Wide Tires vs Skinny Tires

[Sean K.]

volhoo previously said:

The question is not weather one individual tire is better than any other - the question is weather narrower tires are better than wider tires - in general.

I am really enjoying the discussion...

And I still say the only "correct" answer is: It depends.

Depends on your uses, the tires, your vehicle, the weight, and what you can live with in terms of a tire that has to do double duty of not only offroading but highway use.

Sean

[fj6high]

Sean K. previously said:

And I still say the only "correct" answer is: It depends.

Depends on your uses, the tires, your vehicle, the weight, and what you can live with in terms of a tire that has to do double duty of not only offroading but highway use.

Sean

I agree!!! x2 WE all have different needs and terrain to travel across! Here in Fl, we have the Mud and sand factor along with lots of water! So you run what suites you!!! Yes It's a dailey driver too so I use a all terrain tire to meet my needs.

[expeditionswest]

Sean K. previously said:

I dunno....I just read his "position" and frankly, it's a little too overly simplistic in trying to discuss a very dynamic process. It's a good basic guide and alot of it I agree with (the majority in fact in theory)....but he places so many stipulations and limitations on the topic that it isn't an accurate picture for every rig.

I believe the paper is not overly simplistic. It is appropriate to the intended audience and is meant as a primer, a position based on my time testing tires for the manufacturers and consulting on tire construction with tire engineers.

To go into greater detail would require additional testing and detailed review of the physics behind the process, including environmental variables, carcass variables, compounds, soil and geo-science, etc.

If you can ever corner a real tire engineer and ask what they think of overly wide "off-road" tires, it will be an enlightening discussion. They mostly just roll their eyes and say "that is what marketing wants"

The article is specific to expedition vehicle use, which I state clearly in the assumptions section:

This article is specific to heavy expedition vehicles with nominal lift and stock engines (as is desirable for extended travel reliability). The article is NOT about 1,500 lb. sand rails with high HP motors, or other competition platforms with one dimensional surface conditions.

Sean K. previously said:

To take the example to the extreme, why wouldn't a really tall, but very narrow (say 8" wide) be even better yet? B/c there's a point of diminished returns that he doesn't even seem to acknowledge.

I don't acknowledge that?

Here is a quote, directly from the Typical Questions section:

What is the limit of a narrow tires effectiveness? Tire load capacity and rubber tearing. At some point the tire becomes so narrow and the contact pressure so high that the tires rubber molecular bonding cannot sustain the tearing load created by the bonding and mechanical keying to the surface. Remember, the width of a train rail cars wheel is only 4”, and they have incredible traction on a very smooth surface due to the intense vertical load force.

I also include a chart with recommended section widths. I do not recommend narrower than 8.5", even for the lightest of vehicles.

There absolutely is a point of diminishing return, at both sides of the width equation. Performance values drop off precipitously for a 33" tire when they become narrower than 8" or wider than 13". There is a clear bell curve that defines itself in testing for 90% of trail conditions. For a vehicle in the GWV range of the FJ Cruiser, the sweet spot is right at 10".

Sean K. previously said:

Personally, as I said before, 10.5 vs. 12.5 tires don't constitute a huge difference IMO and when you limit your discussion to only 15 PSI, it doesn't give an accurate depiction of what you can really accomplish with a good tire and a set of beadlocks.

I clearly state the paper is not about air pressure, which would require volumes on its own. The paper is about tire selection for expedition vehicles, not rock crawlers. Rock crawling has a very clearly defined medium, which varies in its adhesion properties and surface properties, but the goal is essentially maximum deformation and adhesion, combined with sufficient track width for stability in cambered obstacles. Many rock trails are highly tactile, or highly irregular and air pressures are 10-15 psi lower (or more) than would typically be run on a heavy expedition vehicle. A completely different scenario and criteria. Competition rock crawling on man-made courses takes the criteria even further from natural terrain variables and present the driver and vehicle designer with a highly tactile terrain and consistent surface (essentially irregular concrete poured over dirt or foam or other medium). This favors adhesion over macro and micro deformation, which favors very low tire pressures and maximum rubber contact to the surface, in addition to very soft compounds, bead-locks, etc.

As you no doubt know, the specification for a vehicle and tires from rock crawling in Florence Junction to driving around the world is completely different.

Sean K. previously said:

He doesn't even talk about tire construction either. Clam shell molding vs. sectional molding makes an absolutely HUGE difference in how well the tire works as does (obviously) radial vs. bias. Yet neither is mentioned.

Carcass construction and rubber composition is out of the scope of this paper. The paper is specific to "The impact of tire width on traction" and does not go into detail on carcass construction, rubber composition, tread design, air pressure, etc. My SAE library has thousands of pages dedicated to tire theory. I specifically reviewed tire width.

In summary, running a 12.5"+ wide tire on an FJ Cruiser that is intended for exploration and general trail/DD duties will clearly create a negative performance, reliability and efficiency outcome. If you want to turn an FJ Cruiser into a dedicated trail machine and run a solid axle and the largest tires possible, then that would be an entirely different discussion.

Hope this helps.

[uphill]

Note tire width and design for the Navy's Desert Patrol Vehicle. This was the original prototype but it's representative of units that were deployed in combat situations. They're lighter than an FJ and their operational parameters are completely different but it's food for thought and discussion for this thread.

These tires are NOT air'd down operationally. They are run in all conditions fully inflated. There are are a number of reasons for this that have nothing to do with the way we run the FJ's. I was with ST-5 when this concept (borrowed from the Army) was being proven at Camp Billy Machen. The power to weight ratio for this vehicle is considerably higher (even fully loaded with ammunition, gear, weapons and personnel) than the FJ Cruiser.

[Sean K.]

expeditionswest previously said:

I believe the paper is not overly simplistic. It is appropriate to the intended audience and is meant as a primer, a position based on my time testing tires for the manufacturers and consulting on tire construction with tire engineers.

To go into greater detail would require additional testing and detailed review of the physics behind the process, including environmental variables, carcass variables, compounds, soil and geo-science, etc.

If you can ever corner a real tire engineer and ask what they think of overly wide "off-road" tires, it will be an enlightening discussion. They mostly just roll their eyes and say "that is what marketing wants"

The article is specific to expedition vehicle use, which I state clearly in the assumptions section:




I don't acknowledge that?

Here is a quote, directly from the Typical Questions section:


I also include a chart with recommended section widths. I do not recommend narrower than 8.5", even for the lightest of vehicles.

There absolutely is a point of diminishing return, at both sides of the width equation. Performance values drop off precipitously for a 33" tire when they become narrower than 8" or wider than 13". There is a clear bell curve that defines itself in testing for 90% of trail conditions. For a vehicle in the GWV range of the FJ Cruiser, the sweet spot is right at 10".



I clearly state the paper is not about air pressure, which would require volumes on its own. The paper is about tire selection for expedition vehicles, not rock crawlers. Rock crawling has a very clearly defined medium, which varies in its adhesion properties and surface properties, but the goal is essentially maximum deformation and adhesion, combined with sufficient track width for stability in cambered obstacles. Many rock trails are highly tactile, or highly irregular and air pressures are 10-15 psi lower (or more) than would typically be run on a heavy expedition vehicle. A completely different scenario and criteria. Competition rock crawling on man-made courses takes the criteria even further from natural terrain variables and present the driver and vehicle designer with a highly tactile terrain and consistent surface (essentially irregular concrete poured over dirt or foam or other medium). This favors adhesion over macro and micro deformation, which favors very low tire pressures and maximum rubber contact to the surface, in addition to very soft compounds, bead-locks, etc.

As you no doubt know, the specification for a vehicle and tires from rock crawling in Florence Junction to driving around the world is completely different.



Carcass construction and rubber composition is out of the scope of this paper. The paper is specific to "The impact of tire width on traction" and does not go into detail on carcass construction, rubber composition, tread design, air pressure, etc. My SAE library has thousands of pages dedicated to tire theory. I specifically reviewed tire width.

In summary, running a 12.5"+ wide tire on an FJ Cruiser that is intended for exploration and general trail/DD duties will clearly create a negative performance, reliability and efficiency outcome. If you want to turn an FJ Cruiser into a dedicated trail machine and run a solid axle and the largest tires possible, then that would be an entirely different discussion.

Hope this helps.

Of course you don't think it overly simplistic....you wrote it.

The fact is and you admit: it's a very narrow use article. It was intended for expeditionary vehicles.....this is not an expedition only site and my comments were directed to those who are going to use their vehicle for more than just expeditions that might read this thread.

I've talked with Gary Enterline at BFG....the guy responsible for the best adhesion rockcrawling competition tire ever produced and he chose 12.5 for the section width. I don't think he considered that "overly wide", nor was it what "marketing" dictated. He picked what worked. I do completely understand your point that rockcrawling man made or natural courses or trails is completely different than expedition use....to an extent. However, traction is traction. You either make it up an obstacle or you don't. You'd be niave to believe that the two areas of 4wheeling don't ever encounter the same type of terrain or traction requirements regardless of it being Florence Junction or elsewhere.

As I said in my first post.....I agree with much of your theory. I find you to be correct that narrower tires (10.5-12.5) are the best fit for most vehicles for MOST applications (not necessarily expedition use).

Yes, you did acknowledge the diminished returns....I overlooked it. My apologies. I do have to wonder though: how did you determine that the sweet spot for the GVW of the FJC is 10"? Why should we believe your numbers over anyone else's? What constitutes your "90% of trail conditions"? I'm pretty sure that 90% of my trail conditions would be different than your's. Where'd you get the number?

Again, you say it's not overly simplistic, yet you leave out the number one factor (air pressure) that a vehicle owner can manipulate to make a difference in how his tires perform. That doesn't make sense to me. Do your theories about 10" on an FJC being optimum for 90% of trail uses hold up if we do change the air pressure varaible? What if we add beadlocks and really start dropping down into the single digits?

You leave out construction and compound, when HUGE strides are being made in these areas to come up with the ultimate tires for traction? Again, overly simplistic, IMO. I realize you tried to narrow the scope.....but the fact is: the topic of tires is too dynamic to leave out other vital areas to a tire's performance to solely focus on one area alone. These areas are all inter-related and cannot be seperated if one is hoping to get a full, accurate picture. Yes, the major components can be examined individually, but not without a context.

Sean

[expeditionswest]

Sean K. previously said:

Of course you don't think it overly simplistic....you wrote it.

And having authored it, would I not have the clearest vision of its intent and its intended audience? You are confusing simplistic with a narrowed (pun intended) editorial focus.

Sean K. previously said:

The fact is and you admit: it's a very narrow use article. It was intended for expeditionary vehicles.....this is not an expedition only site and my comments were directed to those who are going to use their vehicle for more than just expeditions that might read this thread.

Absolutely, which was the point of my reply. My paper is intended for a narrow audience, but in reality, the concepts apply to the vast majority of fourwheelers. The majority of FJ owners are not hard core rock crawlers. They drive moderate trails, go camping, take road trips, vacation in Baja, etc., all functional requirement of an expedition specification.

You use specific arguments that my article does not address key concepts you believe are important to overall tire performance (and they are very important). You specifically say "he doesn't even seem to acknowledge", "it doesn't give an accurate depiction", etc. which is an argument against my paper in areas of theory that I specifically avoided due to time and the intended topic constraint.

We can talk for a year on this forum about tires, their construction, air pressure, carcass construction, etc. My article was specifically about section width and I clearly state that, so to say that is is overly simplistic or doesn't give an accurate depiction is only because the article does not address topics, applications or variables that I specifically omitted due to scope.

Sean K. previously said:

I've talked with Gary Enterline at BFG....the guy responsible for the best adhesion rockcrawling competition tire ever produced and he chose 12.5 for the section width. I don't think he considered that "overly wide", nor was it what "marketing" dictated. He picked what worked. I do completely understand your point that rockcrawling man made or natural courses or trails is completely different than expedition use....to an extent. However, traction is traction. You either make it up an obstacle or you don't. You'd be niave to believe that the two areas of 4wheeling don't ever encounter the same type of terrain or traction requirements regardless of it being Florence Junction or elsewhere.

Do not assume for a moment that I am naive (I can't help but see the irony in your misspelling of an insult to someone's experience) about this topic. Why use personal attacks in an effort to bolster your argument?

Glad to hear you have spoken with Gary. I consult with Michelin engineers and have been sponsored by Michelin/ BFGoodrich for many years.

The Krawler is specifically designed for rock crawling. My article is about driving a heavy vehicle for long distances over infinitely variable surface conditions.

My point is clearly that rock crawling is a highly specialized activity and has 20% of the functional requirements of a vehicle/tire that will travel around the world, through countless terrain variables. In my travels in Mexico and the Southwest, I encounter rocks all the time. I have crossed hundreds of miles of rocks in Algeria and Morocco, etc. I have driven expedition prepared vehicles countless times over the Rubicon, etc. Rocks are absolutely a design consideration when selecting a tire for overland use, but it is only one variable.

Sean K. previously said:

As I said in my first post.....I agree with much of your theory. I find you to be correct that narrower tires (10.5-12.5) are the best fit for most vehicles for MOST applications (not necessarily expedition use).

Yes, you did acknowledge the diminished returns....I overlooked it. My apologies. I do have to wonder though: how did you determine that the sweet spot for the GVW of the FJC is 10"? Why should we believe your numbers over anyone else's? What constitutes your "90% of trail conditions"? I'm pretty sure that 90% of my trail conditions would be different than your's. Where'd you get the number?

It is based on the GVW of the FJ. GVW is a known variable and saves much of the complexities (and impossible cost) of testing every possible 4wd. In my testing with Michelin, Jeep and the US military we have conducted countless hours of pressure variation testing, surface imprint and shear testing, road handling, etc.

The majority (lets use 90%) of trail conditions are a set of known functional requirements, which can be replicated in testing, like at the Nevada test center, etc. (where the Jeep "Trail Rated" performance testing is conducted). There are obviously deviations from test environments to different geo regions and conditions, but the performance expectations can be pretty clearly tested, at least from one tire to the next.

Again, my article and the vast majority of tire testing is not about highly specialized rock crawling, but mild to moderate trail use, road use, highly variable surface conditions like mud, rocks, decomposed granite, shale, hill climbs, NVH, etc.

If you want to talk about rock crawling with 35" tires and tube chassis buggies, feel free to do so, but do not make your argument about my article, which is intended for a different audience and requirement.

Sean K. previously said:

Again, you say it's not overly simplistic, yet you leave out the number one factor (air pressure) that a vehicle owner can manipulate to make a difference in how his tires perform. That doesn't make sense to me. Do your theories about 10" on an FJC being optimum for 90% of trail uses hold up if we do change the air pressure varaible? What if we add beadlocks and really start dropping down into the single digits?

You leave out construction and compound, when HUGE strides are being made in these areas to come up with the ultimate tires for traction? Again, overly simplistic, IMO. I realize you tried to narrow the scope.....but the fact is: the topic of tires is too dynamic to leave out other vital areas to a tire's performance to solely focus on one area alone. These areas are all inter-related and cannot be seperated if one is hoping to get a full, accurate picture. Yes, the major components can be examined individually, but not without a context.

Sean, have you ever written a white paper, or participated in an engineering review resulting in a white paper? If you have, then you know that the intent of a white paper is to state a position, to identify results of specific testing, etc. A white paper is not intended (they never have been) to be inclusive, but to promote discussion, interest and further research.

I am not discounting that air pressure is even MORE important than carcass width or section width in many trail environments. That is known. There is also no question that carcass design and construction play major roles in performance.

I make that overwhelmingly clear in the paper, which is two tires OF THE SAME CONSTRUCTION and THE SAME HEIGHT and THE SAME AIR PRESSURE but with a change in the variable of WIDTH. For a reader to assume that a white paper cannot be written with the intention of reviewing the performance variable of WIDTH only, then perhaps it is not the paper at all that is "overly simplistic"...

[Mtbcoach]

Sean and Scott - I am one who appreciates discussion on such topics and understand (I think) what each other is attempting to state. This is one of those discussions that when they happen on-line, without the advantage of being "face-to-face" can create implications and inferences that get overemphasized. I think that this article has caused more discussion both here and at various club get events that it has accomplished its goal of creating discussion.

I have had the pleasure/pain of writing for articles for publication and can completely understand how an article is put together in my mind, in front of my computer becomes a whole other thing when another reads it in their living room. I would get letters to the editor who would encourage me to respond but I typically refused. At present, I'm preparing a presentation for an audience of parents and students related to avoidance of injuries in high school sports. Normally, something I would love to do and have done many times over. Yet, in this case, over half of the parents are in the medical profession and I really have to make sure every "i" is dotted and "t" is crossed. Basically, I'm sweating bullets knowing who my audience is.

Back on topic, I appreciate the information as I retained in Scott's article, one which I put to action when selecting my tires for the FJC. I've been very happy with the 255/85/16's I'm running on mine and believe it to be the best option for my needs and use of my FJC. I think other FJC owners might try them also if it were a more common size tire with more options than the 2 or 3 that I know of...

[Sean K.]

expeditionswest previously said:

And having authored it, would I not have the clearest vision of its intent and its intended audience? You are confusing simplistic with a narrowed (pun intended) editorial focus.



Absolutely, which was the point of my reply. My paper is intended for a narrow audience, but in reality, the concepts apply to the vast majority of fourwheelers. The majority of FJ owners are not hard core rock crawlers. They drive moderate trails, go camping, take road trips, vacation in Baja, etc., all functional requirement of an expedition specification.

You use specific arguments that my article does not address key concepts you believe are important to overall tire performance (and they are very important). You specifically say "he doesn't even seem to acknowledge", "it doesn't give an accurate depiction", etc. which is an argument against my paper in areas of theory that I specifically avoided due to time and the intended topic constraint.

We can talk for a year on this forum about tires, their construction, air pressure, carcass construction, etc. My article was specifically about section width and I clearly state that, so to say that is is overly simplistic or doesn't give an accurate depiction is only because the article does not address topics, applications or variables that I specifically omitted due to scope.



Do not assume for a moment that I am naive (I can't help but see the irony in your misspelling of an insult to someone's experience) about this topic. Why use personal attacks in an effort to bolster your argument?

Glad to hear you have spoken with Gary. I consult with Michelin engineers and have been sponsored by Michelin/ BFGoodrich for many years.

The Krawler is specifically designed for rock crawling. My article is about driving a heavy vehicle for long distances over infinitely variable surface conditions.

My point is clearly that rock crawling is a highly specialized activity and has 20% of the functional requirements of a vehicle/tire that will travel around the world, through countless terrain variables. In my travels in Mexico and the Southwest, I encounter rocks all the time. I have crossed hundreds of miles of rocks in Algeria and Morocco, etc. I have driven expedition prepared vehicles countless times over the Rubicon, etc. Rocks are absolutely a design consideration when selecting a tire for overland use, but it is only one variable.



It is based on the GVW of the FJ. GVW is a known variable and saves much of the complexities (and impossible cost) of testing every possible 4wd. In my testing with Michelin, Jeep and the US military we have conducted countless hours of pressure variation testing, surface imprint and shear testing, road handling, etc.

The majority (lets use 90%) of trail conditions are a set of known functional requirements, which can be replicated in testing, like at the Nevada test center, etc. (where the Jeep "Trail Rated" performance testing is conducted). There are obviously deviations from test environments to different geo regions and conditions, but the performance expectations can be pretty clearly tested, at least from one tire to the next.

Again, my article and the vast majority of tire testing is not about highly specialized rock crawling, but mild to moderate trail use, road use, highly variable surface conditions like mud, rocks, decomposed granite, shale, hill climbs, NVH, etc.

If you want to talk about rock crawling with 35" tires and tube chassis buggies, feel free to do so, but do not make your argument about my article, which is intended for a different audience and requirement.



Sean, have you ever written a white paper, or participated in an engineering review resulting in a white paper? If you have, then you know that the intent of a white paper is to state a position, to identify results of specific testing, etc. A white paper is not intended (they never have been) to be inclusive, but to promote discussion, interest and further research.

I am not discounting that air pressure is even MORE important than carcass width or section width in many trail environments. That is known. There is also no question that carcass design and construction play major roles in performance.

I make that overwhelmingly clear in the paper, which is two tires OF THE SAME CONSTRUCTION and THE SAME HEIGHT and THE SAME AIR PRESSURE but with a change in the variable of WIDTH. For a reader to assume that a white paper cannot be written with the intention of reviewing the performance variable of WIDTH only, then perhaps it is not the paper at all that is "overly simplistic"...

Wow, too much to really respond to....I'll try and hit some of the points.

Yes, you would have the clearest vision of its intent as it's author....however, as often times is the case in the written medium, things are not taken by the reader as the author intended....

For example: You took my comment that "You'd be naive to...." as you personally. When what I meant was that ANYONE would be naive. Not only did you take it as pertaining exclusively to you, but you also considered it an insult. Naive can be an insult....but not always. Here's one such definition: Naive: not having previously been the subject of a scientific experiment . In this case it was not my intent. My apologies for you taking it that way. I should have used the word "One".

Now the part where I said, "Of course you didn't find it simplistic....you wrote it." That was supposed to be a tongue in cheek joke at your expense.

I'm sorry I don't spell check everything I write. My apologies professor. I did misspell naive, but I actually am familiar with the correct spelling. At this point, I'll just claim typo. BTW, I don't plan to start spell checking now either, so if you find a misspelling, I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive my ignorance or inability to type.


No, this site is most definitely not geared towards rockcrawling....but it's not really towards "expeditionary" travel either....at least as far as I can tell. It seems to be mostly geared towards recreation trail use in the USA. There are tons of threads on people here going up to Big Bear, Ouray, Rubicon, Moab, the Gap, etc.....all things I've done on occasion and probably trails in areas where you have traveled as well. Let's not pretend that this type of 4wheeling is so different than rockcrawling or running expeditions. It's all in the dirt. It all has elements of rock, mud, snow, sand, etc. THATis what I meant by "naive". "You'd (or One would, if you prefer) be naive to believe that the two areas of 4wheeling don't ever encounter the same type of terrain or traction requirements regardless of it being Florence Junction or elsewhere."

I think what this really boils down to is you are butt hurt that someone disagrees with your "paper". What you keep failing to grasp is that I agree with most of it...I even came to nearly the same recommendation as you for the FJC....a 10.5-12.5 wide tire. You also keep forgetting that I'm not responding to you on your site that is about expeditions, but on a site where people 4wheel recreationally in all sorts of terrain.

There's plenty I could respond to in your post, but frankly, what's the point? You are in staunch defense of your VERY LIMITED paper and all I'm saying is what you keep alluding to.....there's more to it than tire width.

Let's face it: Expeditionary driving in the USA is pretty much VERY mild 4wheeling trails.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words:



Or from your site:



***EDIT*** Pic link didn't work:




Obviously, there are countless others on your site. One thing I just noticed was, the Hackberry Creek photo is written up as "Hackberry Rockcrawling"....yet it's on an "Expedition" site. I'm sure you don't imply or mean to imply that your site is expeditionary only though....

Then again, I wouldn't call Fins and Things in Moab or Hackberry Creek or Martinez Canyon or Charleau Gap or Box Canyon an "expedition" type trip either considering they take only a few hours to complete. I'd say fully 1/3 of your "adventures" from 2000-03 are nothing more than normal 4wheeling trails at the low end of the spectrum in terms of difficulty. And oddly, many of them have specific "rockcrawling" obstacles that can be traversed during the course of the trail. Hmmm....maybe rockcrawling has more to do with generalized trail running than you're seemingly able to admit.

Are you trying to tell us that a 2" wider tire than what the guys from your pictures above are running would result in them having more trouble? I just don't see it being that big a deal. On a basically little used dirt road in the USA running "expedition" style, my biggest concern would be getting a puncture in the sidewall....not whether or not my tire was 2" wider.

I dunno (sp? ) Scott, it just doesn't seem like you ever really answered my questions regarding where you got your magic 10" section width or your 90% figure. You say you went off the GVW. Plug it into the formula and show me how...but at least show me the formula.

How come the US military uses a 37x12.5 tire on the military version of the H1? I guess the GVW and section height made that the best possible alternative? I know a 37x10 would definitely have a sidewall rolling issue...you work with the military, Michelin and some other folks....so you tell me.

Oh, BTW, are we talking actual section widths or "claimed" ones from the mfgs? You know....oops, not you personally.....we should all recognize that the charts on various mfg websites aren't what you'll (we'll ) find when you (we) mount up the tire on the specified rim, right?

You said, "I am not discounting that air pressure is even MORE important than carcass width or section width in many trail environments. That is known. There is also no question that carcass design and construction play major roles in performance."

So, I don't get it....why the fuss? What I am saying is that your article didn't include that portion (among several others) and if that portion can overcome the fact that someone chose a 12.5 over a 10" wide tire (as you seem to indicate when you say, "air pressure is even MORE important than carcass width or section width in many trail environments"),then does it really matter which one you choose?

I really enjoyed the last part where you seemingly imply that your paper isn't the problem, it's me that's "overly simplistic". Funny you'd stoop to that level after your self righteous comment, "Why use personal attacks in an effort to bolster your argument?" Don't worry, I'm not offended. I just thought it was funny. I often am amused by people who don't see their own hypocrisy.

Looking forward to your next response,

Sean