Boxerworks.com

KauaiSlash5 wrote:As I said in my original post, I am most interested in durability followed by looks then by performance.

Just gotta ask: how is it that you can value the "looks" of your tires above "performance?"
(btw, I like BT45's a lot, but I did buy them for performance and haven't really paid any attention to durability)

Major Softie wrote:

KauaiSlash5 wrote:As I said in my original post, I am most interested in durability followed by looks then by performance.

Just gotta ask: how is it that you can value the "looks" of your tires above "performance?"
(btw, I like BT45's a lot, but I did buy them for performance and haven't really paid any attention to durability)

I have BT45's too, and they're soooooooooooo pretty.

dougie wrote: I have BT45's too, and they're soooooooooooo pretty.

LOL!!!!!!!!!

Major Softie wrote:

KauaiSlash5 wrote:As I said in my original post, I am most interested in durability followed by looks then by performance.

Just gotta ask: how is it that you can value the "looks" of your tires above "performance?"
(btw, I like BT45's a lot, but I did buy them for performance and haven't really paid any attention to durability)

Some tires look period correct for vintage bikes and some do not. I would prefer that my tires match the look of my bike rather than have some crazy space age tread pattern that is designed to offer better performance. Unfortunately the majority of new tire designs just don't look like they belong on a 1970's bike.

Bridgestone Accolade have the right look.
Also Bridgestone S-11 Spitfires.
Dunlop make the K70/K81.

KauaiSlash5 wrote:

Major Softie wrote:

KauaiSlash5 wrote:As I said in my original post, I am most interested in durability followed by looks then by performance.

Just gotta ask: how is it that you can value the "looks" of your tires above "performance?"
(btw, I like BT45's a lot, but I did buy them for performance and haven't really paid any attention to durability)

Some tires look period correct for vintage bikes and some do not. I would prefer that my tires match the look of my bike rather than have some crazy space age tread pattern that is designed to offer better performance. Unfortunately the majority of new tire designs just don't look like they belong on a 1970's bike.

Sorry, you misunderstood. I understand perfectly why one likes the appearance of the older tread designs on a classic bike. My question was how you can value that higher than performance, when the tires (in competition with brakes) are the most important part of your bike - at least as far as keeping you alive. Your original post just listed both items as priorities, which I understand, while the later (quoted) post listed appearance as more important.

Major Softie wrote:Sorry, you misunderstood. I understand perfectly why one likes the appearance of the older tread designs on a classic bike. My question was how you can value that higher than performance, when the tires (in competition with brakes) are the most important part of your bike - at least as far as keeping you alive. Your original post just listed both items as priorities, which I understand, while the later (quoted) post listed appearance as more important.

I think it is you who "misunderstood" my question as I never asked for peoples opinions on what they thought was most important -I asked only for recommendations from those with experience- and to those who provided useful information, I am thankful. If you re-read my initial post, you'll see that I did in fact rank the importance of each attribute as I did again in my later post. Thanks for the lesson on the importance of tires and brakes.

KauaiSlash5 wrote:
I think it is you who "misunderstood" my question as I never asked for peoples opinions on what they thought was most important -I asked only for recommendations from those with experience- and to those who provided useful information, I am thankful. If you re-read my initial post, you'll see that I did in fact rank the importance of each attribute as I did again in my later post. Thanks for the lesson on the importance of tires and brakes.

I did read your initial post and still do not see any ranking. You describe your desire for durability and ask: "What would you recommend based on looks, durability and handling?" This is a list.
In your later post you say: "As I said in my original post, I am most interested in durability followed by looks then by performance." This is ranking, and, since it is not even in the same order as the earlier list, I still do not know where you ranked these points in your original post. Feel free to explain what I missed in the first post. I recognize that this is not a very important point: I only included it originally to explain why I did not ask about your rankings until the later post. I only include it now because you have told me I am mistaken about your original post and I do not see where I am mistaken.

As far as ranking looks above performance, sorry, I'm not trying to be a dick, but I misunderstood only one thing: how you can rate looks above performance. Thus I asked a question: How can you do that? I understood perfectly that you did not ask for an opinion, I asked how you could hold yours. I'd still love to know the answer.

By the way, if you were looking for responses only directed specifically at what you would like to know, with no unsolicited opinions, and no questioning of your own positions, you have wandered in to the wrong forum.

P.S. I ran ME77's on my /2, so I'm quite familiar with them as well. I'm not running them down, just asking why you hold the priorities you expressed.

This is going around and around and it's tiring.
Bloody tyre treads threads.
Get a grip you two.

ME 109 wrote:This is going around and around and it's tiring.
Bloody tyre treads threads.
Get a grip you two.

They're tires.