Now that is what I would suggest is your problem.
Thanks - on that suggestion I've done a bit of googling and the following Mavic chart robbed from
Bike Rumour seems to suggest (if I'm interpreting the numbers correctly) that 19mm / 19c rims should be good for anything from 28mm to 62mm(!) tyres, and that 35c rubber should be good an rims between 17mm and 22mm.
There's also a Schwalbe chart on the same page, which is a bit more conservative but lists 19mm as the middle ground of three recommended rim widths for 35mm tyres:
In other news I looked at the shafted tyre a bit more today; managing to remove it from the rim fairly easily using just my hands so something clearly wasn't right. Further investigation revealed the bead reinforcement (two 1mm diameter steel bands) to be broken at one point and hanging out of the tyre; that'll be the problem then!
The remaining question is whether the tyre was originally knackered and would have failed regardless, or whether its failure was caused by a fitment / incompatability issue with the rim.
I've replaced a tyre on one of my road bikes today so (while I know the rims are different!) I took some measurements of each just for comparison; for what it's worth.
Rim | Width between Lips, mm | Lip Overhang, mm | Lip Depth, mm |
700c | 12.9 | 1.9 | 1.6 |
26" (Suspect) | 18.9 | 2.0 | 2.6 |
These were arrived at through wholly inappropriate use of a vernier, so please allow a bit of waggle room. Width between lips is the internal width at the OD of the rim. Lip overhang is the distance between the internal face of the lip and that of the groove beneath it (measured on one side). Lip depth is the distance between the OD of the rim and the bottom of the lip where it meets the groove.
The only thing that potentially concerns me is the deeper lip depth (which excessive might not give room beneath to allow the bead to seat in the groove), although obviously the 26" rim has its roots in MTBs so it's possible that it's built a bit heavier.
I took some measurements from the 26" tyres; with the textured section at the bead being 7mm deep (on an uninflated tyre) and when mounted on the front rim there's around 1mm of this showing above the OD of the rim; meaning there's around 6mm of bead inside the rim. Taking into account the rim depth this gives around 3.4mm depth of bead below the bottom of the lip; to engage the groove and and hold the tyre on the rim.
The tyre has two 1mm diameter steel bands in each side that apparently run next to each other across the tyre and are located just outboard of the inside edge of the tyre, so probably occupy the inner-most 2mm of the tyre's ID, and the last 2mm of the 3.4mm-ish of the bead located beneath the lip.
So the reinforcement in the bead appears to line up well with the groove in the rim, which is promising.
I also measured the effective depth of the 26" rim; i.e. the distance from the rim's OD to the bottom of the channel that houses the tyre at the bead, which came in at 6.9mm; giving 1mm clearence between the bottom of the rim channel and ID of the tyre and again supporting the idea that the rim is intended to take a tyre of the type fitted.
I think on the balance of probability (given the tyre's supplied condition, apparent compatability with the rim and the fact the front's been fine) it's likely that the tyre was supplied damaged (either with the bead reinforcement weakened / bent or broken); the tyre subsequently failing under the additional loads encountered during use.
Anyway, we'll see what the suppliers say..