David Lahey wrote:I've been trying to work out why the MAXXIS doesn't work as well on small logs and sharp edges as the Michelin does. I have plenty of theories and one of them was about how well they wrap small logs.
To try and get a look at what the two tyres do, I set up a Koppers log and deformed both tyres against the log until they felt solid.
To me it looks like they both wrap nicely and pretty much the same amount.
There is a difference in that the Michelin outer knobs are hidden by the fold in the tyre wall but the edge knobs are still visible on the MAXXIS.
While I was doing these photos the thought occurred to me that maybe a reason for why the Michelin works better riding over logs like this is that with the Michelin there is much more rubber in contact with the log due to the smaller gaps between the knobs.
It is very simple David, there are less knobs to grab hold of things! While we are comparing notes, don't do what I did a while ago. Attempting to fit a brand new VEE rubber rear to a 2.15 alloy rim. With the bead area very similar to a Michelin tubeless tyre, I thought not a problem to reshape the bead area like how I do to a Michelin. Started to trim and the reinforced fibres are closer to the inner surface of the bead so that means less material was removed. Knowing that the fibres are a good guide to depth and the steel cables are in there, I decided to have a go at fitting the tyre. As you know the well in a tube type rim is not as deep as a tubeless rim and this meant everything is not (Belissimo)! So I stopped using aloooominium tyre levers and opted for a very fine steel levers with a little more leverage. This saw me tearing the steel cable out of the bead area in 2 places so I cracked the sh!ts and threw the tyre over to the back of the shed out of sight! Not happy Jan!
That was a while back and I tried very hard to forget all about it until now. On Sunday I rode the Cane Toad, yes there is at least one Cane Toad in Coffs Harbour. Cane Toad =
CT 200 ugly and indestructible but not the Michelin in this case so I went looking for a suitable tyre... Of course you know what I found and I came up with this idea:- IMG_20220307_151844.jpg (452.72 KiB) Viewed 823 times
There is no feeling quite like drilling holes in a brand new tyre but I thought what have I got to lose? Maybe if I centre the biggest split on the rimlock and fit the damaged side on first it might just squeeze on to the low profile steel rim?
- IMG_20220307_151835.jpg (1.73 MiB) Viewed 823 times
- IMG_20220307_160742.jpg (2.65 MiB) Viewed 823 times
Success!
As to why this happened, I have learnt the the VEE Rubber tubeless rears steel cables are a smaller diameter than on a Michelin and it does not make a good choice for Aloooominium 2.15 tube type rims! So I am now thinking that when Michelin went from tubetype to tubeless, they simply added more rubber to the inner side of the bead and that is the bit to remove.
None of these problems with fitting a rear MAXXIS as they go straight on to tubetype 2.15 rims no hassles!
RL250 of the type that came with the Australian-fitted road rego equipment a lot like the one my friend John Heidemann bought new in 1976. This one being NSW rego rather than Queensland has extra chain guarding.
