CLASSIFIEDS > Wheels & Tires
Blue Taco, Tire Logic.... wider vs taller?
slowbox:
A lot to wrap my head around here, I've written 2 paragraphs and erased them all because I simply don't know.
In some practical sense I can say I need tires for moderate commuting, not dedicated trail truck rubber.
Height is a plus for clearance. Width would seem to require more energy to pull in terms of friction, yet narrow points all torque into tighter band of space. On a grip friendly surface, narrow would carry, right?. In mud/snow surface I presume width is king.
***grain of salt pls... I'm just kind of tossing out some thots. I'm a spacial thinker (and i hate it) rather than a good numbers man.
DOUG:
No Clark I don't agree with him lol. Physics don't lie. The larger the contact area of a like material, the more the friction, and therefore traction in the case of a tire. The wider the same height tire, the larger the contact patch.
Plus you can't wrap around a rock without width.
Plus anything that says expedition is all about gravel roads and camping...
But I'm no Einstein
But I did stay in a Hilton last night
Sent off camber
Danny Kinder:
If you are going 33 tall it seems that the 10" width would be a little unproportional for what we do, although this is not an uncommon size + you can run bfg's.
Have you thought about 285/75 R16 (33x11.5) you will have a few more options.
It is good to get opinions and ask questions like you are doing!
TAPATALK
jgerhard:
Another thing you need to look at is the side ply. It's easy to cut a tire off-road on the sidewall. You want a thick sidewall or one of the brands that uses Kevlar to keep things light.
clark123456:
--- Quote from: Doug on January 24, 2014, 10:40:20 PM ---No Clark I don't agree with him lol.
--- End quote ---
Ah, that perspective thing! :)
The one thing in the article that caught my attention was about load distribution of 'vertical load' (i approached the article with skepticism). It made sense to me on paper, but I can't attest to real world application. My limitation with my 33x10.50x15s always appeared to be height versus width (ground clearance killed me). If I had to make a decision between width and height, such as being confined with a certain wheel well size and lift, then I would choose height based on my previous experience with those 10.50 tires I mentioned. Those skinny tires are BFG KM2s, so they grip like a mofo, but so did my shock mounts, control arm mounts, pumpkins, and skid plates. From an appearance perspective, my 35x13.50x15s look MUCH better/tougher than those pizza cutters I have.
I ran the 10.50s on the Bell FS trail ride and made it up the v-ditch with no issue (locked F&R), but I'll be running the 35s at Morris.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version