more 3 month than a year

but I did stick (ah ah) with the Sirac so far.

__________________
former Red owner !

Doh. oh yeah..3 months...that's what I meant...honest guv.

__________________
www.reeves-cartoons.co.uk
centrestand, handguards and deflectors, scottoiler, handlebar muffs, panniers, cush drive mod, compass, power socket,
petebog rack, handguard extenders, satnav, tank bag...to be continued

So the bike has now 29 000 km, and my 2nd pair of Sirac is starting to run thin...

I'm still very very happy about them... and I wonder if I'll ever change brand

__________________
former Red owner !

I used tourances on my GS. They lasted well and allways had enough grip even in the wet and riding very hard.

I never ran the EXP but reviews on the GS forum suggested that they were not as good as the original tourance and did not last long.

I didn't like the sirac found it laking in grip for the way I ride and did not last very long.

At the end of the day you ask 100 poeple you will get 100 different answers. The best option is to try them and make your own mind up!

It appears so. My experiences are the exact opposite form yours. Didn't like the original Tourances at all in the wet, preferred the Siracs. Pretty pleased with the EXPs now, but only had them on for 3 weeks so can't really tell.

With the onset of winter i changed the oem tourance ( prob had another 2,000 k's left in it) at 11,000 k's to the exp tourance. done a couple thou on it now , mostly onroad, but very happy with it, so mite try one on the front. bit better grip onroad and a bit more slip in the dirt.As advertised. It seems to be wearing well so far..

I've been ridin' Tourances for some years now(on my Tenere now runnin'my third set at 58.000km) and very happy with them, for me good grip dry and wet(!) and around an average of 20.000km(f&b), so no complaints there......
But when this set is shot, I'll give the Heidenau's K60 Scout a try; they got good reviews, so look&learn if this all is true, mostly on grip and durability.
Greetz, Hans.

P.s.: for the rear, I'll get a 140 instead of a 130, seems to be better...?
P.s.: tire pressure on my Tourances: f-2.3/32, b-2.5/36; check once a week
before ridin'.

Attached Images

K60-Scout-front+rear-Neu.jpg (19.2 KB, 25 views)

__________________
XT rules! Make the world beautiful, get a tattoo. Nick Curran R.I.P. '77-'12

XT660Z Tenere '08 http://dallastx.smugmug.com

visit: www.hank3.com

SRV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU0MF8pwktg

I had K60 regular 130 and running now on K60 Scout 140.

the regular 130 was actually more a 120, very good otherwise and I filed my impressions about it on the tires thread. the 140 is at 5.5-6k right now, I had quite a bit of road riding with pillion and luggage with it so by now I worn it to the reinforcement band... I liked it so far, front is still the regular K60 but will change soon, is not very worn but the way it got warn is very irregular.

You won't get the mileage you get out of the Tourance from the K60 Scout but if you get offroad often is a better tire. 130 vs 140 - you'll get instant speedo healer when the back is new there's something like max 3-4km/h error at 100km/h. Also beware that the bike will get a bit taller... otherwise I haven't noticed anything unusual.

The last remark I don't get: 130 vs 140, it's the width of the tire, so it shouldn't have any effect on the height?

__________________
XT rules! Make the world beautiful, get a tattoo. Nick Curran R.I.P. '77-'12

XT660Z Tenere '08 http://dallastx.smugmug.com

visit: www.hank3.com

SRV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU0MF8pwktg

it does if they're both 1x0/80 's

130 * 0.8 = 104
140 * 0.8 = 112

the 140 is 8mm higher...


HJ

__________________
Riding the Mad Mule !! ... no more... went orange...