RE: [ST] 190 on rear

[Charles McCullough <cmccull@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 02:46 AM 12/17/02, David J. Hughes wrote:

>I think a lot of the "slower turn in" comments need to be
>put into perspective.  It's like people who say that an
>ST is a crap bike compared to an R1.  Any modern bike is
>better than just about anybody who may choose to ride it.
>If you are one of those very few people out there that can
>use the full capabilities of an ST then you may be able to
>feel the slower turn-in.  Like I said, I can't and I've
>been riding for 15 years.

Not as hard to detect/feel the differnces as you might believe. While I've 
never run a 190 on my ST, I  HAVE run a lot of different size tires on 
different rim sizes on different bikes. I'm no Ben Bostrom - just an 
"expert" level club racer.

It's not the only factor that's determining "turn-in". And I don't think 
it's the most important. But it does make a noticeable difference - 
especially when you're chasing lap-times on a track. When fine-tuning 
suspension, you learn to develop a sense for feeling differences.

Personally, (and as a general guide) I believe in choosing the smallest 
tire you can get away with. I like my ST pretty much the way it is (I don't 
ride it for it's "performance" aspect - I got racebikes for that) so I 
don't feel a real need for changing the rear away from a 180. Though the 
same size tire from different mfgrs will have subtle handling differences 
due to profile (I like the way a BT 020 feels on the front when paired with 
a Michelin Sport Pilot on the rear). But if faced with the choice of having 
to go with a different size, I'd put a 170 on the rear well before I'd put 
a 190 back there.


     *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
      The ST/RS Mailing list is sponsored by Jack Lilley Ltd.
          http://www.TriumphNet.com/st/lilley for more info
   http://www.TriumphNet.com/st for ST, RS and Mailing List info

=-=-=-= Next Message =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=