Hey I have a stupid question, I just bought an R6 with slicks, the front looks great but the rear needs to be replaced. Is it a really bad idea to run a slick up front and a power race on the rear? Thanks
Are you racing it? if so, what classes? cause running a slick my DQ you. Also, what brand is the slick?
I'm not a tire guy, but I think with a slick up front you're fine. If you have a slick on the rear and DOT up front, trouble is on your horizon.
not sure about the Michelin's but the Dunlop slick is a larger size, front and rear, than the DOT's. Run one of each, front or rear, and the geometry of the bike will be different (which depending on how fast you are might/might not make a difference on how the bike handles.)
Not sure but if he's asking this question then he's probably not at the point where the minor geometry change would be a big issue.
i know, John, but i figured he at least should know why someone would NOT do it. (i personally wouldnt).
I ran a 17" DOT up front and a 16.5" michelin rear recently and crashed & while this could be atributed to a variety of factors (not enough heat in that fat slick in the back perhaps being the most relevant one) the first thing that comes to mind is that a rear slick has so much traction that it'll push the front wide in turns. Michelin guru, Walt, told me that the best results they've had while testing on a 600rr (for instance) was with a 16.5" front slick and a 17" rear DOT. The front steers quicker and offers a bit more grip while the rear will not push the front. Also on a 600, the extra weight and grip of a meaty slick makes it impossible to spin up the tire and hence folks who steer with the throttle may not be big fans... just my thoughts but honestly I've no definitive idea.
i won a bunch of races last year using a dot front and a rear slick when i didnt feel like replacing the front. i've ran a rain front and dot rear plenty of times(which i'm sure a lot of racers have done). barring any geometry changes, it doesnt really matter.
