Facing a tire in the right direction

[Racing roadkill]

Your first link gets me to a 404, the other three to marketing brochures.
You may want to reconsider the part I highlighted in bold for you.
I see nothing there of interrupting the laminar flow of water between tyre and tarmac.

The fact you don’t see it is immaterial. It happens, that’s physics ( fluid dynamics really ) you can’t argue it, without making yourself look daft.

 

[Racing roadkill]

Sure, We'll use my tires as an example

1) The center-line of the tread is slick but with Deep Cut-out grooves that come in at an angle to intercept the edges of the smooth slick center-line.

When debris is caught in the center line (and weight is applied) the rubber yields enough for the stone to be forced into the intercepting angle-cut edges, the deep tread swallows the stone & debris entirely removing it from the center line.

2) You really should of made it clearer you were referring to that, but I'll let that slide. - we can establish that tread (though, this varies) can displace foreign objects (which, may not be done as efficiently or at all if the tire is on backwards) and there are Alternative Theories that may have truth to them "i,e, increased tread wear" -- I am very skeptical to the legitimacy of those kind of claims (Personally) but the point stands that we don't hear Good things happening when you put it on backwards, do we? Hence why there multiple benefits overall if you just do it Right.


3) I did not mangle your question, it wasn't easy to read.

This, is more common sense. I've seen manufacturing tests on tires (like wear testing) and they would of been followed to the direction of the tread - Subsequently, the arrow. - Meaning, when you face the directional point of the arrow you're facing the direction the tire was Designed & Tested on.
-

You’re pretty much right, maybe not entirely for the reasons you think, going by the post, but right is right.

 

[Racing roadkill]

Your reading of what, Racing Roadkill is putting in a made up link to a non existent web page,

Links do go dead from time to time, that’s the internet for you. The info from the link in the bit you’ve quoted is from the same people that the dead link in my bit should have linked to.

 

[gavroche]

If there is no arrow telling you which way to put on a tyre facing in the right direction how do you know ?

Also if a tyre is not facing in the right direction does it make the going tougher for the cyclist ?

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Links do go dead from time to time, that’s the internet for you. The info from the link in the bit you’ve quoted is from the same people that the dead link in my bit should have linked to.

You posted the link about "recent wind tunnel testing" less than an hour before I clicked on it. It was dead for Yellow Saddle less than 5 mins after you posted. It is not recorded on the Internet Wayback archive (just checked) . The link did not point to wind tunnel tests to start with, it never existed.

 

[Roadhump]

I don't speak from position of knowledge or authority on this, just my own reasoning, which may be flawed.

I don't know whether fitting tyres to roll with the directional arrow has any effect on performance or not, but I always fit my tyres so that they face that direction, it's probably down to OCD more than anything else, which probably also explains why I could never just flip the wheel round as @youngoldbloke suggests, no way, the tyre would have to come off and be put back on facing the correct way.

A couple of things that occurred to me whilst reading this thread, were: firstly, if tread does not dispel water, why do tyre manufacturers bother with it? Surely they could reduce costs by eliminating the part of the production process where tread is put on the tyre? Secondly, as for aquaplaning, is it not the case that bikes don't aquaplane because they don't go fast enough for the tread's effect to be overwhelmed in the same way that causes cars to aquaplane when the vehicle goes so fast that the tread can no longer dispel water quickly enough? If that is so, perhaps tread on bike tyres is actually doing its job>

Also, if tread is as ineffective, and superfluous as some suggest (if I get their meaning correct), why do people complain that some tyres make riding your bike like cycling through treacle (Schwalbe M+ have been cited to me as having such a characteristic)?

 

[Yellow Saddle]

Sure, We'll use my tires as an example

1) The center-line of the tread is slick but with Deep Cut-out grooves that come in at an angle to intercept the edges of the smooth slick center-line.

When debris is caught in the center line (and weight is applied) the rubber yields enough for the stone to be forced into the intercepting angle-cut edges, the deep tread swallows the stone & debris entirely removing it from the center line.

2) You really should of made it clearer you were referring to that, but I'll let that slide. - we can establish that tread (though, this varies) can displace foreign objects (which, may not be done as efficiently or at all if the tire is on backwards) and there are Alternative Theories that may have truth to them "i,e, increased tread wear" -- I am very skeptical to the legitimacy of those kind of claims (Personally) but the point stands that we don't hear Good things happening when you put it on backwards, do we? Hence why there multiple benefits overall if you just do it Right.


3) I did not mangle your question, it wasn't easy to read.

This, is more common sense. I've seen manufacturing tests on tires (like wear testing) and they would of been followed to the direction of the tread - Subsequently, the arrow. - Meaning, when you face the directional point of the arrow you're facing the direction the tire was Designed & Tested on.
-

Sure, We'll use my tires as an example


1) The center-line of the tread is slick but with Deep Cut-out grooves that come in at an angle to intercept the edges of the smooth slick center-line.

When debris is caught in the center line (and weight is applied) the rubber yields enough for the stone to be forced into the intercepting angle-cut edges, the deep tread swallows the stone & debris entirely removing it from the center line.

2) You really should of made it clearer you were referring to that, but I'll let that slide. - we can establish that tread (though, this varies) can displace foreign objects (which, may not be done as efficiently or at all if the tire is on backwards) and there are Alternative Theories that may have truth to them "i,e, increased tread wear" -- I am very skeptical to the legitimacy of those kind of claims (Personally) but the point stands that we don't hear Good things happening when you put it on backwards, do we? Hence why there multiple benefits overall if you just do it Right.


3) I did not mangle your question, it wasn't easy to read.

This, is more common sense. I've seen manufacturing tests on tires (like wear testing) and they would of been followed to the direction of the tread - Subsequently, the arrow. - Meaning, when you face the directional point of the arrow you're facing the direction the tire was Designed & Tested on.
-

Before I go on, what is your vernacular?

 

[smutchin]

if tread does not dispel water, why do tyre manufacturers bother with it?

As someone mentioned upthread, Schwalbe admit that it's mainly for aesthetic reasons.

Secondly, as for aquaplaning, is it not the case that bikes don't aquaplane because they don't go fast enough for the tread's effect to be overwhelmed in the same way that causes cars to aquaplane when the vehicle goes so fast that the tread can no longer dispel water quickly enough? If that is so, perhaps tread on bike tyres is actually doing its job>

Bike tyres don't aquaplane because their oval-shaped contact patch is effective at displacing water. Car tyres have a square contact patch.

Also, if tread is as ineffective, and superfluous as some suggest (if I get their meaning correct), why do people complain that some tyres make riding your bike like cycling through treacle (Schwalbe M+ have been cited to me as having such a characteristic)?

That's nothing to do with the tread pattern, it's because the tyres are extremely heavy and rigid.

 

[smutchin]

Actually, come to think of it, I suspect the weight of bicycle tyres is a bit of a red herring. It's often said that increased rotating mass (ie heavier tyres or wheels) is more noticeable than extra mass elsewhere on the bike, but it's still only the matter of a few hundred grams at most.

With M+ tyres, the biggest factor in the way they feel to ride is probably the thickness of the tread and the sidewalls, which makes them very inflexible and therefore means they have much higher rolling resistance than a supple racing tyre. But that's the price you pay for superior puncture protection.

In any case, the tread pattern is irrelevant.

 

[youngoldbloke]

Some years ago we had a very heated argument with a wheelchair dealer when insisting that slick tyres be supplied on my partners new wheelchair - he insisted that treaded tyres were essential for her safety (he didn't get the order). She is currently using Schwalbe One tyres - as slick and smooth as can be, without skidding or other life threatening wheel behaviour .........

 

[Adam4868]

It is the compound, not the tread pattern, which largely dictates how much – or little – grip a tyre has, as well as its rolling resistance, durability and ride quality.

A softer, more supple compound will often be more prone to cuts, but it will conform with imperfections in the road and offer a bigger contact patch and more grip as a result. A harder compound, meanwhile, will be stiffer and less flexible, resulting in a ride quality which feels like the tyre is bouncing over the tarmac, rather than floating over it.

High-mileage tyres have traditionally been made from the latter as harder compounds have a lower wear rate, and therefore a longer lifespan, but the compromise can be less grip and a harsher ride.

 

[buzzy-beans]

High-mileage tyres have traditionally been made from the latter as harder compounds have a lower wear rate, and therefore a longer lifespan, but the compromise can be less grip and a harsher ride.

And significantly inferior braking performance!