jim65wagon
Well-known member
To be honest, the only sub I get that has not come ripped (but it's not a regular thing) is the OJ, all of them come late, and apparently I have missed some and just not realized it...
Show us your Toyota 4runner, tacoma or truck.
- Thread starter neliconcept
- Start date
To be honest, the only sub I get that has not come ripped (but it's not a regular thing) is the OJ, all of them come late, and apparently I have missed some and just not realized it...
Hilux_Max
Adventurer
Man, you got some BALLLLLS! haha that is a nice shot!
i agree, i did a very similar decent in my hilux at a 4x4 training day a few weeks after i purchased it.....was a 62 degree decent and going down it you could feel the bed of the truck start lifting up wanting to go over the top!:Wow1:
i wont be doing that again anytime soon.....
Rattler
Thornton Melon's Kid
heres a cover shot I got last year
and a couple from our last off road training adventure w/ BB4WA this past January in AZ
we had Darby Darrow associate editor for 4WDTO along for the 3 day 2 night excursion.
Ive done a few mods since then still more to do though.:coffeedrink:
it was fun
doing another this May in Moab . still time to sign up if you want to come build your skill with Bill
IIRC, didn't an FJ-40 show everyone it's bottom on that?
BajaRunner
Bandito
Gone2Baja? You on Bajanomad.com?!
Need to go soon...Hopefully driving down for a trip end of March...
:sombrero:
Need to go soon...Hopefully driving down for a trip end of March...
:sombrero:
timmer2008
Adventurer
i agree, i did a very similar decent in my hilux at a 4x4 training day a few weeks after i purchased it.....was a 62 degree decent and going down it you could feel the bed of the truck start lifting up wanting to go over the top!:Wow1:
i wont be doing that again anytime soon.....
whoe ho @*$& that looks Sooooo.. sketchy .
its amazing what a pair of tightly clenched buttocks can achieve isnt it?
timmer2008
Adventurer
Stealth 4x4
Adventurer
Great pics guys. Keep them coming. My experience was that once I had wheeled Moab, I developed a whole different scale for what constitutes sketchy in terms of steep climbs and descents. And I also realized that personally, I will take a long wheelbase rig that is less likely to go either end-over and spends a lot more time on the belly plate, than a short wheelbase that doesn't get on the belly much, but lifts tires and wants to flip over forward/backward on stuff like this. Belly dragging os no big deal. Even if you get high centered, there's another rig who can push, pull, etc you out, or if not, the winch works great. If you flip it over, that is a much bigger deal. As much as I love the FJ40's if I ever get one, the WB is getting stretched for sure!
Love these pcis guys. More please! :wings:
Here's a fun one from Moab last spring going up that was fun...
And one from Moab this winter going down... equally fun...
Love these pcis guys. More please! :wings:
Here's a fun one from Moab last spring going up that was fun...
And one from Moab this winter going down... equally fun...
336wheeler
Observer
Did you crap your pants after going down that? Sketchy is an understatement on that one. I've gone backwards down stuff about a third the length of that with my brakes locked (unsuccessful icy hill climbs)... but that would sketch me out.
4Rescue
Expedition Leader
:Wow1:
:Wow1: AWESOME :Wow1: It's cool to see how the WB's effect the climbing ability and how the shorter rig had to giver more throttle and more bump to get up eh. Both of those vids a re sweet, thanks for sharing.
Cheers
Dave
Great pics guys. Keep them coming. My experience was that once I had wheeled Moab, I developed a whole different scale for what constitutes sketchy in terms of steep climbs and descents. And I also realized that personally, I will take a long wheelbase rig that is less likely to go either end-over and spends a lot more time on the belly plate, than a short wheelbase that doesn't get on the belly much, but lifts tires and wants to flip over forward/backward on stuff like this. Belly dragging os no big deal. Even if you get high centered, there's another rig who can push, pull, etc you out, or if not, the winch works great. If you flip it over, that is a much bigger deal. As much as I love the FJ40's if I ever get one, the WB is getting stretched for sure!
Love these pcis guys. More please! :wings:
Here's a fun one from Moab last spring going up that was fun...
And one from Moab this winter going down... equally fun...
:Wow1: AWESOME :Wow1: It's cool to see how the WB's effect the climbing ability and how the shorter rig had to giver more throttle and more bump to get up eh. Both of those vids a re sweet, thanks for sharing.
Cheers
Dave
timmer2008
Adventurer
a bit less air in the tires might have helped some as well
Stealth 4x4
Adventurer
Thanks. Nope, no skids in the drawers after the snowy drop-in. From the camera angle its harder to read the terrain, but from the cab, you could tell if the tires locked and it slid it would slide straight down if I lined up that way, which is why I did. Then it was just a matter of being ready on the gas if it started to get sideways for some unexpected reason to pull it back straight. That vid always looks sketchier than it was. I mean, all 4 were sliding and it tracked really straight on that line, so all good. Fun though!
Its interesting trying to evaluate this stuff. The climb vid... the guy in the short WB truck (104") was aired down quite a bit more than the rest of us in our longer 124" WB trucks. Some combination of weight to tread patch ratio and the bounciness of his suspension on the line he took played a role I am guessing. The short truck was the only one in the vid locked front and rear, the others were only locked in the rear at the time. The trucks with wider tires did better there as well. The black short truck and my silver one were on the same tires (9.5" wide), whereas the other two were on 11.5 and 12.5's and they spun less. There are tons more of those vids to evaluate, which is always fun after a trip.
Its interesting trying to evaluate this stuff. The climb vid... the guy in the short WB truck (104") was aired down quite a bit more than the rest of us in our longer 124" WB trucks. Some combination of weight to tread patch ratio and the bounciness of his suspension on the line he took played a role I am guessing. The short truck was the only one in the vid locked front and rear, the others were only locked in the rear at the time. The trucks with wider tires did better there as well. The black short truck and my silver one were on the same tires (9.5" wide), whereas the other two were on 11.5 and 12.5's and they spun less. There are tons more of those vids to evaluate, which is always fun after a trip.
336wheeler
Observer
I've noticed that my 255s are easier to break traction on pavement than my old 265s. This would suggest that actual contact patch area may be more important than contact patch PSI (pro-argument for 255s). Any thoughts?
Stealth 4x4
Adventurer
So many things come into that equation that it actually gets a little thick reading about and tiring trying to list all the variables involved that are required just to begin to have a good discussion on that one. You know what I mean? So many factors go into the traction equation, and it gets really unscientific quickly when it comes down to comparisons. Like what tread and rubber compound was in each set of tires, what pressures were they at, how did the road conditions vary that day (even air temperature effects traction) did you regear your truck when you went from 265 70's (about a 31.7-inch dia. tire) to the 255 85's (about a 33.5-inch dia. tire) and if so what gearing did you go to, and to what extend does that affect torque at the wheels... also what else did you do to the truck at the time that might have affected breaking a tire loose on pavement (like added weight in recovery gear, tools, armor, extra battery, aux fuel/water cans, etc. etc.). Then when your comparisons go from one truck and one driver to another taking into account differences in subjective experience... you see how the variables are so great at some point they discount anything we consider to be actual results.
Also, the contact patch PSI is really primarily an argument which pertains to driving in terrain in which the traction would benefit by the tire tread conforming to the uneven surface of the terrain (like rocks) better by forcing more weight into the smaller contact patch thus forcing the rubber into and around the rock depressions and ridges providing more grip or traction. Its like the difference between trying to go rock climbing using just the flat pads of your hands (which don't conform to the rock much) vs gripping the rock with your fingers and shaping your hands to the surface better... So on flat pavement traction is less affected by contact patch PSI in terms of the tire conforming to the sruface... so that contact patch PSI theory does not really apply as much. Certainly to some degree a tire with more weight on it grips better even on the pavement, its just that the argument really has its strength when it pertains to rough surfaces.
I am on my second set of 255 85 16 KM2s and I still cannot definitively tell you whether I love them so much (whether they perform so well) because of the tread pattern, the rubber compound, the tire diameter, tire width, or some combination of all of the above. I went with a skinny tire because I wanted to prioritize tire diameter, going as large in diameter as I could to gain max ground clearance without cutting the truck to get the tire to fit into the wheel wells. With a narrow tire, I could go taller than a wide tire before it really started to rub. So the skinnys won out. I don't even particularly like the look of skinny tires. I prefer fat tires, which look beefier and just seem like they would be more capable with all that grip surface and flotation. But I have only ever once been let down by the traction of these tires, and that was in soft sand without airing them down as far I should have. In the rocks, dirt, snow, mud, pavement, concrete, brush, gravel, cobble, water, etc. I love these tires -- even though I don't like how they look on the truck, I can't deny the performance, so I keep coming back for more. And again, that is so incredibly unscientific that it means nothing anyway.
They work well for my truck and my driving style, I know that much.
Also, the contact patch PSI is really primarily an argument which pertains to driving in terrain in which the traction would benefit by the tire tread conforming to the uneven surface of the terrain (like rocks) better by forcing more weight into the smaller contact patch thus forcing the rubber into and around the rock depressions and ridges providing more grip or traction. Its like the difference between trying to go rock climbing using just the flat pads of your hands (which don't conform to the rock much) vs gripping the rock with your fingers and shaping your hands to the surface better... So on flat pavement traction is less affected by contact patch PSI in terms of the tire conforming to the sruface... so that contact patch PSI theory does not really apply as much. Certainly to some degree a tire with more weight on it grips better even on the pavement, its just that the argument really has its strength when it pertains to rough surfaces.
I am on my second set of 255 85 16 KM2s and I still cannot definitively tell you whether I love them so much (whether they perform so well) because of the tread pattern, the rubber compound, the tire diameter, tire width, or some combination of all of the above. I went with a skinny tire because I wanted to prioritize tire diameter, going as large in diameter as I could to gain max ground clearance without cutting the truck to get the tire to fit into the wheel wells. With a narrow tire, I could go taller than a wide tire before it really started to rub. So the skinnys won out. I don't even particularly like the look of skinny tires. I prefer fat tires, which look beefier and just seem like they would be more capable with all that grip surface and flotation. But I have only ever once been let down by the traction of these tires, and that was in soft sand without airing them down as far I should have. In the rocks, dirt, snow, mud, pavement, concrete, brush, gravel, cobble, water, etc. I love these tires -- even though I don't like how they look on the truck, I can't deny the performance, so I keep coming back for more. And again, that is so incredibly unscientific that it means nothing anyway.
They work well for my truck and my driving style, I know that much.
Last edited: