Tippie
Hero member
- Location
- Dr?bak, Norway
That will save you from fitting a bigger rear sprocket Rob. It took me quite a few years to out-ride the 42 rear in racing. If you have so many tyre options you are lucky.
Tyres
- Thread starter 3crider
- Start date
Max
Full member
Been using this combination for years on my ‘79. I prefer the feel from the 80 front. Sport Demons always. Well, tried a set of BT 45’s but found Alpine passes in pissing rain very sketchy due to hard centre compound on rear. I believe the 46 is different?
motoddrob
Hero member
- Location
- S/W Australia
Good to hear,
Andy
Hero member
- Location
- Auckland, roughly
I think this thread has somewhat morphed into a racing tyre discussion, which was not what I was asking.
The question was. '...why have Michelin, who know a little about tyres, brought out new bias-ply tyres for classics?' I have Continental radials fitted to my 3C and they are IMHO way superior to anything I have used in the past which were X-plys.
I have yet to receive a response from Michelin to the same question which leads me to assume this is a marketing issue rather than a technical one. I will continue to press them.
The question was. '...why have Michelin, who know a little about tyres, brought out new bias-ply tyres for classics?' I have Continental radials fitted to my 3C and they are IMHO way superior to anything I have used in the past which were X-plys.
I have yet to receive a response from Michelin to the same question which leads me to assume this is a marketing issue rather than a technical one. I will continue to press them.
There might be a marketing reason here. Radials are a lot more expensive than Bias Ply bike tyres to buy and maybe they think they might sell more of them. All I know is the T32 Bridgestone radials I run on my 3c, I have a slightly bigger rear rim that managed to take their 140 and managed 10,000 ks out of the rear, stuck really well wet or dry and at that mileage was great value.
Just to finish off with this thread, I originally asked, '...why have Michelin, who know a little about tyres, brought out new bias-ply tyres for classics?'
As I said earlier in this thread, I wrote to Michelin UK asking the question and despite three reminders they have not responded.
So, what conclusion can we take from this? For me, I would say these new Michelin classic tyres are X-plys for marketing or tooling cost reasons and not for improved performance.
Therefore, my conclusion and from my experience with both riding X-plys and Radials on my 3C, the Conti Radials, are superior in all areas on the road. I cannot comment about race conditions.
As I said earlier in this thread, I wrote to Michelin UK asking the question and despite three reminders they have not responded.
So, what conclusion can we take from this? For me, I would say these new Michelin classic tyres are X-plys for marketing or tooling cost reasons and not for improved performance.
Therefore, my conclusion and from my experience with both riding X-plys and Radials on my 3C, the Conti Radials, are superior in all areas on the road. I cannot comment about race conditions.
Last edited:
Old clunkers like ours simply don't need them, ie, don't have the potential to fully exploit the capabilities of radials.
For me, radials are way OTT in the stock sizes as fitted to Breganze Laverdas, relatively narrow treads with high sidewalls. Radials shine with wide treads and low sidewalls, totally different tub of fish and requirements.
Fit them if you like, I'm no fan and will gladly be fitting modern X-plys when my pair of Contis finally wear out. If radial tyres were the universal answer to all, every bike tyre manufacturer would be offering them in all sizes and dimensions, which they don't... For me, it is a marketing ploy on Contis' part.
piet
andre g
Hero member
After years of having used Conti Road Attac 2 and 3, which are so far the best tyres I ever had, I recently changed to the BT 46.
One reason was the price policy of Conti, they are quite double as expensive as the BT‘s, 120€ vs 210€ for the rear 130 tyre.
The other reason was that the Conti is only available in CR rubber, which is Classic Racing and I do not need CR on public roads.
The difference BT vs Conti I feel, I find myself when passing a curve more outside, so the BT needs more engagement und it is more sensible on length groves and marks on the street, I feel the rear moving which never was with the Contis. But I can handle it and will continue with the BT‘s.
One reason was the price policy of Conti, they are quite double as expensive as the BT‘s, 120€ vs 210€ for the rear 130 tyre.
The other reason was that the Conti is only available in CR rubber, which is Classic Racing and I do not need CR on public roads.
The difference BT vs Conti I feel, I find myself when passing a curve more outside, so the BT needs more engagement und it is more sensible on length groves and marks on the street, I feel the rear moving which never was with the Contis. But I can handle it and will continue with the BT‘s.