Widest rear tire for an SF
#6
My research concluded 140 metric, or 5.10 imperial.
Your question begs another however: are you looking for handling or aesthetics? If it's the former, wider isn't always better. If it's aesthetics, do as you please.
Your question begs another however: are you looking for handling or aesthetics? If it's the former, wider isn't always better. If it's aesthetics, do as you please.
Last edited by go cytocis; 06-15-2011 at 07:49 PM.
#9
I have no experience specifically running a 130 back-to-back with a 140, but I do have experience with a 180 & 190 on the same bike & same track. My observations may translate (or, not?):
-I noticed that the narrower tire turned-in to corners easier & more neutrally
-I noticed that the narrower tire tracked better through corners
-I noticed no difference in traction under acceleration
-I noticed no difference in traction under braking
Additionally, I’d suggest that there are other factors such as compound & profile, which vary by manufacturer, that have a greater impact on handling/traction, than the width. Pressure & temperature also play important roles.
All this is to say that in my experience, a wider tire may not be the solution to your problem, particularly if you haven't exhausted less costly options first...
-I noticed that the narrower tire turned-in to corners easier & more neutrally
-I noticed that the narrower tire tracked better through corners
-I noticed no difference in traction under acceleration
-I noticed no difference in traction under braking
Additionally, I’d suggest that there are other factors such as compound & profile, which vary by manufacturer, that have a greater impact on handling/traction, than the width. Pressure & temperature also play important roles.
All this is to say that in my experience, a wider tire may not be the solution to your problem, particularly if you haven't exhausted less costly options first...