I've just started riding again after a break and am amazed that tyre technology has almost completely stood still in the last 12 years! It was always Michelin X11 then and still seems to be now! Over on the round and round world of trackdays, tyres have moved on in huge leaps!

I guess there's not a lot of cash in trials for the tyre manufacturers...

Anyways, on one of the club websites someone is offerring Vee- Rubber tyres. They are considerably cheaper than Mich, IRC or Dunlop. Has anyone used them? Are they a serious alternative or made out of plastic?

Thanks

Graham

I had a Vee Rubber tyre on the back of my gasgas a couple of years ago, It was very soft, and gave plenty of grip, allthough it did seem to wear a bit quickly, ofcourse that's the tradeoff for the low price, in my opinion they're decent value for money, but I'm not sure I'd take one to the scott, although mine got a fair bit of use.

Hmm. Tricky.

Thing is, they are a lot cheaper; they are offered for a pair for not much more than the price a rear Michy.

I'm going to drop along to the Hinxton Trial on 30th (Cambridge Matchless), I'll take a look at who's using them.

Graham

Could be that there is no requirement for tyres to 'move on' ?

If you read and analyse the minutiae of your ACU handbook you will realise that the one control aspect of the sport is the dimensions of the tyres and their tread blocks.

Effectively you can do what you want with everything 3" or more above the ground, but the contact with the ground (and in theory the available grip) is tied down tightly in the rules.

It should then be the same for everybody.

It would be easy to make a grippier tyre by altering it's size / profile / tread configuration but it's not allowed.

Having said that, don't imagine for a minute that the tyres used by the World class riders aren't 'tuned' in their manufacture to suit the rider.

I'd guess that if one of the manufacturers produced a tyre that was significantly better than the competition whilst staying within the rules (say a fantastic wet / dry / mud ultragrip compound) then it may actually be in the interests of the sport to change the rules and prohibit it.

Probably just after I bought one

I think that's a fair point. However, there's a lot that can be done within the constraints of the physical size of a tyre. Huge advances have been made in compound and carcass construction and I'm surprised that the major manufactures haven't developed what they have. Since I last rode in 1996, IRC have entered the market, and Dunlop have upgraded their tyre from the D801 to the current D803. Michelin haven't moved and Pirelli have amazingly stuck to the second string MT43 when they had a better tyre back then (MT73).

I'm not saying it's wrong, because it leaves a nice level playing field for us all. I'm just suprised!

Whilst the nomenclature of the Michelin may be the same as ten years ago I can't believe that the compound, at least, has not moved on.

I cant prove it but I think the Michelin has developed, for example at one point the X11 had a rib around the side wall which has now disapearred so something must have changed even if the name of the tyre hasnt. I still think the Michelin is the best value as it still grips when it looks finished.

I'll go with Baldilocks on this one, Mich is the best all rounder and still very strong when ****ed. Brother had a go on my bike a year ago after not riding for nearly twenty years and couldnt beleive the grip the tyres give now compared to back then, yer maybe the bike as well but I think they have moved on in someway.

I have been a Vee dealer for a couple of years and offered them at a bargain rate, thinking the punters and kids bikes would pick up on them.

They are very good bang for the buck.

The front is very similar to the 801 Dunlop, a bit lower profile then the Mich, very firm sharp and precise without the side flex of the mich. Great on the rocks!

The rear seems much like the dunlop 803 as well, my impression is basically: Dry, good! Mud, as good as any! Grip on wet rocks, lacking as compared to others!

You get what you pay for in an economy tire.

As we ride varied conditions, I cannot fault the dunlops for price or performance, and it does seem I can run the rear at some rediculously low pressures in the slop. I like that!

Due to low demand, I will not keep them in stock any longer, sorry! I want to put the last set on the Serow and run them.

Edited November 16, 200817 yr by copemech

Copetech, interesting and nicely neutral point! I think confidence has a lot to do with it regarding tyres. On the blackstuff, I hve NEVER got on with Michelin, but were certainly my favourite tyre back then in the sections. I think if half the field and a few Pros were riding Vee, it would be much more accepted.

Baldilocks, that's true! I remeber that ridge; it used to wear through the silencer on my Zero. It would be strange in the extreme if they didn't develop the tyre, but why would they want to keep it a secret? The nomenclature of their tyres for all other uses always changes?

Anyways, regarding the original thread (!), I'll probably get whatever comes my way! I haven't ridden for 12 years so it isn't going to be tyres that hold me back...

Could be that there is no requirement for tyres to 'move on' ?

If you read and analyse the minutiae of your ACU handbook you will realise that the one control aspect of the sport is the dimensions of the tyres and their tread blocks.

Effectively you can do what you want with everything 3" or more above the ground, but the contact with the ground (and in theory the available grip) is tied down tightly in the rules.

It should then be the same for everybody.

It would be easy to make a grippier tyre by altering it's size / profile / tread configuration but it's not allowed.

Having said that, don't imagine for a minute that the tyres used by the World class riders aren't 'tuned' in their manufacture to suit the rider.

I'd guess that if one of the manufacturers produced a tyre that was significantly better than the competition whilst staying within the rules (say a fantastic wet / dry / mud ultragrip compound) then it may actually be in the interests of the sport to change the rules and prohibit it.

Probably just after I bought one

Here's a recurring question related to this point...correct me if I am wrong..but the popular IRC rear tyre does not have the 1:1 aspect ratio that is required for ACU trials??..Anyone?

Being excluded from a trial on a muddy hillside in Northamptonshire because me tyre didn't have the correct aspect ratio may well elicit some colourful language...

Hi All,

Just to let you know, I decided to fit a pair of Vee Rubber tyres to my 2001 Rev3. reason being principaly cost. As I had to replace both tyres and I had spent a fair bit getting the bike ready to ride, I had run out of budget. Had I just needed a rear, I would almost certainly put an X11 on. As it was, I got a pair of Vees for the price of a Michelin rear.

I finally got to ride the bike on Sunday at the Earl Shilton trials ground. It was quite muddy, and I was enjoying my forst ride for around 12 years, but I certainly found plenty of grip. True that new tyres are almost always grippy and the reall test will be a month or so down the line, but at a replacement rate of nearly 2 for one, michelins need to provide grip for twice as long to be cost effective!

So, so far so impressed. The tyres gripped well in slimey mud, over rocks and tree roots. Cambers were secure and the front braking grip was fine.

I'll keep you posted as time goes by.

Graham

If you went on the michelin stand at the dirt bike show you

would have seen they have a new x11(light) as they call it,

whatever that is ?!

If you went on the michelin stand at the dirt bike show you

would have seen they have a new x11(light) as they call it,

whatever that is ?!

It must have been this post that spurred some development!

It's about time I guess!