Date:         Fri, 23 Mar 2001 11:12:40 +1200
Reply-To:     Andrew Grebneff <andrew.grebneff@STONEBOW.OTAGO.AC.NZ>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Andrew Grebneff <andrew.grebneff@STONEBOW.OTAGO.AC.NZ>
Subject:      Re: Reinforced Tires - was Yokohama Tires Revisited
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>Spec-wise, the Contis are solid. Here's the link:
>
>http://www.tirerack.com/tires/Spec.jsp?make=Continental&model=Contact+CR21
>
>Might have mentioned this, but my previous tires were 205s, brand unknown.
>Might
>have been Uniroyal. Although they were nice tires in perfect weather, they were
>terrible winter tires for me. Too wide. I went through a stretch of being stuck
>every time I parked it anywhere near snow or ice, of which there is plenty in
>Minnesota. The Continentals were an enormous improvement. Adding a little
>weight
>in the back end didn't hurt either.

I was talking to a tire outfit on Monday re tires for 16" & 17" alloy
wheels. The guy said that Continentals are very poor tires, as well as
extremely expensive. They are designed for CONCRETE roads, where they work
well in wet & dry. But on oily asphalt roads (as most paved roads are) they
are slippery as hell, even in the dry (this was my own experience with
Conti Twins bike tires... an old rubber-framed Honda CB350 Twin with
near-zero cornering clearance, but you couldn't even scrape the footpegs as
the rear Conti would let go!).

So the Conti 205/55R16 ContiTouringContacts on my CLK wheels will have to go!