I am on my second front tire. I have not seen anything on Bergman usa website about changing the front tires to an auto type.
There may even be some clearance issues in the front as well.. I call it a story as it produces no real world technical data to prove the claims of car tire use as a safety issue. So, I challenge you and the motorcycle tire manufactures to come up with a motorcycle tire that will give us long tread life, traction and the safety of a MT that you so claim at a reasonable cost.
I also challenge you to take a ride on a Wing with a car tire mounted on it and give a real review of that experience , instead of the typical propaganda the tire manufactures are stuffing down your throat because they are paying your bills. I agree, trikes only use a 3 inch patch , the rest of the tire is wasted. Besides, all trikes have car tires on the rear already. Trikes are not motorcycles in the strict sense of the word they lean the wrong way in corners and they do not use motorcycle tires on back wheels.
Just the right person to agree with this pathetic article. I agree with Frank�I think Rider magazine should do some testing on a GL Goldwing with both a car tire and a motorcycle tire. Reading an article like this from someone that has not even TRIED what they are writing about is basically an insult to people that have logged hundreds of thousands of miles on car tires.
Honestly it is beyond me why this article was allowed to be printed on heresay. I myself am now running a Pirelli run flat on my Goldwing and am loving it!!! The day that those experts on motorcycle tires make a RUN FLAT motorcycle tire�that will be the day a lot of darksiders might think about going back�.
No I just wish that people make an INFORMED decision and comment on a subject they actually experienced for themselves before passing judgement on how unsafe something is.
I have no problem with someone trying a car tire and then deciding it is not for them�where I do have the problem is people with the doom and gloom attitude on something they know nothing about!
I know how it is and the safety of a run flat not to mention the higher load bearing tire. I am happy with my decision to run my car tire. If they test the tires and compare them to the hottest motorcycle tires I can bet they will be very surprised. The way it handles uneven surfaces like highway ruts or pavement seams is a minor inconvenience compared to the other advantages like increased traction, much longer tire life, and smoother ride.
Solid as a rock at high speed, even stable at 70mph on gravel! I have about miles on it so far and not one instance of instability or problems with cornering. It does tend to follow groves in the road at low speeds like coming up to a stop light at times but overall has been a great tire. The thing that sticks in my side are the ones that say you will crash and burn running a CT and have never tried it for themselves.
The automobile tire manufacturers clearly state their tires are not designed for motorcycle use. Perhaps I will do a detailed breakdown of this article later and point out the many flaws, misinformation, out right lies and how about every other sentence is worded in a manner that drips with disdain towards those who choose to run a CT.
You can tell that this writer never checked into darksiding for the intent of giving it an unbiased chance. He had his mind set before he ever started researching. His ungrounded hatred toward it seaps out in almost every sentence. I too spoke out against the use of a car tire on a motorcycle. The article is skewed in that they asked Dunlop Motorcycle Manufacturers what they thought. Of course they would be one sided. Why to prove the Darksiders wrong. Three months latter and I have proved myself wrong.
The tire has a more round profile very simular to the Dunlop D MT. The Michelin stops better, takes curves BETTER than my old MT, has a larger contact patch, is a runflat and can be run with no air, is safer in the event of an air leak, is smoother and does not cup. This article is total crap as is the magazine. This article has not been technically researched, in my opinion. We also have people who are stating facts that they have done it and the results of doing it.
The problem with your theory is that certain car tires actually work very well on big touring bikes like the Gold Wing or Electra Glide. They work so well that you can take them to a track day and fly around corners raising sparks.
Check YouTube and see for yourself. They make tires for the manufacturers of the motorcycles so they have a contract. The quality is subpar, the handling is terrible and the amount of mileage I get is about I agree with the other readers here you should do some testing! The worst MC tire ever made! I read this article with much enthusiasm because I have a co-worker that runs a car tire on the back of his highly modified Triumph Rocket III.
Everything he has said about running the car tire seems to fit right in with what the article states. Very interesting stuff!
In regards to insurance coverage, if my Triumph and BMW call for Metzlers and I use Dunlops of the same size and ratings because of cost and possible mileage gains, am I also screwed in the event of an accident?
I switched to a car tire rear on my Rocket and after a short learning curve am quite happy with it. It does handle differently because it is quite wide but two up it is just as flickable as with the old Metz, which was fubar at miles. I have 10, on the CT with no discernable wear or problems�and it cost a hundo mounted.
Since when does Rider magazine write articles for the sole purpose of mocking a large group of riders because of their equipment preference. The author was intent on insulting this group rather than providing any actual test data or trying to understand why car tires on motorcycles has become so popular. The author says he has never tried a car tire, so how would he be qualified to make a judgement.
This was simply an article about his opinion, not fact. As a result, this is one long time subscriber who will not renew. Roadrunner is a far superior magazine with great touring articles and downloadable GPS tracks.
Agreed, complete opinion piece. I did over a year of research prior to going to the Dark side. Hey, check this out, too- There are still many MC tire blowouts, delaminations, and general tire failures. Can any of you remember the last time you had a car tire fail you from manufacturing defects?
The overwhelming majority of car tire failures are from road hazards, potholes, nails, screws, gashes from debris on the road, or significant others potentially tearing them open with a kitchen knife! They also fail occasionally due to dry rot.
Their tread surface wears out long before the rubber compounds begin to deteriorate. Simply go on Youtube and search for video of darksiding motorcycles. I have contacted my insurance, and been informed that if the tire is DOT legal, there is no problem with coverage. Eric Trow, stop the fear-mongering! However, if you are considering it, there are a ton of resources out there for your education. Utilize that prior to making your decision.
There is no research supporting or debunking this. That tire changes geometry based on load and rotational speed, I am concerned with that effect on an emergency brake in a hard corner.
I will stick to motorcycle tires but to each his own, my real concern is that the people I ride with will maintain their third party liability. Good to hear that your insurance company is ok with it, who insures you? Just so I can pass it on to the car tire riders in my group. If the manufacturers are designing their machines from the tyres up, then they should make sure the tires that they are selecting are able to carry the loads that their machines are required to carry.
I looked at this article hoping that it would provide balance, and found it full of opinions, hear-say, and advertising-speak that does nothing for the reputation of the author or the magazine. Grow up, or give up! There is no room for articles of this poor quality, content, or just plain annoyance on what should be a serious discussion with both sides plainly put, backed up by real world experience. I would suggest you give up your day job, and ride some to get some knowledge before you write again.
Very good safety point, Len. This includes everything you put on or in the bike. So I have to make the decision to ignore the load limit of the bike if I am going to ride.
The Michelin run flat care tire at least gives me a slight safety margin in that it is rated for more weight and it is a run flat design. With the tire pressure monitoring on the bike, I have some warning also.
I never try to convince anyone to go to a car tire, but I will share my personal reasons and experience about it. A sport bike or high performance bike could probably go beyond the handling capability of a car tire, but a Goldwing or Ultra Classic will start shedding metal components as sparks long before the limits of the tire can be reached. I sure would like to see some real testing done about this.
Anyone reading this understand I am not telling you to do it. I respect your right to choose, so please do the same for me. The wonderful handling of this low centre of gravity bike was no longer there. This is the source of ALL the straight line handling problems. Take the truck lane furrows that I mentioned earlier�. In other words, when the left side of the rear tire is in contact with the furrow, your bike wants to lean right and vise versa To avoid this greasy, wobbly feeling, you end up riding the centre of the lane, where the pavement is somewhat flatter.
My bike also demonstrated a severe high speed wobble that was not there with a motorcycle tire. Motorcycle manufacturers carefully select certain tires for their bikes. The wrong tire choices can be adverse and worse�unpredictable and dangerous.
Perhaps you chose the wrong tire to run on your bike. On gold wings the tire choices that are popular and work well are the Kumho run flat, the Perelli Euforia run flat, and the Michelin Primacy Alpin winter snow tire.
At least you tried it and found it was not for you�unlike the person writing this article. Maybe some riders are willing to compromise and maybe others actually have found the right car tire but from the extreme way it altered my bike I just think most dark side riders accept the handling compromises to save some money. I guess my main point here is that sooner or later�. I think most people these days know how to use a computer and can look up about the subject.
In doing so they can come across forum that are for darkside riders. There they can ask all the questions and talk to people that run certain tires and make an informed decision from people that put thousands upon thousands of miles on these tires. AS far as compromise�I really do not know of ANY compromise I am having to deal with with my tire besides at 5 mph it wants to follow groves in the road like coming to a stoplight.
There is minimal more effort on turning and really I cannot tell much of a difference at all. I looked up all the information before I decided to go darkside and asked the people on the forum etc.
The rest is history and I am happy with my choice. Many a poor sucker have hopped on a bike and killed themselves, and not because of a d.
Approved tire. I write from experience, I have put many miles on a cruiser of mine using a car tire on the rear. Now, I am on my second Goldwing, a , and will continue this practice. I have been riding since , and can tell you for sure that there are many safe habits one can practice that very well could save your life while cruising.
There are many individual choices to be made, the right bike for you, fit, and what type of riding you enjoy. The choice to stay not only sober, but free of alcohol. I would think that with the huge possibility of harm while enjoying one of our favorite pastimes, then why would one injest anything known to slow down your response time! Simple logic tells you that using what many other people have used before and have had success with means it will likely work for you as a well.
I am not a darksider but find the idea and physics interesting. So when it is mounted on a motorcycle, I believe it HAS to be mounted as if it was a left rear on a car. Mounting a tire so the tread and sipes are backwards would probably cause some of the handling issues you bring up and VERY bad in the rain.
The Michelin Alpin Z or run flat is a directional tire. Just put the arrow on the tire carcass in the direction of rotation. I have installed literally hundreds of tires during the course of my automotive career and have seen the end result of some very expensive tires that failed prematurely because they were not installed correctly or were new defects.
There has to be a better option, maybe a car tire. However, choleric tone, name calling and bad grammar do not help promoting your view. More details about the tire you used, pressure you ran it with, distance, etc. So far, all we have is one exception. It may as well prove the rule, especially when presented like that. I found that lower pressure improves the handling of the car tire to a great extent.
There are no conditions under which I would prefer a MT over CT on my scooter and I rode each for at least 5,Km during the same season. Note that a Wing is about lbs heavier than your Stratoliner�and, notably, a WIng is a very rear-heavy bike!
The rider sits well behind the engine, the fuel tank is set back, the pillon rider is right over the rear wheel, and all the gear is carried on the rear tire. The fact is that thousands of riders have tried it, for millions of accumulated miles, with no evidence of it being unsafe. First it is difficult to embrace such an article when it is presented so lopsidedly, opinion will never stand up to something well researched. Research in this situation requires something more than a few emails and talks with industry insiders.
On example being the presentation of potential insurance issues, I made a quick call to my agent, who is with one of the nations top 3 insurance providers and he understood the issue and stated there was no weight to the potential of not being covered.
Research is work and generally requires more than calls and emails. I doubt Rider does nothing less when performing road test and comparisons of equipment.
Secondly, much ado is pushed on performance, exactly what are we talking about here? Even if the average rider had the skills to maximize a bikes performance, where could they do so, not on any of the roads you and I use day in and day out.
It seems fairly simple to deduce that even a car tire can handle any performance the general motorcycle population places on the average bike. You pays your money and you takes your chances. Honestly the only thing accomplished here was mouthing the words of marketing insiders, we live in a world consumed with litigation, I doubt you can find one manufacturer of anything that would endorse the use of their particular product for something other than what it was made for.
The by line of the article uses the word nonconformity, maybe it is about time to look at that word as something to embrace rather than ridicule, if my memory serves that was one of the principles that made this country great. Eric is a better writer than this and I believe that Rider is a better magazine than this, next time either go the full monty and truly do due diligence or allow sleeping dog to lye.
I agree with Norm and the eloquent way he put his thoughts into words. While searching the web for information about DSing I came across this article. Eric Trow does nothing but tell me how against a CT on motorcycles he is. I have been considering DSing with my wing after a trip of miles, riding 2 up and pulling a trailer.
I noticed after the trip my rear tire was flat in the center. A CT may be the solution to this but I would like more information before I make that decision. Having information is key but getting it is a task!
If you want honest information on the subject, do not accept the opinions of those who have not tried a car tire CT on a motorcycle rear wheel. Initially you are left with the thought that the author MAY have tried it! But as you read on you discover that they have not because this is implied in anything any expert ever says on the subject it is too dangerous.
Youtube has plenty of videos from folks who have are using CTs. You can even find some folks running them on sport bikes! As to why the tire on your Wing is flat in the center after 2, miles: most of your riding is done upright so most of the time the weight is being supported by a very narrow section of the tire width.
Narrower tires wear faster. Wider tires wear slower. Because a motorcycle tire does not provide the full width of the working face of the tire for the bulk of riding it is like riding on a much narrower tire. Watch the youtube videos of folks demonstrating this very concept!
Folks Dark Siding or considering the practice do so for one reason only, they put a lot of miles on their motorcycles and do not want to replace the rear tire every couple of months or so. It all comes down to this, why do rear motorcycle tires wear out faster than car tires? We ask this question after hearing that CTs on motorcycle rear wheels last many times longer than you average motorcycle tire in the same position.
There is a web site called Dunlop Motorcycle Tires that answers this question. The wording and presentation have gone through minor changes. I will paraphrase the points which they used to provide in a bullettted fashion: � the speed of the bike � the power to weight ration � the size of the contact patch � other factors.
Why does a wider tire last longer? Among other things, a wider tire distributes the load on the rear wheel across more surface area at any given instant in time. This increased load bearing cross sectional area loses tread depth at a slower rate for any given usage than a narrower tire used in exactly the same fashion. Just take a look at all high mileage car tires and you will notice that they tend to be wider tires. Wider tires increase rolling resistance so reduce fuel economy.
It all comes down to trade offs. If you want a higher mileage tire you will get somewhat poorer fuel economy. If you want better fuel economy you may opt for a tire that does not last as long. But what about rubber hardness? OK what about it? All substances have frictional properties. These properties are reflected in tables that contain the frictional coefficients of substances. Rubber is no exception.
Substances that provide greater friction have higher frictional coefficients. Softer rubber provides higher friction that harder rubber. As rubber heats up it gets softer and has more grab.
Things with greater friction wear more. Car tires driven at higher speeds wear faster because they have greater friction. You do not want to make a tire too hard as it will not hold the road well under cold temperatures.
As rubber cools down it gets harder and looses friction. You would think your average high mileage tire would be designed for all weather operation, i. This being the case it would not be prudent to increase the hardness of the rubber to accomplish the greater wear feature. One person I know believes that car tires last longer because they are harder, sacrificing friction. They argued that motorcycles needed more friction so used softer rubber which was why they did not last so long.
In the same conversation they told the story of somebody on a sports bike who pulled out of a parking lot on a cold day. The dumped their bike when they went around the bend because the cold bike tire did not grab the pavement! My tires hold up pretty good when I pull out of drives on cold days below freezing.
Winter car tires are made from very soft rubber and you can guess why. Do motorcycles need more friction than cars? Who knows, but all things being a trade off you should analyse the compelling factors and choose accordingly. I know from stories and conversation that many sports bikes come with harder rubber tires. From the story told above and from a coworker who told me the tires on his sports bike did not work below 40 degrees fahrenheit. Their may be some things left out of the following but it will get the point across: to stop something a frictional force must be applied equally against the momentum to neutralize it.
Let us express momentum as kinetic energy, Ke. Whatever mass there is. This fore would be friction. There are a few things missing from this equation but it can be used to demonstrate one thing. For breaking purposes the big factor surrounding breaking is NOT the weight of the vehicle BUT the fictional coefficient of the rubber.
If you read the previous article you will note that it may be that with all other things being equal, a lighter vehicle may get stopped sooner. So it all boils down to application. Make sure your tires perform properly under the conditions in which you intend to use them. A good rule of thumb with respect to traction of a CT on a motorcycle would be: if it works well on a car under a given set of conditions it should perform similarly on a motorcycle.
My car tire works OK on the back of my Royal Star boulevard at 17 degrees fahrenheit. Make sure you study the dark side database and pick a tire and inflation range found to work on your bike. You are missing a few key components in your stopping distance equation this different contact patch size does affect down force as does tire compound.
I fail to see, even with these manipulated formulas, how car tires can last longer and still outperform a motorcycle tire. And we believed them!! Some of these guys are like religious zealots�disagree with them and their heads explode. Roll the dice for yourself but do not encourage others to. That is all I have to say�.
Again�did you research for the proper tire? Did you go on forums and ask questions etc.? You make us out to be some kind of cult when all we all want to do is ride safe, not have our tires delaminate on us or get flat spots, and be able to bring us home safely.
I can only speak for how it affects my gold wing because it is the only bike thus far that I have mounted a car tire on. In the end you will do what you want and I will do what I want.
All of his self justifying opinions reached without doing any side by side comparisons of similar bikes with MS and DS tires on them to actually come up with any useable knowledge� worthless, worthless, worthless and he should be ashamed to claim the article is anything more than an OP-ED hatchet job piece of drivel.
Give us some facts!! Actually I did hunt around for opinions as to which tire to use and the Exclaim UHP was one that came as an excellent choice�. That same tire was very twitchy at the limits. I now ride my bike with full confidence�something I sorely missed with the car tire. Sometimes you have to switch back just to recall what was missing. So how about it Eric�.
The rate at which these OEM tires wore out was shocking! Seventhson, I appreciate the fact you tried a CT before climbing onto the anti-car tire bandwagon. However my experience could not be more different than yours. At this time I have a little over , miles on my GL, approximately 77, of those miles have been done using four different car tires on the rear. I believe that I have given up nothing in safety, comfort or handling by using a car tire on my rear wheel.
You feel your test of a car tire makes you an expert on the subject, my use of four different car tires over 77, miles makes me more of an expert on the subject than you. I admit that back in when I first heard about someone putting a car tire on a motorcycle I initially thought it to be a dumb idea.
The more I read about it the more curious I became so, like you, I tried it. As it turned out, I liked it.
That is irrefutable. Fact: there is nothing intrinsically dangerous about the practice or it would have become evident by now given the fairly large number of people doing it on a wide variety of motorcycles. It does appear to be a sound alternative to dedicated motorcycle tires in many cases. Every handling quirk, or characteristic you assign to your use of a car tire could just as easily been caused by a different brand of motorcycle tire or a faulty motorcycle tire.
Not all car tires are alike just as not all motorcycle tires are alike. The fact that you have become such an ardent opponent to the use of a car tire on a motorcycle makes me wonder what your agenda really is. You charge others with extreme reactions.
I definitely see some zealotry in your posts. Is your head exploding? This country is supposed to be the land of choice. No one using a car tire on their motorcycle is harming you in any way so why all the vitriol?
As far as anyone has been able to tell, no one has yet been harmed by the use of a car tire on a motorcycle. Fact: there are many far more dangerous practices than using a car tire on a motorcycle. The bigots of the world frustrate me. See you on the road. Explain your argument to those he left behind�.. I would be overwhelmed by your compassion for motorcyclists and your quest to save the lives of so many that might be killed running car tires if only it were not so much hogwash.
There are many things killing motorcyclists today but you can believe me when I tell you it is not car tires. Why not campaign for mandatory rider education prior to getting a motorcycle license as Oregon and a few other states have done? Why not campaign for driver education so they might stop turning left in front of us or pulling out into our path of travel?
Why not campaign for making ABS standard on every motorcycle sold in America? Why not campaign for stricter enforcement of distracted driver laws to help get the cell phone users and texters out from behind the wheel? I am also a rider course instructor. I try to do my bit to save lives by teaching riders how to stop, turn and swerve. I attempt to pass on these street survival skills to my students in an effort to keep them safe. Yes, I ride with a CT on the rear of my bike, that is my choice but I neither encourage nor discourage the practice to my students.
You may call it dangerous but that is just patently untrue. You cannot make a logical argument that the practice has been proven unsafe. Until then you are just another sensationalist rabble-rouser shouting about a cause because it serves your ego.
Remember the free speech thing? Personally I hope the DOT does a thorough investigation into this stupidity and starts restricting the use of tires not designed for motorcycles. My choice or the Government gets involved? Let other people have an opinion. Everyone does not have to agree with you. I may not do it, but lots of room for others to do as they please. Hello fellow riders. I have read all the pros and cons of this topic. For two years now and about km I have rode darkside on my Vulcan I would not go back to mc tire Handles just as well stops better feels much better in rain.
And I pull a trailer as well. Mike Victoria bc. I want a real world test with large, heavy cruisers. With 2 up. With miles on the tires. Riding in flat, no curves Florida in 95 degree temps and a sudden downpour. Riding down my loose gravel driveway.
I run darkside, just came back from riding Deals Gap and found NO negative effects. I did find out my lean angle was greater than a dresser Harley and much faster even though the Harley had MC tires! I have a Victory Vision, ride 2 up alot, pull a trailer not at Deals Gap. I know it will not handle like a Ducati but geez I can only lean over about 30 degrees. The world is run by lawyers.
No tire co. It rode very well, handled well, and I loved the ride. I do not blame the tire, I blame my skill level. But at that time, I decided to have the rear car tire replaced with a motorcycle tire. My first ride around the block, the bike just dropped into turns unlike it had done ever before while I rode it. I liked it better, maybe as a fairly new returning rider, and have stayed with it.
And I have stayed within dealer specs on the new tires, they are not manufacturer recomended Dunlops. Never did the insurance companies question the make or model of my tires in the cause of the accident, only checked the state of the tires, and verified that they were DOT approved. I have three rear rims in my garage now for the VTX: the one mounted with a Contienental Milestone motorcycle tire, and one to be mounted with a cat tire, and a wider one to me mounted with another motorcycle tire.
We all know that this is not going to happen, and each part that comes out has a group who adopt and test the results to a community. They are going to be more one sided because that is human nature, as are the manufacturers and scientists for the same reason. This was a total waste of my life to read.. Poorly written, totally biased and gave no real factual data. I have over 30, miles Riding The Darkside.. BIG bike.. I have had my bike on every type of road condition except snow and ice.
I have ridden the Tail of The Dragon more than 6 times and several other of the most technically challenging roads in the country. Not once did I feel uncomfortable about pushing the limits of the bike. She has been floorboard to floorboard and not a single issue.. If you want to discuss factual information then fine.. Lets get some true scientific data to discuss. The write an objective, non-biased, fact based article.
Sorry�all the above experts did something wrong�. Again�stop the opinions.. Lets pick on one�IF so many people are buying Kumho tires to be placed on motorcycles�. Again all your experts in the article could not provide any evidence that the tire is unsafe�.
The practice of running car tires on motorcycles has been well documented in the past. I ran a car tire on my VL Suzuki with great results for comfort and even rode it hard through some corners with great traction and no hint of trouble. Perhaps you could use some real journalistic practices and do an UN-biased article with conversations from both sides and dare I say some tests?
If you dare�. I have never been so disappointed by an article as I was this one. Frankly, it is not up to the standards I had expected from Rider. I have never used a CT on a bike, but have considered it and was interested in what I thought would be a thoughtful article, but instead found a rehash of opinions that appeared designed to please your advertisers rather than provide solid information for your readers.
There are many other comments on the deficiencies of the articles and I agree with most of them. You should have done better than just present again all the old information and opinions. The reason I am interested is because I have seen a lot of sidecar drivers using CTs.
If you think about it, having a round profile on the rear tire of a sidecar rig really does not make sense. A flatter profile, like in a car tire, provides much longer life and traction for a sidecar.
I have had three sidecar rigs, and every one of them wore out the back tire in or less miles. This is ridiculous and why so may sidecar hacks sport CTs. The MC tires start to look more and more like CTs the longer you ride them. They just keep getting flatter and flatter, until the fabric is showing in the center.
So why not just put on a flat CT in the first place? Most of the arguments that you presented just do not apply to sidecars and do not appear to be backed up by facts. Drawings are not facts. Neither are opinions. Reconsider this and try to do better next time. The MC tires are way way overpriced than regular car tires. Will anyone buy car tires if they cost more than a couple of hundred US dollars EACH and can maybe last anywhere between � 10, miles only.
The scientific breakthroughs in making of car tires have been very cutting edge than compared to mc tires not wanting to start a huge debate here. After careful consideration, I chose the darkside about 25,00 miles ago. The Kumho still had about 3k miles left in it. We ride 2up in the twisties frequently pulling a trailer. No issues with these tires on this bike. I appreciate the dialog concerning a car tire vs a motorcycle tire.
Approaching my 3rd tire with only 17K miles, I have a Kawasaki Voyager. I had to do somelthing economical, thus I tried the General Tire Altimax The downside has been the same others are experiencing: wiggle while navigating the grooves in the road. I had the same issue with a MT. I have only put miles on the car tire, I usually average miles a month so I will know quickly whether my decision is a respectable one.
It would be nice to have a reputable company test the car tire side by side with a motorcycle tire. I am very interested in valid safety issues. Most car tire testimonies seem positive. Seems everyone here promoting the greatness of car tires on the rear seems to ride cruisers big ones at that � which IMO gives me the impression that they ride mainly freeways, for long stretches, rarely turning throughout their life. Fine� I can see a car tire working very well in such a situation�.
Wonder why this could be�. I ride a KLR From bikes in the past and including the KLR, when the MC rear tire starts to wear flat across the bottom of the tread, leaning into a turn any turn where the lean is over 15 degrees produces produces a definate shimmy as you rise up from the flat onto the edge� that really annoys me.
Would I put a car tire on my bike, hell no! I enjoy the ability to ride the twisties with no compromise. I do turn, and turn hard within the limits of my heavy cruiser. Inherently, a motorcycle tire will have better traction at high lean angles such as with a sportbike than a car tire, but at moderate lean angles, such as cruisers, in my firsthand experience the right car tire on the right bike has better traction. Just the opposite.
Cruisers,and touring bikes can use them,because of the different way they are ridden. One thing not mentioned here,that many Darksiders as well as OEM riders do,is use Dynabeads for tire balancing,instead of the tape-on,or snap on external balancing weights. Dynabeads are a far superior way of balancing tires. Case in point: My GL Interstate.
To make it worse,the OEM tires are Dunlops,and are not rated for more than lbs! I have well over 20, now. I have seen sport-tourers running car tires. I rode with one this past summer�a long riding day through the Berkshires and southern Vermont�he had a car tire on the back of a Honda ST, and was riding 2-up with his son.
I was dragging my muffler and center stand, and he was pulling away. He took a tight double-S-curve going at least 50MPH, with no trouble�I took it slower ish , and was dragging parts. You are free to run what you want. We all have our own unique experiences and economic situations that lead us to the choices we make. If some want to cheap-out and put a car tire on their machine, why do you care what others think?
I do get tired of people complaining about prices. Prices are the result of, and about, economy-of-scale, not some insidious manufacturer or a ridiculous conspiracy-theory out to personally wallet-rape you. When you only sell for example, tens of thousands of something, compared to a few millions of something,.
Motorcycling is small compared to the auto industry and it will always be this way. Sure you can economize when appropriate. I look for sales and good deals like most. One thing I will not compromise on is my ability to effectively control my bike and protect myself from oblivious car drivers, and not add to decreasing that ability. Which means I maintain my bike in top condition; that requires a bit more expensive oil and other consumables. He knows IJN subjects extremely well.
He has high standards , and from the pictures I've seen on the net, he produces excellent work. Graeme is a newcomer to the list as of late , but he's no newcomer to the world of ship modeling. He's a professional. Bill is our resident expert on US Coast Guard subjects, and also very well versed on the subject of sailing ships.
Peter is another helpful fellow. Jodie Peeler never fails to impress. Her knowledge of liners and aircraft carriers especially Essex class is truly amazing, but don't think she's limited to just those.
If that weren't enough, she's also a fan of turbine cars and airliners. Allan was one of my first ship modelling friends on the internet. We virutally met back in the early s on the newsgroup rec. He was one of the first contributors to this list, and still gets a few words in now and then.
Joe Poutre is a good friend, a fellow New Jerseyan, and my co-conspirator on numerous projects. I have watched his modelling skills steadily improve, and he's probably better than me by now. He shares my sense of the bizzare, and it's always fun making up "hypothetical" ships with him. Tim Reynaga has been an enourmous help. His knowledge goes back many decades, and he knows things about obscure old manufacturers that I never would have found.
He also seems to have a taste for really small scale ships. Brooks has been enormously helpful to us in researching old kits from long-gone manufacturers. His tastes are often similar to my own.
Leif is another early contributor to the list. He gave us his list of Airfix kits, and this became the basis for our Airfix section. Matt Stein started writing reviews for the List in He started a resin casting business, Matt Stein Models in July All of his reviews were written prior to that date.
Floridian Bill Swan is a newcomer as of , but he provided an incredible number of resin ship kit reviews for Version 6. He has impressed me with his knowledge of Steel era and WW1 era battleships. I might have a few differences of opinion with him on the waterline vs.
I really want to see his "team of trained spiders"! Doug is another newcomer as of My advice is to buy Skywave armament sets to replace the often 's era kit parts, and use aftermarket PE sets for the particular type of ship to get an overall increase in quality without waiting for someone to retool the kit.
Saves much trouble. I consider necessary to produce a good kit. The first two digits identify the company, and the issue batch among other things. Recently, new series numbers have been give, advertised on the box top as "NO.
Where there is a new series, it is noted. Gernot has a point, I do tend to build out of the box, and I usually only fix gross, obvious errors.
I prefer to modify the plastic parts from the kit than to scratchbuild or add PEB. I admit that there is a point, though, beyond which kit parts aren't worth fixing, and parts substitution becomes more practical. My main area of interest is the Kreigsmarine and I am knowledgeable of modern warships having served 21 years in the United States Navy and retired as a Master Chief Petty Officer. I had heard rumors that Academy had obtained the Tamiya molds for the Bismarck.
After picking up the kit, I feel comfortable assuring anyone that this is not the case. I do wish though, that I could have had access to a Tamiya kit to make the comparison up close.
The first thing you will notice about the box are the words "Static Model" in the lower left corner of the box lid -- more on this later, and the fact that the box art is rather poorly done. On to the inside!
The kit's deck is molded in three sections. The middle section is designed to be removed for access to the battery box and electric motor mounts. That, apparently, is why the words static model show up on the lid. The multi piece deck leaves two very distinct seems running from beam to beam on the model. Filling and sanding them will destroy some of the deck planking, represented by raised detail. The larger cable reels are molded separately from the deck, while the smaller ones are part of the deck, as is the anchor chain.
The anchor chain looks to be too small for what it is supposed to represent. The Arado seaplane's struts are molded in one piece, similar to the float-equipped British Spitfire, and the Iron Cross insignia are molded into the wings, ala Aurora. The catapult is simply a blank plastic strip, with no detail on it at all. The flag sheet is frankly, pathetic. The swastika on the battle flag looks like a pinwheel; an aftermarket flag is a must here.
The remainder of the kit appears to be well done. Comparing some of the brass parts to the plastic ones in the kit left me with the impression that Academy did a pretty good job on the majority of this model. Of particular note are the photoetched radar antenna and the struts and props for the Arado.
They make a real difference. This will be my first experience with photoetch detail of this magnitude, and it looks like it will really compliment the model. First of all, the kits for Bismarck and Tirpitz are the same and both resemble rather Tirpitz than Bismarck. Box pictures show Bismarck in baltic camouflage in both cases. The drawing on Tirpitz box is signed "N. Sataku" or "N. The kit is motorized with one electric motor which is fed by one AA battery.
Machinery supplied with the kit looks fine. There is the only shaft and the only rudder. Shaft holder grease is supplied with the kit as well as the cement. Hull consists of two parts - underwater red plastic and everything else grey. So, you may build waterline model if you like. Belt transition into forecastle and stern is somehow coarse. One could try and fix both issues it with careful cutting and sanding.
Deck plancking and details are ok except wavebreakers which are too bold. Carefull cutting may be of use here. Anchor racks are missing anchors are molded right on the deck level which requires gentle fixing. Material thickness in the bow part of a hull is hopefully enough to apply cutting and deeping in the right place. Bow anchor rake and bow anchor itself are missing, yet bow anchor chain is molded on the deck.
Same regarding aft. There are no torpedo tubes supplied or molded. No floatplanes are supplied as well. Catapult details are poor.
Turrets are of slightly strange shape but still resemble the real ones. Model has one major feature which may be considered as a big disadvantage or as real fun. Indeed, second port 5. Instead, room is made for motor switch which comes as a gear leaning out of the hull right in place of turrets mentioned.
No wonder that the assembly instructions show the model viewed from starboard, not from the port! Carefull tweaking and applying extra turrets of proper scale may fix the problem. One might configure motor switch leaning through the funnel. I plan to abandon the switch at all, and to circuit the battery to the motor directly. I should take care for proper balancing the model in this case and to compensate the switch absence.
That is just an idea anyway. AS , Review dated 25 May Editor's Notes: See Nimitz-class. Said to have been issued around Editor's Note: I have not built this kit, or even seen it out of the box, but from the dimensions and the photo on the box, it looks suspiciously like the Monogram kit with a different stand. This kit has been issued at various times as:. Editor's Notes: May be related to the Minicraft Spruance kit. Editor's Note: May be related to the Minicraft Ticonderoga kit. Editor's Note: Presumably, this is a close relative of the Academy Bismarck kit.
Issued in Happily, this is not the case. An entirely original effort, this Titanic is a much better model, cleanly molded and easy to assemble. While I'm no Titanic expert, the kit's proportions are convincing and the completed model looks like the great ship.
Academy's Titanic seems to have been designed with younger or more casual modelers in mind. The complex structures of the original are broken down into relatively few assemblies so that the model can be built up quickly. Nevertheless, the large amount of attractive molded on detail keeps it from looking too toylike. The crisp, precise moldings were a pleasure to handle with no flash, sink marks, or visible ejector pin marks anywhere. The parts are molded in black, white and tan plastic with components broken down so that one could build a nice looking Titanic model without painting it.
Decks are in tan, for example, and the white strip along the forecastle above the ship's name is a separate part molded in white to be attached to the black hull. The result is basic but effective. This clever pre-coloring of parts is actually a return to the very roots of plastic ship modeling, like Revell's Taney and Eastwind kits from the early s.
Another nod to less experienced modelers although useful for all of us! As a more experienced modeler I was less than thrilled with the simplified assemblies which in places look a bit chunky, and the prominent hull plating, though dramatic, is overdone for the scale.
Much could be improved with the application of photoetch, but the simplified molded in details and that plating mean that creating an accurate scale model from this kit would require a significant amount of work. Perhaps the best way to experience this model is to take it as Academy's designers aparently intended it: as an attractive, easy to build alternative to their magnificent but challenging!
The box art isn't bad at all but it quickly goes down hill from there. I cannot and would not recommend this kit to anyone! This is another example of a company that has not properly researched the ship, submarine, that they have put on the market. This kit is nothing more than a "toy" that needs assemblyrather than a scale model. On the side of thebox it has this statement:. As a "static display model", it fails miserably because of the lack of attention to simple detail in all areas - hull, deck, and conning tower.
The only way that this kit should be built as a static display model is in a waterline configuration. Even as a waterline model it will require extensive work to get it even close to what a Type IXB should look like. I am not even sure that it would be worth the man-hours.
Include the motor, add batteries and give it to a 5 year old. Paint optional. Kit rates a "blech". Originally issued by Adams circa It was also issued by Airfix beginning in and most recently in Airfix's revised full hull version by Heller in the s. Note: one of the weirder ships of the 20th century. Armed like a battlecruiser with 15 inch guns and armored like a light cruiser she was officially classified as a large light cruiser. This bizarre vessel saw light service in WW1 and was eventually converted into an aircraft carrier and was sunk by the Germans in the opening days of WW2.
Interestingly, her main battery turrets removed for the conversion to an aircraft carrier wound up being installed on the last battleship of the Royal Navy, HMS Vanguard which was finished after the end of WW2. This model depicts the ship in her battlecruiser large light cruise guise.
Admiralty also has released the sister ship to Courageous, HMS Glorious in a later fit that includes aircraft flying off platforms but not yet as a full fledged aircraft carrier which she too was converted into. Kit Parts: this is a very large resin kit that includes photo etch, brass rod, plastic rod, metal chain and decals for flags. The massive one piece hull and lower superstructure is simply gorgeous and packed with detail. I'm basically speechless in trying to describe the quality of the casting in this kit.
It isn't just flawless and highly detailed, it is incredible. You cannot buy a better kit in ANY medium than this kit. It is complete and needs nothing else to create a stunning ship model. What else can I say? Directions:: Multipage, highly detailed, expertly drawn, line drawings, exploded views and color plates are some of the best directions that you can ever have. In addition to assembly and painting directions text in English, colors called out in White Ensign Models Colourcoats , there are also clear and concise rigging directions.
Among the best directions in the industry. Packaging: huge, heavy cardboard box with a unique twist. My kit was packed with an inner box that was actually a clear plastic display case!
All parts bubble wrapped in plastic bags with foam peanuts in all the voids. Admiralty is a newcomer to the resin ship maker's club but they are far and away one of the best in the business. The kit depicts the vessel in with flying off platforms on both turrets. The ship was at best a white elephant for the RN in this configuration but an interesting subject for the modeler. Glorious began the conversion to an aircraft carrier in and served as such in WW2.
She was sunk by Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. This kit is without a doubt one of the finest resin kits ever produced. The only negative, a minor one at that, is dealing with the scores of incredibly tiny detail parts in both resin and photo etch. This will require a steady hand and a good bit of skill. Directions: Brilliant, multi-page drawings and text that are among the very best in the business.
Packaging: Heavy cardboard box decorated with a color illustration of the ship. The hull is bubble wrapped and carefully taped. All other parts are bagged and taped in place to reduce movement. Everything is then surrounded in foam peanuts. The Advent kit has Revell copyright on sprues and also on the instruction sheet. Editor's Note: Reissue of the Revell Buckley. Editor's Note: Apparently, the same as Revell's Eastwind kit, though some have suggested that the kit is incorrect for the Burton Island.
Editor's Note: Reissue of the Revell Ward. Editor's Note: Reissue of the Revell Eagle. Editor's Note: Reissue of the Revell Enterprise. Thanks to Rob Theriaque for finding the information on this kit.
Editor's Note: Reissue of the Revell Intrepid. Editor's Note: Reissue of the Revell Montrose. Issued circa Editor's Note: Reissue of the Revell Olympia. Editor's Note: Reissue of the Revell Ranger. The kit consists of parts including 72 in grey styrene plastic, 1 in red plastic, 31 etched brass, 7 in clear for the sub's seaplane, plus decals for both the boat and airplane.
Parts are perfectly molded with sharp detail and no flash. The model goes together conventionally, with the two piece hull split at the waterline with a separate underwater hull molded in red. Fit throughout is excellent, and the entire sub can be assembled in just a few minutes. Even if one were to open up all those hundreds of drain vents along the hull sides, the interior detail could scarcely be seen. Similarly with the delicate ribbing detail on the inside of the aircraft hangar; nice, but ultimately invisible.
Other unusual design features include a moveable deck gun, rudders, and aft dive planes as well as an aircraft crane and antenna tower that can be retracted into the deck. Of only limited appeal to most modelers, these little gimmicks are at least accomplished with no detriment to scale appearance.
Other innovations are more useful. The forward dive planes, for example, are provided as separate parts to depict them as either deployed or retracted. Although it would have been a simple matter to cut the extended hydroplanes and push them inside the hull to show them retracted, the use of a dedicated part for this is a simple, effective construction time saver. A finely done photoetched bass fret provides railing, small cranes, aircraft components and other parts that could not be done nearly as well by injection molding although many of these parts are also alternatively included in plastic.
These provide an added finesse to the model, leaving little, if any, need for aftermarket photoetch. Good as these extras are, it is the extraordinary quality of the basic kit itself that makes it stand out. Starting with solid dimensional accuracy, precise molding and ease of construction, this kit just gets better and better.
The level of detail on the parts is amazing, among the best I have ever seen. The hatches on the main deck, for example, are perfectly molded and even have microscopic handwheels relief-molded on to them. The periscopes, combined with the shears as a single part, are unbelievably fine with all the distinctive details on the periscope heads cast in scale. The guns, binocular mounts, rangefinder and other small fittings are uniformly excellent.
The Yokosuka E14Y "Glen" floatplane is a tiny sixteen-part kit in itself with its own decals and photoetch. It even includes two miniscule incendiary bombs with correct shape and fin detail. If I were to offer any criticisms of the kit at all they would be minor ones: the open sides on the conning tower at about 1mm close to 14 scale inches are too thick, and the solid molded bridge windows might have been provided as a photoetched part.
The decal hinomaru "meatballs" for the aircraft are slightly off register, and markings are provided only for the I, although there were 29 of the type B-1 Otsu-gata submarines, some of them well known. These really are nitpicks, though. The big Japanese companies had better watch out, because the Chinese are on the move!
Nice detail, no sink holes. While I have never seen a Skywave Knox-can, this kit sure looks like a Skywave mold. Bilge keels will have to be scratchbuilt for this conversion.
I don't think this is a Skywave derivative; there are multiple differences in parts. Plus, they include a correct SH-2 helo, which Skywave doesn't even produce, even in those ships that are supposed to carry it.
This is the same kit as the DML. Good kit that builds very well right from the box. Some minor fit issues but no worse than the average plastic kit. Props are a little crude but can be made nice with a little sanding. Sinkmarks on the two turrets need minor filling.
Good instructions and decent decals. Just build it clean and apply a light wash and you'll have a fine little model. AER Colectie Srl. Evidently produced by the same Soviet model kit design team sometime during the Cold War, each of the subs is a separate injection molded plastic kit. The kits build into full hull models ranging from five to seven and a half inches in length. Though not of the highest quality, these old Soviet-era model kits are very inexpensive and generally accurate.
Editor's Note: Reissue of the Revell Boston. Editor's Note: Reissue of the Revell Hope. The model was one of Revell's very first nautical releases, dating originally from The model depicts a Higgins 78 foot PT, definitely not a Vosper as some have thought. It is a very old kit, but parts fit and details are fairly good. The full hull is a single piece molding.
Designed during Revell's infamous "flat bottom boats" era, this kit actually has a nicely rendered hull with an accurate chine, perhaps to aid operation one version issued in the s came with a motor.
The deck and deckhouse come molded as a single unit, with other details either separate small parts or molded directly to the deck. Some of the surface detail looks good, but the dinghy is molded to the forecastle as is a coiled mooring line-not very convincing in this relatively large scale. Weapons are ok.
Torpedoes and 20mm Oerlikons are separate pieces, but the latter have gunner figures cast directly to them, which is a real problem if you don't want to include figures! Actually, the most notable aspect of the kit is those three very nicely sculpted crew figures. A very innovative feature for the time, they were created by master sculptor Anthony D. Bulone, best known as the sculptor of the original Mattel Barbie doll.
Not one of Revell's best, it is still an attractive, simple kit good for a quick, fun build. Airfix was founded in as a toy company. Their first model ship was apparently the Golden Hind, first produced in the early s. Airfix was purchased by Humbrol parent company of Heller in They did, however re-issue some of their older ships kits. By August , the company fell into grave financial problems again.
In November , Airfix was sold to model train manufacturer Hornby, who announced their intention to move production to China. Prices are usually reasonable. A few of their early battleship models, Iron Duke and Warspite have an odd problem with their main guns.
They have flared tips, like the flash suppressors on some AA guns. These flares should not be there, and they should be sanded down so that the barrels taper normally. All warships are made in light gray plastic. All passenger ships are made in white plastic except QE 2 which is made in a very light grey plastic. These kits are from the 's. These are some of the oldest and most primitive Airfix kits. The first five Golden Hind, Santa Maria, Shannon, Victory, Cutty Sark of them seems to have existed in two variants, an early waterline model with a "modelled sea" base and a later full-hull model with cradle, the last three were all full models with cradle.
Several of these have been re-released lately as "Special Editions". No of parts: 71; Guns elevate: yes; Decals for Amazon, Active and Arrow included; 1 helicopter included. Detail is medium, Appearance: good. Needs some slight mods at the stern, but otherwise, the hull is nice. Series 4, ; No of parts: ; Guns elevate: no; Detail is medium; Appearance: good. My second kit bought a few years ago was in slightly worse shape than my first, but still recommended.
This ship makes a presentable model built OOB. Options include placement of antenna cranes and aircraft elevators. Details are decent. Carley floats are separate parts, 4. Aircraft are Swordfish and Fulmers, wings of which appear a bit thick. Could use some better painting instructions, but research is part of the fun.
Series 2, first issued in This series set the standard for injection molded "wargame scale" models back in the s, and the Ark Royal is among the best of them. The model consists of 42 medium gray plastic parts, all cleanly molded with almost no flash. The above water hullform is accurate with the distinctive knuckle forward and large flight deck overhang aft credibly depicted. There aren't any decals, but six very nice Fairy Fulmars are provided.
One of the things I had liked about that larger version was the open boat decks molded as separate parts fixed to the inside of the hull. I also liked the open sides on the anchor and quarter decks fore and aft which created a realistic see-through effect. Not only that, they managed effectively to engineer the whole thing as a clip-together! Very cool. The control island comes as a nine part assembly. Throughout the model surface detailing is discreet yet effective.
On the flight deck the lifts, arrestor gear, and a barrier are represented as subtly raised detail, and the forward catapults are recessed. The dozens of portholes on the hull sides are represented by tiny raised discs with dimpled centers. I would have preferred holes, but at least the disks are consistent and sharp.
They actually look pretty good once painted. Liferafts and anchors are molded directly to the hull sides, but they are well done and are convincing in this small scale. The eight separately molded 4. The smaller weapons are molded directly to the galleries; fortunately the six 2 pounder pom-pom mounts and eight. They look quite good. The four rangefinders, molded with their mounts as separate pieces, are first-rate. Similarly with the other small details; the boat cranes and antennas, although molded solid, have delicate raised detail suggesting their lattice structures.
If only Airfix had chosen to include some Swordfish as well Airfix released only a few of them before abandoning the scale in the early s, but they remain among the finest ships that company ever produced.
The Ark Royal is a first-rate little model-if you can find one, build it! A real winner. It is very detailed, and it builds up very nicely except for one piece of the forward superstructure. This kit also makes an excellent source of parts for other British cruisers. It can be kitbashed with an Airfix Tiger to make various Colony class cruisers, or you can cut it down a bit to make earlier City class cruisers.
Buy it if you can find it. An excellent model. Sadly they left the water line out so you will have do some extra work when masking for painting. Otherwise it competes with Repulse as Airfix's best ship model.
This kit is the best I have seen from Airfix. The details are more crisply molded than in any of the many Airfix ship kits I have built. The kit represents the ship as she appeared in WWII, not in the modernized appearance she now has as a museum ship. I painted my model to show the ship as she would have appeared at the time of her best known action, the Battle of North Cape.
This kit has nice detail on turrets, cranes and air intakes. It includes two Walrus aircraft, one on the catapult and one with wings folded, protruding from the hanger. Use of PE will emphasize the overall quality of molded detail on this model. This is a real challenge for the one who wants to correct details. The armour belt is too low, the water line is too low, all decks are wrongly shaped, the deck details are missing.
Still a quite impressive kit when you are a kid and don't care about such details. Series 2, The boxtop says the model is intended to " The 50 gray plastic parts assemble into a basic but good looking little battleship.
The waterlined hull is a single part with a solid bottom and separate single-piece main deck, so there are none of those annoying mid-deck seams so common on larger scale kits. This is good since the raised deck planking is amazingly delicate; in fact it is some of the best I've seen in any scale. Assorted deck hardware is also well done with bitts, hatches, vents, and other details sharply depicted. Unfortunately, the model doesn't quite capture the graceful yet solid lines of the original.
Also, the armor belt is too low and the prominent portholes are missing. Worse, the funnel, superstructures and turrets aft are placed too far back. This problem isn't too noticeable until you get to the fantail, which is about 20 scale feet too short. As one might expect in a clip-together kit designed for wargaming, the superstructure is simplified and lacking in detail. The distinctive spherical hoods of the 4m type SL-8 antiaircraft directors are molded integrally with the superstructure, represented as rounded tops on the mounts rather than as spherical shapes.
Not very good. Also, the aft mounts shouldn't have the hoods at all unless you intend to build the model as the Tirpitz. The two-part funnel is hollow with an open grating nicely represented on the top. Main turrets are ok, except that the barrels are about 6 scale feet too long and the rangefinder hoods extend too far down the sides-but they are fixable.
The mm secondary turrets have simplified shapes and the barrels are also too long, but they're useable too. Smaller parts vary in quality from fair to excellent. The The best parts are the ship's boats, 37mm, and mm antiaircraft guns.
Too bad Airfix hasn't reissued it since the s! Appearence destroyed by clumsy davits. The tiny details are too heavy. Series 5, pre; No of parts: 86; Decals included.
Participated in the Falkland war. A typical Airfix liner, comparable to the quality of the Queen Elizabeth and possibly a bit better.
Fit is fine to me, although stacking all those decks can be an adventure! Nice kit. This kit represents the liner in her as-built appearance, with First-Class game deck open. Ship soon had this deck opening covered over and short extentions added to the twin funnels. Major item that needed changing on kit was mast structure, which was a little undersized and oversimplified. Will still make a nice-looking model built OOB. Great decal sheet with deck markings and nice bow herald. The first Airfix ship.
First kits had a special base cradle, later kits had standard base cradles. I seem to recall that the hull is several scale feet too shallow keel to deck. Brooks , comment dated 20 February Actually, my measurements say quite the opposite. It's several feet too deep. I compared the kit to some Admiralty drawings on one of my reference books.
The kit measures about. The drawings suggest that it should be about. I think there were some fitting problems with this model. A bit "plastic". Guide to detailing in Airfix magazine April Someone on Internet informed that the superstructure was incorrectly positioned, I have not checked that myself. With a little work, it can be accurate. According to legend, the forward superstructure should be pushed slightly more forward.
The Sea Slug isn't that good, but it would be hard to do better. A photoetch Sea Slug launcher is called for, but I don't really expect to ever see one. Up until recently,I didn't realize how bad the Sea Cat launchers were.
I didn't even recognize them as Sea Cat launchers! The superstructure, deck and armaments are acceptable for an early war boat. There are some problems, but they can be fixed.
For example, the vastly oversized depth charge racks should be discarded. The hull, however, is incorrect in profile and cross section. Most obviously, it is missing the pronounced bow knuckle that was a feature of all but the early experimental boats.
There are other problems of proportion and shape that will become immediately evident upon comparison to technical drawings. If you use the hull directly from the kit, your model will not show off the sleek lines that made the Schnellboot an elegant and powerful small combatant.
I wonder why they didn't include the Fearless? Series 3, ; 2 helicopters, 2 landing craft included; No of parts: ; Guns elevate: no; Decals included. A slightly uneven model, in some places the details are really great, in some just ok but you won't be disappointed if you buy this kit.
Pretty nice. It even has decent detail in the landing craft as well. The Sea Cat launchers aren't that great, but otherwise OK. I wonder why they never issued this kit with the decals for Intrepid Send in the Royal Marines! This ship, made famous in Operation Corporate, was one of the more fun to build models in my collection. The ship has a well deck in the stern that can accomodate landing barges.
Normally dry, this well can be flooded and a stern gate lowered to launch these craft. In addition to this, there is a large flightdeck just aft of the superstructure with five helispots. This can be used by either helicopters or Harrier fighters, giving the ship the capability of a small aircraft carrier.
The ship is further armed with two single 40mm guns on the bridge wings, and short-range AA missles. A friend of mine served on the USS Nashville, and seeing my model under construction, opined that it was very close to his old ship in layout.
Quality of detail on this model is inconsistent. The landing barges are pretty good, the two helicopters are so-so, and the 40mm guns are pretty poorly modeled. Overall, it makes a nice model, especially when some PE railings are added.
Guide to detailing in Airfix magazine Sep Can be built as a waterline model. This is a good kit. The hull above water is made of starboard and port parts with a flat bottom.
Two pins extruding from the bottom can either be cut off or put into holes in the separate underwater part. The flightdeck is in one giant part. Everything fits together wonderfully well. Minor error: the aircraft decals are for but, the funnel is of the rectangular post type. Building mine was a dream.
The kit includes transparent parts for swimming pool roof and sports roof. To me, a large disappointment. Due to some error in design the front gun turret had not even room to turn. The kit is quite detailed but somehow it just don't look like the other Airfix kits and for example the masts are the thickest found in an Airfix kit.
This model was a disappointment to me. I felt that the Aurora kit was basically better overall because most of its flaws could be corrected easilier. This is not the case with the Airfix model. First off while the main turrets are very well shaped and detailed they are a little too small and there still is not enough room for them to turn. Unlike the Aurora kit, you can't simply replace them with two from a Revell Scharnhorst or Gneisenau because as mentioned there isn't even enough room.
I also was extremely disappointed with the single 5. I expected the same level of detail as the mounts on the Narvik DD , which are beautiful.
Same goes for the 4. They are a little better, but again, not as good at similar mounts in the Airfix Prinz Eugen. I do not know if the 4. The superstructure was very detailed but the armored tower seemed too short. None of the range finders seemed right compared to pictures I have studied. I do not believe they could be replaced with parts salvaged from other models due to size difference.
Overall, I believe the engraved detail in very good but the layout out and scale problems however lower the overall quality. The smaller Testors Graf Spee is a far better kit, if not the best. RDF , review dated 10 April It's a sound kit but it needs a lot of work to be perfect, the hawse pipes and breakwater needs to be completely rebuilt and lots of derrick and deck details need to be added but I can assure you that the end result is worth all the work.
Kit Background : This is the oldest injection-moulded plastic model of Hood. Since its release in , it has been periodically reissued a number of times.
The kit contains pieces and is a full-hull representation of Hood as she appeared in the mid s. It suffers from a lack of detail and from large, bulky features. As for the quality of he moulding, it is generally crisp, with a small amount of flash. No sink holes were noted, but a few ejector marks were present. Hull: Correct in overall shape, taper and shear, with the exception of the torpedo bulges. These are present, but do not correctly conform to the true shape of the ship's bulges.
The hull also lacks an armour belt. Another odd feature are the open torpedo mantlets. Fortunately, most of these problems can be fixed with a combination of plastic strip stock, putty and a good deal of sanding. The deck planking is far too wide for the scale. The deck machinery and features ventilators, capstans, winches, hatches are all moulded into the deck and are somewhat bulky for the scale. On the other hand, some items which were prominent on the real ship are not-so-prominent here.
One such example is the forward break water. Another deck planking problem is the forward Shelter Deck- on this model, there are planks. On the real ship, however, this area was painted metal. Superstructure: Mostly accurate in general shape and layout.
There are a few notable errors: Both funnels are completely missing their base structures. They have venting around them, but are missing the small rectangular structures that the funnels were situated upon.
Another problem area are the batteries situated on each side of the ship. These areas are completely lacking in detail and accuracy. This can be corrected, but it will take a lot of work. Masts: Very thick and bulky. The starfish platforms are poorly done. These can be replaced with ultra-detailed photo-etch starfish by White Ensign Models.
Other: Boats are largely accurate. They could be a bit more detailed though. The same applies to the various rangefinders and sighting devices. These are mostly correct, but all are somewhat lacking in detail. One major problem to note here are the kit's painting instructions. Complete rubbish. Hood never had green bridge decks. Please be sure to throw them away and use our detailed Hood painting instructions instead. Summary: A good kit for its day , but it looks its age. Fortunately, it can be built-up into a good respresentation of Hood with some aftermarket parts and a good deal of scratchbuilding.
This kit can be found in man stores, or ordered from any of several online model retailers. It is also available directly from the Airfix website. I have a fair amount of sympathy for this kit, since it was the first kit that won me a prize in a model contest, many ages ago.
It represents the Hood somewhere between and The hull is quite nice, but the bilge keels are missing. The level of detail is pretty decent for its day.
The planking on the deck was pretty impressive for its time. The main turrets aren't too bad, but they need a bit of reshaping at the front. I don't like the way the lower parts of the superstructure are implemented. The bulkheads are attached to the deck. This can make both the deck and the bulkheads difficult to paint.
Overall, I'd say it is pretty good for its age, and it can be fixed up pretty easily. If built OOB, this kit will represent Hood as pre refit. Ship still has its 4. A little extra effort goes a long way on this model. Addition of side platforms on X turret, extra detailing on primary and secondary turrets are easy to add. Addition of PE a big help as always, but model will still look good with detailing and rigging.
Series 2, issued in The boxtop says the models are intended to " Happily, this was not the case! The kit consists two sprues containing 64 well molded grey plastic parts depicting the ship as she appeared at the time of her loss in May The model, though measuring a mere eight and one half inches in length, is accurately proportioned and packed with detail.
The hull, waterlined with a solid bottom, is correct in overall shape, taper and shear. The single-piece main deck is provided as a separate piece. Detail on the deck is excellent, including a multitude of hatches, bitts, vents, breakwaters, petite ground tackle, and some amazingly delicate deck planking. The raised planking is especially notable, some of the finest I've seen in any scale. However, there is an odd discrepancy with the inclusion of torpedo lookout and searchlight platforms on the foremast.
Although the fit of the model is correct for the Battle of the Denmark Strait, both these platforms had been removed before Thus the model is incorrect as is, although you could still use them if you make a few modifications to depict the ship earlier in her career.
Another inaccuracy is the shelter deck , depicted as a straight line rather than with the angular notches the structure actually had. This can be easily fixed, though. Armament is mixed. Main turrets are good, except that the barrels look too thin; I replaced them with hypodermic needles. The four inch twins are simplified shapes and the barrels are also too long, but they're useable.
The 8-barrelled 2pdr pom-poms and UP projectors are very good, Average Speed Of Bass Boats 400 but the 0. Other parts vary in quality from good to excellent; masts and cranes are proportional and accurate, and the fire control directors are first-rate. Given the perennial popularity of the Hood in all scales, it is surprising that Airfix never reissued it Detail: medium - Appearance: good. Was clearly the best Airfix ship when it appeared.
Lots of very small parts. Side scuttles a bit ugly. Some of the portholes are a bit large, drill them out with a constant sized bit it has the "flash suppressors" on the main guns, should be sanded down and the bilge keels are too long, easily trimmed down but otherwise, a nice kit. Series 6, ? A very nice kit with more deck details than any other Airfix ship.
The camouflage scheme is from the first months of KGV's career. Very detailed. It portrays the ship more or less "as built", with UP launchers on B and Y turrets, and the aircraft catapult amidships. The de-gaussing cable on the hull specific to the KGV herself is well done, but it must be removed if you want to convert the kit to portray another ship in the class.
My real only criticism is that the 5. The deck details might be a little overdone, and they are difficult to paint. The kit dates back to the mid s. All of these were previously sold as individual kits except for the E-boats which I think were sold as a pair. There is an instruction booklet containing all the assembly instructions and colour schemes detailed below.
The painting instructions are fuller and more detailed than previously, and offer several variants, and are referenced to Humbrol paints. Each type of ship has a descriptive text longer than that in the original kits, and there is an overview of the KM at the front. Decals are provided on quite a lavish scale but all feature the swastika-less version of the ensign.
Overall: an interesting idea and a bit of a cheap gamble for Airfix, given that they are all old kits , but they have made an effort to provide better instructions and more variety. It will be interesting to see if anyone has the space to make the obvious diorama of a Channel port.
|
Sailing Boats For Sale In Qld On Gumtree Deep Sailing Boat 7 2020 |
27.04.2021 at 12:12:38 The Inapplicable designation OF REPLACING A Potion WITH Cosmetic.
27.04.2021 at 17:47:53 True Grand Tourers with optimised skip.
27.04.2021 at 11:59:42 Charles, LA Phone: Fax than one.
27.04.2021 at 11:17:59 Buffet jurong area rates a swimming like speed of boat = (speed in the direction of the stream + speed.
27.04.2021 at 17:41:21 Have mostly been unsuccessful coherence in conceptualizing.