But isn't that a bit of a moot point? Thin tires (say 9.5 - 10.5) are hard enough to find, let alone 8" (at least in a height say 31.6" to 33" as would be common for this type of vehicle). I doubt there is an 8" wide tire that would be tall enough for the needs of "expedition" usage as outlined in the article.
I personally believe that something like a 255/85/16 (10 " x 33 ") is the sweet spot for my needs...
Well, first off, I was making an "extreme example"....as was noted. If there is demand for a certain size tire (especially from a performance standpoint) it is generally produced. Secondly, I'm assuming we are talking section width, not tread width....if we are:
9.1" section width does seem to be close enough that EVERYONE should be running these tires instead of the 10.5s if the article is spot on in its assessment. The actual tread width is 8.0".
Then there's always Symex tyres (sp?)....they make absurdly narrow 4x4 tires as well.
Why isn't everyone running them?
Why don't the competition guys run that narrow of a tire, considering the traction they need is greater than any other area of 4wheeling?
I'd have to go back to re-read the article, but I don't recall him discussing tread pattern and void with relation to contact pressure.
You can have a 12.5 wide tire with a higher contact pressure patch than a 10.5 just b/c the 10.5 has fewer voids in the tread. That means that a mud terrain should usually have higher contact pressure and according to the article, should work better....but in places like Moab, all terrains often work better than muds. Why?
B/c they may have lower contact pressure, but they have more coefficient of friction available b/c of the increase in rubber on the rock.
It's a balancing act. Where one tire, in one situation excels, put it in another situation, and it won't work as well as another. It's all relative. That should be obvious.....but apparently, it's not.
Sean
__________________
Do you need a ladder, so you can get the **** over it?
But Sean, you mean there isn't a one size/tread pattern that fits all. That sucks. If I had known that, I wouldn't have gotten into this whole off-road thing...
__________________
Sun Fusion 4X4 AT ATRAC Hack'd
Demello sliders
Demello front bumper w/Warn M8000
Demello rear bumper
OME 886/140 Front, 895/N71e rear
All-Pro rear links w/bracket skids
Inchworm Lefty
ARB front air locker
Nitro 4.88 gears
Bud Built skids front to back
Super Swamper TrXus Mud Radial 255/85/16
Safari Snorkel
ARB Full Rack w/wind deflector
Train Hard, Rest Harder
TLCA # 17784
I think that even the writer stated that he was going to ONLY be discussing the differences between running the same tire in the two different sizes. Or at least referring to the 33x12.50 and the 33x10.50. Taking into account more details (like the ones you suggested and would be better to take into account if there was enough funding for the research) would cost more than the writer could manage or had time for.
Do you think an FJC driver would notice the difference between a 10.50 vs 12.50 in mud/ruts?
That's my point though: He limited the differences so much that it really doesn't tell the reader anything other than if you want to run a BFG, that a 10.5 is better than the 12.5. However, I disagree with that premise b/c as I eluded to with the 8" extreme example, there is a law of diminished returns. How do we know for sure that the 10.5 isn't in that realm? We don't.
From what I've witnessed on a substantially lighter rig (4K instead of 5K lbs) narrower tires work better....but when I say narrower, I'm talking going from a 15.5 wide one down to a 12.5. Conversly I've seen other heavier trucks work better with the 15.5s than they did with 12.50s. My experience indicates to me, that increased weight of the vehicle plays heavily into how much contact pressure you're going to get with a given tire. That's just physics. The problem is, even if I went from that 12.5 down to a 10.5, it doesn't mean it would work better....in fact, it would roll the sidewall so easily, it wouldn't hold a line worth a damn either.
Sean
As for your question about the ruts....same height tire, just a difference of 2" in width.....I doubt you'd notice the difference....UNTIL, the muddy ruts got deeper than your available ground clearance (plus a bit), then the wider one would probably be better.....assuming identical treads.
__________________
Do you need a ladder, so you can get the **** over it?
But Sean, you mean there isn't a one size/tread pattern that fits all. That sucks. If I had known that, I wouldn't have gotten into this whole off-road thing...
THANK YOU!!! In a nutshell, that's exactly what I'm saying....but using WAAY too many words to do so.
I'll shut up now.
Sean
__________________
Do you need a ladder, so you can get the **** over it?
It's obvious that when a tread gets narrower at some point it's a detriment. Same as as it gets wider. I think the important thing is to find that middle ground. Personally I would tend to think it is on the narrower side of the common widths, at least for me. I don't like the damage driving in mud does to a trail, and there aren't really many sandy areas around here I would care to go to. So excluding those types of terrain, which would be the domain of the wide tire, and the fact we get a fair amount of snow, give me a pizza cutter!
So I've decided on going with a 285 75 16. Main reason, most tire places have that size in stock. Not many people stock a 255 85 16 so I just went with the slightly wider 33.
honestly, Im surprised you Yanks havent caught onto these tyres yet for your competion trucks????
Comp trucks??? This isn't OZ. We don't have the same type of terrain or "offroading" you do in your country. I assure you without a hesitation or even a hint of doubt that my comp tires are far and away better suited for use here in the US than Simex tires would be regardless of size or construction.
Sean
__________________
Do you need a ladder, so you can get the **** over it?
Linear Mode
