• Can't post after logging to the forum for the first time... Try Again - If you can't post in the forum, sign out of both the membership site and the forum and log in again. Make sure your COG membership is active and your browser allow cookies. If you still can't post, contact the COG IT guy at IT@Concours.org.
  • IF YOU GET 404 ERROR: This may be due to using a link in a post from prior to the web migration. Content was brought over from the old forum as is, but the links may be in error. If the link contains "cog-online.org" it is an old link and will not work.

Michelin tread design?

rick4foxes

rick4foxes

Mini Bike
I just got my tires, and started checking for the directional arrows.
(Michelin Commander II rear and PR3 front)

When I oriented the tires and put them side-by-side, I noticed that the tread seems to be going in opposite directions:

3bd50f5e.jpg



I realize they are different tire designs, but I thought the tread grooves are supposed to channel water from the center to the edge.
Does this look strange to anybody else?  ???

 
I think the Avon Storm 2 front tire has the same thing with the V in the tread looking as if it would channel the water towards the center of the tire. I even thought the tire was mounted backwards.
I looked this up back then and found out for the rear tire the most important time to shed water is during acceleration, whereas on the front tire, the most important time to shed water is under braking. So having the treads in the opposite directions helps this.
 
Yes it looks strange but it's the way is supposed to be. Other tire manufacturers have similar apparently contradicting patern directions too. Confused me when I first noticed it, many moons ago. I even took pictures back to the dealer sure that there was a manufacturing mix-up on some Diunlops I have on the XS but was assured it was normal.
 
Bob_C_CT said:
I looked this up back then and found out for the rear tire the most important time to shed water is during acceleration, whereas on the front tire, the most important time to shed water is under braking. So having the treads in the opposite directions helps this.
Click to expand...
I noticed that years ago and have long since forgotten about it.  Thanks for clearing up that mystery! 
8)
 
Rick,
  Have you run this combo (or the Commander II ) before, & if so, how was the performance/ mileage returns?
 
The compromising position almost every tire manufacturer has put us C-10 owners in causes these mismatched tire choices and thus patterns.

I realize you know this, but with a sport touring Radial front tire and a cruiser Bias ply rear what do you expect as far as tread patterns go?

I am sure the mix will be OK to run. The rear I guarantee in time will square off. But again these mix and match combo's just suck.

With 20 years of production and as many of these fine machines that are on the road, I just don't know why we cannot get any love.

For this reason I did the 17" wheel conversion, and I realize this conversion is not the fix for everyone,

But come on, with Michelin, Metzler, Avon, Continental, Pirelli and the like they have all abandoned us C-10 owners. Sad. Very sad..... :mad:
 
2linby said:
I realize you know this, but with a sport touring Radial front tire and a cruiser Bias ply rear what do you expect as far as tread patterns go?
Click to expand...
But the oddity of the "reversed" tread patterns exists in matched tires, as well.  My first set of Pilot GTs, I double (and triple, and quadruple) checked that I was mounting them according to the directional arrows. 
 
DeansZG said:
Rick,
  Have you run this combo (or the Commander II ) before, & if so, how was the performance/ mileage returns?
Click to expand...

No, actually this is my first tire swap since I bought the bike.
I'm planning a trip to the Arctic Circle in June, so I'm hoping for GREAT tread mileage.  :motonoises:

 
Michelin (and others) have determined that the rear needs traction under ACCELERATION and the front needs traction under BRAKING. They vent water all the time, but GRIP is maximized when it's needed the most.

ymmv
 
My experience w/ PR3s is both highway, and twisties. Both dry and POURING RAIN! They are softer and more compliant than PR2s. They grip WAY better than 2s. They give me more confidence, and I do tend to lean w/ confidence. So.....if you like PR2s, or other ST tires w/ or w/o dual compounds, I REALLY like the PR3s.

They appear to have the same/similar rubber compound as the PR2, so I expect mileage would be the same/ similar also. I got 9-10k out of the last 2 sets.  ymmv
 
Unfortunately, I'm up to my ears in another project right now, and it may be a couple of weeks before I get around to mounting them. 

Which may start another thread, since I've never tried removing/mounting tires before... ;D

Hmm... come to think of it, I need to read up on how to remove the wheels!  :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top