Any of you running 235/85/16 tires?

[bigreen505]

235/85/16s are pretty common tires to run on Land Rovers, D1 guys and series guys seem to favor them (probably because they're similar to the 7.50 R16 in size)... I'm a big fan of them, personally. If contact area becomes a problem on the trail, just air them down a bit more and you should be fine.

Nathan, what size wheels are you running with those, 6.5" or 7"

 

[pangaea]

pangaea, do you have a full shot of your LR?

Here's a couple of shots to give you a good idea of how the tires looked on the truck (past tense, because I don't actually own the truck any more):

 

[pangaea]

Nathan, what size wheels are you running with those, 6.5" or 7"

I just looked that up online, and it looks like they were actually 16 x 5.5" wheels.

 

[Schattenjager]

The only down side to 235's is thier uber stiff sidewall. They are used - maybe designed for - dually trucks, which carry a lot of weight. These two pics are from the same day - one bone stock with the 235's and the other later that afternoon after the install of the 3" lift and ARB.

Once the 255/85's are worn, I am going to go back to the 235's. They are indeed easier on the truck and allow room for chains. Less spendy too!

http://i398.photobucket.com/albums/pp64/schattenjager27/IMG_1373.jpg
http://i398.photobucket.com/albums/pp64/schattenjager27/IMG_1423.jpg

 

[XJxplorer]

anyone run a 16x8" wheel with them??

 

[4hilux]

Hi - 16 x 8 is too wide for a 235 tire IMHO........6-6.5' wide would be max rim width that ya want.

 

[Martinjmpr]

I think MartinJumper is on a trip and probably won't respond, but he is running 235/85 Yokohamas and is pretty happy with them.

Yup I was out of town last week but I'm back now.

Very satisfied with my 235s.

The comment about sidewall flex is true, particularly if you get the LT rather than the P rated tire but so far that hasn't been an issue. Maybe guys who do a lot of driving in soft sand would notice a difference but I never have. Then again, I'm mostly driving on rocks, packed dirt or snow when I'm not on hard pavement.

They look pretty good although not terribly aggressive.

 

[Cackalak Han]

Thanks for the pics, everyone. Martinjmpr, do you have any front shots?

 

[7wt]

I would not hesitate to do the 235's. The only downside I have found is what Schattenjager mentioned, the stiff side wall. The plus side to this is the things wear like steel. It is hard to tell that there are any miles on my truck much less the 10,000 that are on them. They get great traction on snow and everything I have tried so far, rock, sand and mud included. I do have one place that I can't climb up but I thin it's due to the AT's and not the size. From here on out, this will be the only size tire on my truck. Sorry I don't have anymore pics, these are the best I can find. I think they look great and have had plenty of compliments.

 

[7wt]

Here is a shot of the 265/70's that were on it for comparison.

 

[98roamer]

I'm looking for confirmation that my understanding is correct that for snow a narrow tire is preferred. I'm not talking about the Arctic Trucks but for normal winter conditions.

 

[Cackalak Han]

7wt - Are you on BFG KO's?

98Roamer - Yes, with the exception of deep snow, narrow tires are preferred. On my cars, I always got skinnier snow tires than the stock tire sizing. It just cuts through the snow and slush.

 

[7wt]

Yup, the 235's are BFG AT KO LT's. The 265's were Bridgestone Revos (stay away).

98roamer, the skinny tires will shock you with their snow performance. I had a talk with my tires yesterday and they are looking forward to the snow! As stated before, they work great except for deep snow. Deep meaning that my rocker panels are touching snow. Up to that point I am pretty good. I don't run chains either.

 

[TheRoadie]

But wait a minute - isn't the contact patch a constant?

Been reading this thread as I want to try narrower next year as well.

But one thing still bothers me about a bit of the discussion and Scott's article. It's argued that narrower tires will perform better since the contact patch is smaller and presents more PSI to the terrain.

If two tires are inflated to identical PSI, let's say 15 PSI. And the vehicle weighs 5000 pounds, then each tire is called upon to carry 1250 pounds weight, and therefore the contact patch is a constant 1250/15 = 83.33 square inches. I can see how the shape of the contact patch can matter, depending on the terrain - but 83 square inches is a constant, no matter the aspect ratio of the tire. The narrow tire can't PUSH the ground any harder than its internal pressure will let it.

Maybe the benefit is in a second order effect like the sidewall flex? Or a dynamic benefit that depends on how fast the tread recovers after it rolls over the surface?

 

[Martinjmpr]

Been reading this thread as I want to try narrower next year as well.

But one thing still bothers me about a bit of the discussion and Scott's article. It's argued that narrower tires will perform better since the contact patch is smaller and presents more PSI to the terrain.

If two tires are inflated to identical PSI, let's say 15 PSI. And the vehicle weighs 5000 pounds, then each tire is called upon to carry 1250 pounds weight, and therefore the contact patch is a constant 1250/15 = 83.33 square inches. I can see how the shape of the contact patch can matter, depending on the terrain - but 83 square inches is a constant, no matter the aspect ratio of the tire. The narrow tire can't PUSH the ground any harder than its internal pressure will let it.

Maybe the benefit is in a second order effect like the sidewall flex? Or a dynamic benefit that depends on how fast the tread recovers after it rolls over the surface?

I think you're comparing apples to asteroids here.

The "PSI" of the tires has nothing to do with how much weight the vehicle is carrying. It's just a measurement of the air pressure inside the tire.