Subject: RE: Charlie's Tires
Author: Charlie Mullendore
Date: Feb 16, 2004, 6:17 PM
Post ID: 1716060680
Hi Dennis,
Mostly I use the Tour on the rear for it's longevity - usually about 14k
miles vs. 10k for the Blitz rear. Don't know if that makes the approx.
$6 difference worth it or not fiscally. Never tried a 120 front and
probably won't unless I put wide whitewalls on a project. I think the
110/90 front is a good compromise vs. the 100/90 front, probably a
little more stable and more traction under hard braking. Steering could
be a bit slower also, though I've never had the chance to compare the
two. A 110/90-18 is pretty close in width to the original 4.00-18, but
may differ in aspect ratio. Originally I used a Tour on the rear because
the Blitz was out of stock where I was shopping and I needed a tire
fast. Now I use the combo because they have served me well under all
conditions for the past five years. And they're reasonably priced to
boot! Cheers,
Dennis Jones wrote:
So, Charlie, why is it that you use a Conti Tour in the rear and a Conti Blitz in the front anyhow? Do you go with the Blitz in the front to get the 110/18 size? The Tour comes 120/18 front and rear. Did you ever try that? I presume that it would slow down the steering some compared to the 110, but it would be closer to the size that was fitted from the factory than the 110 wouldn't it? Inquiring minds want to know, Charlie. Dennis Jones |
Charlie
http://members.tripod.com/charlesmullendore/index.htm