MTB Tire Direction

[Ysterman]

I?ve done a quick search but could not find info on this, perhaps didn?t search long enough ?

 

Just converted to tubeless with Maxxis Monorail at the rear and Crossmark in front after discussing with LBS.

<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

 

My question ? the Monorail has been fitted the ?wrong way round? - meaning the directional indicator on the tire shows backwards ?  after discussing this I am a bit confused:

 

Front wheel ? provides speed, therefore the correct direction

Rear wheel ? provides traction, therefore the ?incorrect? direction

[markStockton]

You fit Schwalbe Racing Ralphs exactly as described, and I must add I think they are amazing. 

[Johan Bornman]

Yup, you didn't search long enough. There was a mini war on this topic not too long ago.

 

There was no concensus of course, we all agreed to settle the issue behind the bicycle shed but nobody arrived at the designated time.

 

It doesn't make a difference to traction. It's all smoke and mirrors. Trying to scale down the very effective shape of a tractor rear tyre that's designed to squeeze out mud to bicycle size doesn't work. Ditto for other shapes that work on motocross, road bikes, aeroplane tyres and

 

You'll even find that the apparent shapes and ramps are counter-intuitive if you stand on your head and look at the angle from a tyre contact perspective.

 

Where I've found it does make a difference is when the centre knobbly causes a buzz on tar. Some tyres have been designed to eliminate it for that situation. But a buzz is not traction.

 

I don't know what you mean by "Front wheel provides speed and rear wheel traction."

 

No wheel provide speed and both require traction - for braking or propulsion, with the latter being the smallest.

 

[Wyatt Earp]

Yster

 

The front tire is the one that does most of the work in trying to keep the bike stable.

Often freeriders and downhillers opt for a much bigger tire up front and a smaller one at the back.

I ride with Monorails and Maxxiss suggest both tires face the same direction.

People often confuse the newer generation of tire with what we rode back in the 90's.

We used to have front and rear specific tires, the rear normally had the tread facing in a V to the back and a V for the front.

The theory was that the rear tire could hook up better on the steep loose climbs.

Nowadays most tires grip well, it is in the cornering patterns that progress has been made, it takes a nervous rider to a competent skilled rider by allowing for more grip around the corners.

My advice, rotate that rear sucker.

[Johan Bornman]

Yster

 

The front tire is the one that does most of the work in trying to keep the bike stable.

 

 

Anton' date=' I don't understand that statement. Perhaps you want to elaborate on front tyres and stability?

 

 

 

IWe used to have front and rear specific tires, the rear normally had the tread facing in a V to the back and a V for the front.

 

 

This is exactly what I was referring to in my tractor analogy.

 

The theory was that the rear tire could hook up better on the steep loose climbs.

Nowadays most tires grip well' date=' it is in the cornering patterns that progress has been made, it takes a nervous rider to a competent skilled rider by allowing for more grip around the corners.

My advice, rotate that rear sucker.

[/quote']

 

I don't see how changing the tyre around will allow for more grip in the corners.

 

 

[GoLefty!!]

here we go again...

 

 

 

The pattern of the tread blocks mean precious little.\The shape of the leading edge of the tread block is what you need to focus on. As Johan says some are designed to reduce noise.

 

traction on a gravel or dirt road or singletrack surfaceis dependant on how much surface area is penetrating and "paddling".

 

 

 

forget all else, it's just confusing and marketing

[Wyatt Earp]

The rear tire has all your weight over it making it more stable.

The front is generally unweighted and also takes all the knocks first, it applies to motorbikes as well.

Go around corner and allow the back wheel to slide a bit, you will be ale to correct this quickly, let the front wheel slide and your lip will slide along the ground with it.

The side knobs have been designed in such a way that they allow for maximum traction when the tire rorates in the recommended direction.

These chaps do massive amounts of R&D and if they tell me the tire should rotate in a particular direction, you better believe that I will follow instruction.

[GoLefty!!]

Summit, that is best piece of science fiction i have read today.

 

 

 

Define "most of your weight". MY bikes weight distribution is 47F/53R. If the rear wheel slides out the correcting factor has more to do with the distance between the wheels than the weight over the wheels. Thats. If you front wheel slides out its because the rear tyre cannot provide a correcting moment as the front does to the rear.

 

 

 

And no they do not do a massive amount of R&D on bicycle tyres...

[Johan Bornman]

The rear tire has all your weight over it making it more stable.

 

Only when you wheelie. For the rest of the time' date=' a 40/60% distribution is realistic.

 

The front is generally unweighted and also takes all the knocks first, it applies to motorbikes as well.

 

 

And??

 

Go around corner and allow the back wheel to slide a bit' date=' you will be ale to correct this quickly, let the front wheel slide and your lip will slide along the ground with it.

[/quote']

 

OK, so a front wheel slide on dirt is sudden and precipitous whereas the rear wheel less so. But this will be the case no matter what shape the treads. Tread shape doesn't change the nature of this beast.

 

The side knobs have been designed in such a way that they allow for maximum traction when the tire rorates in the recommended direction.

These chaps do massive amounts of R&D and if they tell me the tire should rotate in a particular direction' date=' you better believe that I will follow instruction.

[/quote']

 

Well, this sounds a lot like the blurb on the box the tyre came in and the crux of this debate. Can you explain how and why vthe traction will change if the tyre is flipped. By saying "it was designed that way" is exactly what the OP couldn't fathom and questioned.

 

This is the tech forum, we don't try and understand things here by looking at R&D budgets. Also, we don't all have religious-like faith and believe what the gurus tell us. A better explanation for your statement is required.

 

 

 

 

[Wyatt Earp]

Go Headshock (sorry, your avatar is not a Lefty) and  Borries.

The 2 of you seem you disagree about the amount of distribution of front to back.

So what is the 100% correctness and amount of distribution ? My next question is regarding the statements as made by you two highly esteemed gentleman.

Are they hearsay, fact or personal preference, unless you both have a thesis on your beliefs I would have to side with the tire companies that actually do this for a living.

Till then I would rather see all statements not as "science fiction" but rather as a layman's perception.

You would like a better statement Borries, now let me get this straight.

I have made no claim, I made it quite clear that I trust those who manufacture the stuff. Not claiming to be an expert.

Now if anyone needs to give a better explanation and not just assumptions it would be you sir.

I will take a guess that the tire direction on your bike is as suggested, but I could be wrong.

[Johan Bornman]

Go Headshock (sorry' date=' your avatar is not a Lefty) and  Borries.

The 2 of you seem you disagree about the amount of distribution of front to back.

So what is the 100% correctness and amount of distribution ? My next question is regarding the statements as made by you two highly esteemed gentleman.

Are they hearsay, fact or personal preference, unless you both have a thesis on your beliefs I would have to side with the tire companies that actually do this for a living.

[/quote']

 

I don't.  Lefty and I agree (this time). It is just a bit of an elastic question. Not all bikes are set up the same, not all stems are installed to the same height ratios as people's weight distribution and not all people have the same stem length for their body shape.

 

Further, weight distribution changes all the time. If you stand it is different from when you tuck.

 

Therefore, anything from 40/60 to 50/50 is possible. Even outside that range will be plausible. Lefty seems to have measured his, probably statically on two scales, I dunno. Me, I make a calculated guess.

 

Show me the tyre company that says what you said and I'll drink Squirt. Everybody here knows how much I hate Squirt.

 

However,weight distribution has no affect on tyre tread patterns so lets focus on that.

 

 

Till then I would rather see all statements not as "science fiction" but rather as a layman's perception.

 

You've lost me' date=' sorry but I'm a right-brain thinker.

 

You would like a better statement Borries, now let me get this straight.

I have made no claim, I made it quite clear that I trust those who manufacture the stuff. Not claiming to be an expert.

 

 

I beg to disagree. You've given someone advice, backed it up with the statment of "the front wheel gives you the stability (or something to that effect, I'm not on that screen now to quote you directly) and the back wheel etc etc etc.

 

In my book, that's a statement. Semantics, but a statement.

 

Now if anyone needs to give a better explanation and not just assumptions it would be you sir.

I will take a guess that the tire direction on your bike is as suggested' date=' but I could be wrong.

 

[/quote']

 

You are right and wrong. I don't care which way my front wheel goes in. So much so, that I have a magnet for the computer on each side. On the rear wheel, I simply replace the tyre, not caring what direction it points to. Right now, I know it points in the right direction since the Larssen knobblies make a lot of noise on the tar and I do about four blocks of tar before I get on the Spruit.

 

As for the explanation, myself and others have written extensively about this, please do a search.

 

In a nutshell: Road bikes require ZERO thread.

Bike casings are unidirectional, since the threads are woven with a 37 degree bias and all side is same side on the casing.

Mud expelling is 90% myth since it cannot be scaled down from tractor to bicycle tyres, just like a model motor boat cannot create the foamy wake a larger boat can create and can therefore not be used for movie special effects.

Tyre direction has no effect on traction.

Tyre direction sometimes has an effect on noise. However, riding it enough quickly grinds down the noisy leading edge and you're back to a unidirectional tyre.

 

 

Johan Bornman2008-10-02 06:08:35

[intern]

Just an observation - Johan, why do you always shout down anyone else who ventures an experience or an opinion on tech Q and A? You inevitably come across as someone who believes that his opinion, and only his, is the right one.

 

People who have been working in cycling know that bikes in many instances are idiosyncratic little buggers, just like their owners. What works for one, whether a placebo effect or not, may not work for another.

 

You might think that it is all 'smoke and mirrors' - if I am not mistaken, you were a marketing director for an IT company, so perhaps know more about the lies and misinformation that said IT companies promulgate. I am not sure that this carries over to the cycling industry?

 

I'd say constructive contribution is better, but that's me.

 

[intern]

And yes, that is just, like, my opinion, man.

[Wyatt Earp]

 

 

It doesn't make a difference to traction. It's all smoke and mirrors. Trying to scale down the very effective shape of a tractor rear tyre that's designed to squeeze out mud to bicycle size doesn't work. Ditto for other shapes that work on motocross' date=' road bikes, aeroplane tyres and

 

You'll even find that the apparent shapes and ramps are counter-intuitive if you stand on your head and look at the angle from a tyre contact perspective.

 

 

 

 

[/quote']

I have done all the searching

Now the above is not just a statement but the only fact according to you.

When one says something like "it's all smoke and mirrors" then obviously you have done a thesis on this, otherwise how can you be so sure ?

As I said ,show me a thesis and I might believe you.

That explains my comment on the layman's approach. 

You seem to get upset when someone gives advice when it does not conform to your comments, have you ever given thought to the fact that you might give bad advice at times. I know I do.

I will agree with you when you can explain the fact behind your "statement" ,as you I like proof, not hearsay.

My comment on the traction from the front wheel is based on personal experience from riding mountainbikes for the last 18 years.

Sorry, make that my "statement"

[Johan Bornman]

Just an observation - Johan' date=' why do you always shout down anyone else who ventures an experience or an opinion on tech Q and A? You inevitably come across as someone who believes that his opinion, and only his, is the right one.

People who have been working in cycling know that bikes in many instances are idiosyncratic little buggers, just like their owners. What works for one, whether a placebo effect or not, may not work for another.

You might think that it is all 'smoke and mirrors' - if I am not mistaken, you were a marketing director for an IT company, so perhaps know more about the lies and misinformation that said IT companies promulgate. I am not sure that this carries over to the cycling industry?

I'd say constructive contribution is better, but that's me.
[/quote']

 

I strongly differentiate between opinion and fact. If in your opinion, red bikes are the nicest. I respect that. However if you say red bikes are the fastest, I'll dispute that.

 

Have a good look at my posts and you'll notice that I stick to facts, question marketing hype with solid science and dislike blind belief. When opinion is presented as fact, I react.

 

As for me being in the lies and misinformation business, you are mistaken but I resent the parallels you're drawing. If you suggest that I'm here to bullsh*t, then you better cite an example of such behaviour or apologise.

 

After yesterday's tirade when I pointed out your MAS answer and now this "observation", I suggest you twitlist me and just don't read what I write. We are both clearly better off without each other.

 

 

 

[Wyatt Earp]

 

I strongly differentiate between opinion and fact.

Have a good look at my posts and you'll notice that I stick to facts' date='

 

[/quote']

Johan, I did not post to try and get you to start arguing with me, I don't even have to post.

But as you say above, you believe in FACT, now give me the facts behind the statements you made.