Skinny Michelin S-12

[dix]

Bought a new Mich S-12 for the rear of my 250, but it looks super skinny compared to the 755 I had on prior to replacing it. I'm sure that I have the right size, 110-90-19, or as Michelin calls it, 130-70-19. It looks like I have a 125 tire on there. Has anyone else noticed this? Is this going to be a disadvantage or will it dig a little better? Just curious.

 

[Camstyn]

It should be fine, I've had the exact same tire on all season (haven't even reversed it) and it's just now time to throw it away.

 

[HiG4s]

I thought most people used the 120-90/19 (140-70/19) for 250s. The 110 is what I use on my 125. It seems a little bigger than the tire that came on my 125, but it seems to work fine.

 

[Matt_H]

Those tires are supposed to be thin. Why? you ask the S-12 is a sand/mud tire the thinner the better cause your bike is putting out more troque on a smaller area. meaning better traction.

 

[Hondaman_06]

I don't really know much about that tire....But someone said it was a skinny tire for sand/mud riding. Well from what i've always been told you want a wide tire in mud and sand for more traction with a skinny tire you'd just sink right in. Well that just my two cents.

 

[bud]

Haven't tried a 755 rear but compared to other dunlops I've tried, the 130 s12 is a pretty similar width to the 110 dunlop. The 140 width s12 can be useful on a 250 in some survival type situations, but usually the 130 width is best where speed is the main objective.

 

[Magoo]

You'll be fine with that tire! It's probably the best tire I've found for the riding we do around here....

 

[tonyc]

I fitted a S 12 on my 520
thought the same thing, looked real skinny, does a good job.

 

[Camstyn]

Michelin's sizing is strange.

Their 130/70-19 is equal to a 110/90-19 of any other brand.
Mind you, this is only for the S12/M12/H12 tires as far as I know.

The Starcross MS2/MH2 series tires use a regular sizing scale. ie. 110/90-19 = 110/90-19

 

[Boozer]

Originally posted by Hondaman_06
I don't really know much about that tire....But someone said it was a skinny tire for sand/mud riding. Well from what i've always been told you want a wide tire in mud and sand for more traction with a skinny tire you'd just sink right in. Well that just my two cents.

ahh, the great debate. Skinny or fat (not girls!).
there are two sides to this story. The first is like Hondaman said. A wide tyre in mud/sand is better because it allows the tyre to 'float' on top of the surface. This is especially true for sand, and keen 4x4 drivers will tell you that they deflate their wide tyres to create an even wider footprint in soft sand. Wider footprint = less pressure per square inch of tyre contact.
The second theory is what the WRC rally drivers go by. If you see their mud tyres, they are very skinny. Their theory is that (just saw it on TV last week) the skinny tyre will cut through the mud and find traction deep underneath the surface. Skinny footprint = more pressure per square inch of tyre contact. The same story applies to their snow/ice tyres. Increadibly skinny to create maximum pressure on the tyres contact patch.

 

[Buzz Bomb]

I don't know why you'd want a skinny tire in mud because what if the mud is 2 feet deep? :scream:

 

[Boozer]

i don't think i've ever ridden in 2 foot deep mud. rally drivers don't, so i guess they look for traction underneath, just like me.
crossing a swamp (2 foot mud) will require a tyre that floats on the surface, so in this case, a wide tyre will be the best one to use.

 

[dix]

They can't possibly make a tire wide enough to "float" on top of the mud in the Sands Township Sip Holes! I noticed that the tire appears to really dig in the somewhat hard packed and damp sand that we have around here. As for really deep mud, the slight difference in the spinning rear tire can't possible make that much of a difference. I can see the logic, when applied to 4 wheeled machines, but I'm not sure it would make that big of a change.

 

[Boozer]

like i said in my first post - The great debate.