|CONTI ULTRA 3000||by666|
Aug 3, 2001 9:07 AM
|is it a good training tire(ie: lasts a long time, gets few flats)|
|re: CONTI ULTRA 3000||Chas|
Aug 3, 2001 10:40 AM
|I'd have to say NO.
My pair lasted about 1000 miles. Rubber was OK but they got sliced up pretty good causing flats. Seems like sharp rocks would put cuts in the traction area. Had some thread showing on the sidewall. I had 4 flats during the last 200 miles of use. I liked the weight and traction but just gave up on them because of the flats. I went with a bombproof specialized armadillo. No flats yet(600 miles). They seemed heavy and bumpy at first but after some use they smoothed out.
Anyone know what the difference is between the conti ultra 3000 and 2000?
|re: CONTI ULTRA 3000||Marlon|
Aug 3, 2001 10:49 AM
|2000's are mostly slick. They're supposed to last longer than the 3000's as a training tire, but on the stock conti 2000's supplied with my Trek 2300, I wasn't really impressed. Cornering was ok, perhaps slightly worse than 3000's, but they got sliced up fairly quickly.
I'd give the 3000's another try. I've been through Vreds Fortezzas Tri-comps, Axial Selects, Conti 2000s, Hutchinson Krono Golds, and Conti Super Sports, and so far, the 3000's have felt VERY good on corners and on durability.
|re: CONTI ULTRA 3000||Lardog|
Aug 3, 2001 12:04 PM
|I believe the Ultra 3000 is completely slick and it is indeed a different tire than the 3000 GP. It is very very thin. The Ultra is definitely not a good training tire at all. It's a race day tire and even more, a track type, best time type tire.|| |