Thoughts on tires, tall or wide, advantages?

michaelgroves

Explorer
dieselcruiserhead said:
And my final experimentation with tall and skinny was a set of Michelin XZL 9.00x16 military tires that were also awesome but in the end too much tire for my Land Cruiser, even my big heavy diesel powered FJ55.

XZL or XCL? I know Michelin only make XZL now, but I wasn't aware that they ever made XZLs in 9.00x16. The XCL 9.00x16 was an amazing tyre, though at over 36" diameter, they were *very* tall...

Whatever they were, are they still available on the US market today? I would kill for a set of new 9.00x16 XCLs! The actual metric equivalent would be about a 230/115-16!

Regards,

Michael...
 

R_Lefebvre

Expedition Leader
Most experiments depend on control of all variables but one in order to isolate and verify results. In your statement I believe there are more than one variable at work, so that a conclusion can not be simply drawn that decreased tire pressures change (increase or decrease) coefficient of friction. I believe the phenomenon you are witnessing is an increase in available traction, not a change in coefficients.

No, what I am saying is basically an indisputable fact. It is science, written into the most respected texts.

But just to be clear, it seems maybe I didn't present my case properly because you misunderstood what I was saying in this case.

First, we must understand what is a friction coefficient µ "Mew" (Greek symbol). µ=friction/load

For most objects and surfaces, µ is a constant. If you take a 10 lb brick, it might take 8lbs to push it. It's µ would be 0.8. If you stack 9 more brick on top so that weight is 100lbs, it would take 80lbs to move the whole stack, so µ is still 0.8.

For some reason however, rubber doesn't work this way. Soft rubber on asphalt might have a µ of 1.3. There's the first thing that the highschool physics professors will claim is impossible... but there it is. If you take a tire contact patch, and load 1000lbs on it, it might take 1300lbs to make it skid. Thing is, if you put 2000lbs on it, it might only take 2200lbs to make it skid. The mew actually dropped to 1.1! Rubber is one of the few things to behave this way.

The converse is also true. If you take a given car of a given weight, and increase the size of it's contact patches, it will have more traction on asphalt. Again, this is why race cars use the largest size tire possible.

So, in that instance, when I said "pressure" I didn't mean air pressure. I meant pressure on the tread. As the pressure on a rubber contact patch (load per square inch of tread) increases, the friction coefficient goes down.

The rest of my discussion, the pressure referred to air pressure and it's effect on contact patch size.

And just to show my credentials a little bit, I know a thing or two about rubber tires on asphalt:

 

madizell

Explorer
The problem you are dealing with here is the difference between static and kinetic friction coefficients. I think we are to some extent talking apples and oranges because of a lack of understanding between our own terminology. That is, we are not at odds in theory, but only in use of the language.
 

madizell

Explorer
R_Lefebvre said:
So, in that instance, when I said "pressure" I didn't mean air pressure. I meant pressure on the tread. As the pressure on a rubber contact patch (load per square inch of tread) increases, the friction coefficient goes down.

Pressure on the tread is a function of mass driven by gravity and acceleration. Without getting into the physics of racing, my point was that air pressure in tires does not have an effect on COF. Otherwise, I think we are on the same page.
 

dieselcruiserhead

16 Years on ExPo. Whoa!!
This was about '03 I believe when the war demand was (and is) in full swing. So it made the limited supply of these almost extinct. But I bought these from a rover guy (FrankenRover, a doctor in Albuquerque who drives a 300tdi 110 pickup that has since been morphed into a crawler) almost brand new... But this one one of the last sets I had heard of. Anyway, they were amazing and they do fit in the Rover wheel well great. But they are a very big tire, Rovers are one of the few vehicles they look and fit correctly on IMO... But best of luck acquiring them. I have a couple XLs right now, the common military tread. Not sure what I'll do with these and they have some cupping them so probably better for a trailer or something like that...

michaelgroves said:
XZL or XCL? I know Michelin only make XZL now, but I wasn't aware that they ever made XZLs in 9.00x16. The XCL 9.00x16 was an amazing tyre, though at over 36" diameter, they were *very* tall...

Whatever they were, are they still available on the US market today? I would kill for a set of new 9.00x16 XCLs! The actual metric equivalent would be about a 230/115-16!

Regards,

Michael...
 

the dude

Adventurer
There is some very interesting theory and scientific data in this thread. I really enjoyed reading it...I have to admit, a lot of it was WAY over my head, but it is great to see and read.

Unfortunately, I am going to bugger it all up with some practical, unscientific observations!! Here's my take from my experience.

I have had the pleasure of running a few of the tire sizes mentioned here on my rig. I started of with the stock 31x10.5. Not a bad tire, but not tall enough to allow for adequate ground clearance under difs and the low slung springs on a sprung under cruiser.

One of the only pictures I have of them on the truck. (completely stock)
IMGP2494.jpg


My next tire was the ever popular size of 255/85R16. I actually ran two sets of these, a BFG MT and the Trxus MT. The Trxus was the better of the two as I really did not like the BFG MTs. These tires gave me the little bit of ground clearance I was after and the "classic" pizza cutter look. I even ran them on split rims for easy field repairs, sacrificing weight for that once "cool" factor... They turned out to be way to skinny for the weight of the truck. On the highway they where great, anywhere else, you sank to the bottom, slipped off, or simply spinned on the spot...

Sorry, I know it's another poser picture... My favorite "LOOK" but that doesn't help you get down the road.
Picture012.jpg


Next up on my list was a great set of the Michelin 9.00R16 XCsL. I was in love with this tire. It was (and still is) the Ultimate pizza cutter!! I now had lots of ground clearance and a tire stiff enough to air down and not feel like I was riding a marshmallow. Tractions was pretty good in everything except the rain and ice (siping help tremendously) At least it was way better then the 255/85R16. Mostly due to ground clearance I would believe. You still sunk like crazy in the skeg and sand, but the on road manners where pretty decent although a little loud on the highway.

Better picture of them in use in some softer sand
19.jpg


After getting sick and tired of not being able to float on top of the skeg and sand that I typically see, I sourced out, what I think, is the ultimate tire for a big, heavy, expedition/offroad/onroad style rig. The Michelin 325/85R16 ZML. If you have the power and clearance to run these tire you are going to be very happy in most condition. They do very well in the soft stuff, are OK in the rocks and perform much better in the snow and ice then the XCL IMO. I also siped these for winter travel. Aired down the side wall is nice and stiff, I have never punctured one, onroad manner are good (still loud) but they are getting harder to find with a decent amount of tread left on them.

Size difference between the XML and the XCL:
subbox052.jpg


On a "winter road" in the summer at Chitek Lake in northern Sask. I attempted this road the summer before with the 9.00R16 XCLs. It was a disaster.
may05077.jpg


and the poser shot to get perspective of them on the rig. You can see the 9.00R16 XCLs now see trailer duty.
IMG_0076.jpg


Which brings me to my latest tire, a Toyo 38x14.5R16 MT. Just shy on height compared to the XMLs but a lot wider. And a lot lighter. I lost amost 25lbs a tire on rotational mass, increased my fuel economy and quieted down my ride, a LOT. This tire has been great so far. I purchased them last fall, and so far has been the best tire in the snow and ice. It floats on top of the deep stuff, has good traction on our winter roads and sounds good rolling down the highway. They also performed well on the back roads of Northern Sask near Missinippi, which consisted of rocks, mud, and potholes... These tires will be taking us to Alaska this year for Cruiser Trek 08.

For comparison, me beside a HJ60 with 31x9.5
DSC02433.jpg


The bottom line for me, bigger and wider has always been better for getting me from point A to point B. If I want to get from here to there, all else being equal, I will always take the truck with the bigger, wider tires. This has been my experience in getting down the road. It does not take into account MPG loss, HP and torque required, vehicle mods to fit, common tire sizes (for replacement in remote areas) or any other factor not directly related to moving you along.

Like I said, not very scientific, but I enjoyed reading the thread. I don't know if anything I wrote matters, but I got to show you some pictures of my truck, I learned a lot from what others have posted, and I will be interested in what others experiences has told them about taller, wider tires.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
190,104
Messages
2,923,981
Members
233,414
Latest member
dhuss

Members online

Top