Conti Sport Attack 190/55

[Charlesbusa]

I think I'm the first one on the board to try Conti's Sport Attack 120/70 and 190/55 tires, so I thought I'd pass along my impressions of them.

I've been wanting to try a 190/55 profile for a while, but most have been too expensive for my budget.  These prices mostly came from bikebandit, there might be a better deal from different vendors on different tires, but it gives you an idea on the cost comparison between the tires;
Conti Sport Attack          120/70 & 190/55          $237
Piolt Power 2CT              120/70 & 190/55          $364
BT002                             120/70 & 190/55          $378
Racetec                          120/70 & 190/55          $410
Sportmax GP                  120/70 & 190/60          $441
SuperCorsa                    120/70 & 190/55          $518

My last 2 sets of tires have been Pilot Power 180/55s.  The first set lasted 5,895miles, which was down to the wear bears.  60% commuting, 37% twisties in the canyons, and 3% on trackdays.  My 2nd set lasted 7,162 miles, but I ran it down to the cord.  They probably were around 6,000miles when the tires reached the wear bars.  Same percentages regarding commute, canyons, and trackdays as the 1st set.  I was very impressed with the pilot powers longevity.  Of course the vast majority of my miles were done commuting which doesn't wear the tires much at all.

While running those sets of Pilot powers, I never once felt them slip and their warmup time was awesome.  It seemed they were never cold.  I really wanted to go with the Pilot Power 2CTs, but I just can't afford their price.  Prior to the Pilot Powers, I ran D208s.  I didn't like them.  They took too long to warmup (when they were cold they were slippery) and they only lasted 3500miles.  Before them I tried a set of race takeoffs, Power Races medium.  I could never get them warm riding around town and they slipped and slided everywhere.  But once I got them luke warm in the canyons, I liked them a lot.  Excellent grip.  They lasted about 3500miles as well.  Then of course there were the stock tires, BT56s.  They also only lasted about 3500miles and their warmup time also took too long.

Enough background info, now on to the new contis.
While at the shop getting them installed, the 1st impression is "holy crap", the rear tire is a lot heavier than the pilot power's rear.  Granted the PP was worn, and its a 180/55 rather than a big 190/55.  I was really hoping the extra weight wouldn't negatively affect the bike's handling, it is after all rotating mass.  But I was very relieved on the ride from the shop to my house to notice that the bike feels lighter than its ever felt to me.  The big profile definately negates the extra weight, but I will definately lose a couple HP.  But I don't really care about horsepower, the busa has more than I can use anyway.

New tires always feel better, but I can honestly say that the bike falls into the corners soo easily and it is just as easy to pick it back up.  We'll see if the tires can keep the feeling as they wear.

I did a quick comparo with my wife's 190/50 BT012s.  The BT012s are wider.  But you can see how much taller the contis are.

I have a trackday on the 27th and I figured I'd report back on the Contis performance there as well as during their life as I commute and take them to the canyons.  Starting mileage for these tires is 44,694miles.

 

[Charlesbusa]

Here's a pic

 

[Burger King]

A friend of mine put them on his FZ1 and so far he loves them. He has ridden it hard in the mountains and they've never slipped on him.
I'll be interesed to see how they do on the busa.

I just had a set of Pilot Roads put on mine today for the winter months. I would like to get more than 3500 miles out of a rear tire!

 

[Charlesbusa]

After a couple commuting stints I have noticed that the contis are less affected by bumps and grooves in the road than the pilot powers.  The contis don't seem to give as much as the pilot powers and seem to muffle road bumps and grooves.

I wouldn't say the contis are better than PP or vice versa, they are just different.  It feels like the PP give more feedback as to what is going on between the road and the tire, while the contis feel more stable because they muffle the feeling.

I'm heading out to the canyons tomorrow to scrub in the sides of the tires.  I'm looking forward to seeing how the contis do in the twisties.

 

[Burger King]

I'll be interested to see how they work on the twisties........

 

[Charlesbusa]

Just got back from the canyons, ahhhh  its soo much fun to lean    

Absolutely no problems with the contis!

The tire never felt cold or slipped.  I would guess that its warm-up time is on par with the PPs.  Which is practically no time at all.

Grip is more than enough for the canyons.  I pushed as hard as I'm willing to in the canyons and the tires performed excellently.  There was a lot of wind blowing, which caused the suspension to load and unload, but the tires never let go when the wind was pushing me around.

The differences between contis and PPs were pretty much the same that I noticed during the commutes.  PPs reacted more to the bumps and grooves while the contis reacted less.  I don't think one is better than the other because the I feel the PPs give more feedback while the contis feel more stable.

Another difference I noted is the PPs take a little to start them leaning, then they fall much easier, than they take a little more effort when I got near my lean limit, which is probably due to their triangular profile.  The Contis are taller and more rounded.  It was just as easy to start them leaning as getting them to lean to my limit.  No change in resistance.

Contis also seem less fazed by PSI changes.  I dropped them to about 34PSI and really could not feel any difference as when I had them at 41PSI.  The PPs felt squishy @ 34PSI, especially when braking hard, until they got hot.

Next Friday I take them to the track.  I couldn't get rid of my chicken strips in the canyons.  A problem I've never had with 190/50 or 180/55, probably because there is more tire on a 190/55.  At the track I'll be able to put them to the test under hard braking into corners, hard acceleration out of corners, and a little more lean angle.  

 

[BA BUSA]

Sounds like a good tire Charles

The track will tell how good this tire is

 

[Charlesbusa]

(BA BUSA @ Oct. 22 2006,13:20)

 Sounds like a good tire Charles

The track will tell how good this tire is

If I end up on my a$$, bad tire  

   

I can't wait until next Friday.  I love trackdays

 

 

[BA BUSA]

(Charlesbusa @ Oct. 22 2006,15:26)

(BA BUSA @ Oct. 22 2006,13:20)

 Sounds like a good tire Charles

The track will tell how good this tire is

If I end up on my a$$, bad tire  

   

I can't wait until next Friday.  I love trackdays

 

If ya end up on your AZZ....bad RIDER...for pushin' it too hard

 

[Wag]

Excellent report, Charles. Between you and Rich, I could never get enough tire information. I love the way you guys talk about it.

Can't wait to hear how it goes on the track.

--Wag--

 

[onerabidshark]

I like the way the conti attacks look for sure been waiting for a good report, may have to look at them next time I'll either be going PP, qualifiers, M3 or sounds like conti in that list too thanx for the writeup charles

Ricky

 

[cougar694u]

I ran the PP's for a while and I really liked the feel. I recently switched to the qualifier on the rear before MRS Houston (had the PP up front still

), got the qual front after, and I haven't noticed much difference. I do feel like it's a little harder to pull the bike down with the quals, but I'm no experienced canyon carver like you guys.

It seems like the initial lean is nice, but pulling it down low is harder, then springs right back up. I dunno, that's just my observation.

My question, though, is what are the benefits of choosing either a 180/55 or 190/55 vs the 190/50? I know what the numbers mean, I'm curious as to why.

I ran 29#'s in the rear and it felt way too squishy. It even looked like the sidewall might have buckled a little in a pic I saw online. My brother said that's where it should be (and I trust his judgement), but I was curious what others have tried & proven. I weigh about 175 without gear, where he's probably 215.

Sorry for the long post, but I was also curious about suspension. While at MSR Houston, I had them tune my suspension. It made a world of difference, but they didn't adjust pre-load on the rear. His exact words were, "under-sprung up front, over-sprung on the rear". At a roll, when I jump on the pegs, I feel that the rear is sagging a little more than the front (I haven't actually confirmed this, though). He maxed out the pre-load up front and recommended I upgrade the springs. Is this something y'all have done? I checked a shop to price springs, and he said I'd also have to have custom milled shims as well. Is this a consideration as well?

Again, sorry for the long post, I just don't know anyone around me on a busa that likes twisties & road racing. They're all about drag racing.

 

[Charlesbusa]

(cougar694u @ Oct. 24 2006,10:11)
My question, though, is what are the benefits of choosing either a 180/55 or 190/55 vs the 190/50?  I know what the numbers mean, I'm curious as to why.

A 55 profile is a taller tire than a 50.

On a 50 profile, the contact patch is largest in the center.

On a 55 profile, the contact patch is largest on the side.

Also a 55 profile makes the bike "feel" lighter because it improves the bike's turn in and "flickability" (for lack of a better word).

A 190/55 is a bigger tire than the 180/55 which means the 190/55 will offer a bigger contact patch(more grip) but will also be heavier.

On the image below, I exaggerated the difference between to 50 and 55 just to make it easier to see.  You can see how the 55 will "fall" easier and how the 50 is flatter.  Again, its an exaggeration.    

 

[Charlesbusa]

(cougar694u @ Oct. 24 2006,10:11) I ran 29#'s in the rear and it felt way too squishy.  It even looked like the sidewall might have buckled a little in a pic I saw online.  My brother said that's where it should be (and I trust his judgement), but I was curious what others have tried & proven.  I weigh about 175 without gear, where he's probably 215.

PSI #s vary on many factors. The biggest ones are;

1)air temperature
2)where you are riding
3)how hard you are riding
4)rider preference

At the track I run between 32-35 PSI depending on air temp.

In the canyons I run between 35-38PSI depending on air temp.

And for boring commutes, I run 40-41PSI to save on excessive tire wear.

 

[Charlesbusa]

(cougar694u @ Oct. 24 2006,10:11) Sorry for the long post, but I was also curious about suspension.  While at MSR Houston, I had them tune my suspension.  It made a world of difference, but they didn't adjust pre-load on the rear.  His exact words were, "under-sprung up front, over-sprung on the rear".  At a roll, when I jump on the pegs, I feel that the rear is sagging a little more than the front (I haven't actually confirmed this, though).  He maxed out the pre-load up front and recommended I upgrade the springs.  Is this something y'all have done?  I checked a shop to price springs, and he said I'd also have to have custom milled shims as well.  Is this a consideration as well?

The front is definately undersprung for aggressive riding.  Suspension setting will vary between riders, but basically your springs and preload should be selected to put the bike at its proper ride height.  This way you won't bottom out your suspension and you'll have more ground clearance.

I'm not experienced enough to recommend how to set your compression, and rebound.  But you can always try what was recommened to me and it seems to work for me.  Change one setting at a time 2 or 3 clicks one way and see if you can feel the difference.  After playing around with the settings you should be able to get an idea what works for you.

I have upgraded my front, I have ohlin's internals installed.  It was a big difference.  Also raising the rear an inch and an adjustable steering damper makes a big difference also.

Hope that helps...

 

[cougar694u]

(Charlesbusa @ Oct. 24 2006,19:39) Also raising the rear an inch

That's the next step I was planning on taking.

I kind of assumed that 55 series would have a taller center than the 50, but wanted to know and not assume.

When my quals get worn, I may switch to the 190/55 and see how it feels.

On the street, I run 35#'s, whether it's daily commute, or on a ride. On the D208, I didn't like running above that PSI because it felt like I didn't have a big enough foot print and my rear tire drifted often.

The Qual's may be different, but I haven't gone above that. Most of the time here in south TX, it's hot, pavement's hot, so I'm sure the tires heat up quickly. Hell, I got sun burned at the dyno day this passed Sunday

When I ran MSR Houston, it was cool for us, I think mid 80's. I'll have to play with tire pressure between sessions and see how it feels.

When you upgraded your front springs, do you know if they needed special shims or spacers? I'd like to upgrade mine, but I prefer to do it myself.

Thanks for all the info!

 

[Warputer]

Good write up Charles ! I ran the "Conti-Force" and the grip was o.k. but the mileage was a dissappointment . Only about 4,500 miles out of them .

 

[Charlesbusa]

(cougar694u @ Oct. 25 2006,05:38)

(Charlesbusa @ Oct. 24 2006,19:39) Also raising the rear an inch

That's the next step I was planning on taking.

I kind of assumed that 55 series would have a taller center than the 50, but wanted to know and not assume.

When my quals get worn, I may switch to the 190/55 and see how it feels.

On the street, I run 35#'s, whether it's daily commute, or on a ride.  On the D208, I didn't like running above that PSI because it felt like I didn't have a big enough foot print and my rear tire drifted often.

The Qual's may be different, but I haven't gone above that.  Most of the time here in south TX, it's hot, pavement's hot, so I'm sure the tires heat up quickly.  Hell, I got sun burned at the dyno day this passed Sunday

When I ran MSR Houston, it was cool for us, I think mid 80's.  I'll have to play with tire pressure between sessions and see how it feels.

When you upgraded your front springs, do you know if they needed special shims or spacers?  I'd like to upgrade mine, but I prefer to do it myself.

Thanks for all the info!

I bought the Ohlin's internals for the front forks, which includes shims, springs, and more.

Not really sure if shims have to be special, I think its more about how they install the shims.

I had a shop, http://www.ppsracing.com/ , that works on bikes from a few AMA teams install mine.  Taking off the forks isn't to hard, but dissassembling and reassembling the forks takes a lot more time and a little know how.

 

[Charlesbusa]

Well the trackday went awesome!!!



The contis did great. Warmup time is great, its on par with the PPs. I pushed the contis as hard as I ever pushed the PPs and they performed great!

The only time I got any tire to slip was when I added too much gas on a left hander(its the 180 degree left, turn 3). I'm sure if I had been on PPs, the rear would have squirmed a little also. You can see from the video that it was very minor, bike never really got out of line just caused the suspension to wobble a little.

I'm very happy with the contis.

Now, the only test left is longevitey. How many miles will they last and will their performance degrade with time.

I'll keep you advised as the miles wear on.

 

[Over_Easy]

(Warputer @ Oct. 25 2006,05:49) Good write up Charles !        I ran the "Conti-Force" and the grip was o.k. but the mileage was a dissappointment . Only about 4,500 miles out of them .

Charles is running "Sport Attack" not "Force"