[Mark out West]

Guys,

I just noticed. The "sipes" (grooves) in my Scorcher 11s are different for the front and rear tires on my Muscle. On the front, the "chevron" formed by the grooves is facing backward, while in the rear, it's forward. The rotation arrow on the sidewall is pointing forward in both instances, so I guessing Michelin has some weird madness behind their method.

You'd figure the pointy edge of the chevron formed by the grooves should contact the road first, thereby channeling water outward as the tire progresses. In the case of the front, I don't see that.

 

[rbabos]

Guys,

I just noticed. The "sipes" (grooves) in my Scorcher 11s are different for the front and rear tires on my Muscle. On the front, the "chevron" formed by the grooves is facing backward, while in the rear, it's forward. The rotation arrow on the sidewall is pointing forward in both instances, so I guessing Michelin has some weird madness behind their method.

You'd figure the pointy edge of the chevron formed by the grooves should contact the road first, thereby channeling water outward as the tire progresses. In the case of the front, I don't see that.

Leave the OCD for me.
As for the grooves, yes the front and rear are different directions for two different functions. The rear needs to channel water, mud outward from the center for traction. The front needs to channel water outward for braking. If you study them this way. Rear tire spins on the road, you will see the effect of clearing water outwards. Take the front where it contacts the road and the groove angles and pretend it's skidding on the road surface. You can see the water channel outwards.
Ron

 

[06CVO]

Yes, I too noticed the opposite tread patterns from front vs rear, it is designed as previously mentioned...I'm getting these mounted this week..