Any difference: 60 series vs. 70 series tire on the front??

[SoloScott]

I plan to buy some Z6s SOON, the rear in 160|60R17 and not sure about the front yet. Does the 120|60R17 better match the traction/etc. of the 60 series rear? Is the 160|60 rear so close to the overall diameter of the original 150|70 rear that the front is best kept at 120|70?

If it doesn't matter at all, the 60s are cheaper.

[BeekMan]

I prefer the 120/60 front to match the rear. My old 120/70 was fatter and so handled a little more sluggish. The 60 series looks better too.

[The CyberPoet]

The raw basic characteristics go like this:

The shorter the sidewall, the sharper the handling and the less flex in the sidewall. This is advantageous for handling, especially for those who tend to rail hard.

On the flip side, the taller sidewall permits the tire to absorb more road imperfections by flexing without involving the suspension (i.e.: forks), thus gives the smoother ride, and is a preferable choice if you tend to do a lot of touring or commuting.

Cheers
=-= The CyberPoet

[SoloScott]

Since it's about rider preference and road conditions, I guess that leaves the decision up to me. Also, Beek, I agree that the 60 looks better.

The sidewall height seems to be as big of a deal as the extra 10mm width that I will be increasing in the rear. I have read that the 160|60 will handle marginally better and be worse in the rain (hydroplaning). I imagine the difference in the rain is marginal as well; we're only talking about 10mm of width. Living in the Pacific Northwest, I am subjected to wet weather often, even though I choose not to head out in the rain. For 1% better handling in the dry, I am fine slowing down 10% (or more) when it rains.

Thank you both!

[thepman01]

after I put the 60 series on the front....I was scraping the lower fairing in turns. that sucked!