bj70_guy
Adventurer
My new Jeep, due to land in just a few days will have 34s on it. Although 255 wide
What tires? There's not a lot of choices in the 34x10.5 size, which is too bad...
Why skinny tires
- Thread starter Desolation
- Start date
What tires? There's not a lot of choices in the 34x10.5 size, which is too bad...
LateNate
Adventurer
So what are the results after your test? I have 32x11.5x15's on my LC and plan to switch to the 33x10.5's in the future.
This thread is a great discussion but I can't seem to come to any conclusion other than my personal preference. I have worried about going too skinny because I have a 100 mile paved twisty road that we take every other weekend and feel like I need a little wider tire for traction and handling.
Where is the trade-off?
Haven't had time yet.
Scott Brady
Founder
Redline
Likes to Drive and Ride
My favorite subject (tires) and I haven't had time to really join the discussion... but I have been following the thread.
the dude,
You make a reasonable argument below that rotating mass is a braking issue, reciprocating mass is a suspension issue, wind/rolling resistance is a fuel/range issue, etc.
However, if all of these things have been upgraded or addressed within reason on an 'overland vehicle' there are still possible performance, wear, and reliability issues when more tire than is needed is chosen. When a similarly performing tire (in most circumstances) is available that will be easier on the chassis it makes lots of sense to use such a tire.
In the case of overlanding, if an adequate, well performing and reliable platform is chosen, there are often very few things on your list that will need upgrading if the tire choice is kept in check. Not that I'm a world traveler, but I think with good tires and the right driver behind the wheel, most stock 4x4s (at least a "pinnacle" vehicle) can go overland around the world with very few modifications. So instead of rotating mass being a braking issue, etc., maybe these are issues created by the wrong tire choice on an otherwise solid vehicle?
In contrast with my statements above, and being a proponent of narrower tires like the 255/85R16 [I don't think they're 'skinny', as a 33.3 x 10.3” is a large tire] it's looking like I will be running a set of 285/75R16 treads for a while instead of 255/85.
As stated above a few times by others, I too am enjoying the gentlemanly discussion and debate. Bravo for the maturity, intelligence, and knowledge displaying in this thread.
the dude,
You make a reasonable argument below that rotating mass is a braking issue, reciprocating mass is a suspension issue, wind/rolling resistance is a fuel/range issue, etc.
However, if all of these things have been upgraded or addressed within reason on an 'overland vehicle' there are still possible performance, wear, and reliability issues when more tire than is needed is chosen. When a similarly performing tire (in most circumstances) is available that will be easier on the chassis it makes lots of sense to use such a tire.
In the case of overlanding, if an adequate, well performing and reliable platform is chosen, there are often very few things on your list that will need upgrading if the tire choice is kept in check. Not that I'm a world traveler, but I think with good tires and the right driver behind the wheel, most stock 4x4s (at least a "pinnacle" vehicle) can go overland around the world with very few modifications. So instead of rotating mass being a braking issue, etc., maybe these are issues created by the wrong tire choice on an otherwise solid vehicle?
In contrast with my statements above, and being a proponent of narrower tires like the 255/85R16 [I don't think they're 'skinny', as a 33.3 x 10.3” is a large tire] it's looking like I will be running a set of 285/75R16 treads for a while instead of 255/85.
As stated above a few times by others, I too am enjoying the gentlemanly discussion and debate. Bravo for the maturity, intelligence, and knowledge displaying in this thread.
Last edited:
Hilux_Max
Adventurer
255 80 r17
How are they 34" tyres Scott? Im assuming your reffering to the KM2's, which on the BFG website states they are 33.3 in diameter.....unless someone has some real world measurement on a rim inflatedthat shows they are actually more than this?
33.3 doesnt round of to 34........
charlieaarons
Explorer
XZLs are a better choice for a RTW trip than XLs or XMLs. XZLs wear much better and are quieter. As far as availability, Michelins are thinly availabile but some specialty North American tires are much worse in terms of being totally unavailable.
The experience of the Australians (Kim Bolton et al?) driving the Road of Bones is instructive. The vehicle with 255/100R16 XZLs had no tire problems whatsoever, although he had 2 spares. The vehicle using Mickey Thompsons on 18" rims did have tire problems and was totally unable to find replacements in eastern Siberia. Eventually they found something in 18", since the GAZ 66 runs 12.00-18s, for instance.
For small rigs, tires like 7.50R16, 235/85R16 are ubiquitous but the universe of sizes that you can order from Interco for instance aren't easily found outside North America.
Charlie
Spur
Adventurer
Anyone know how available a 315/75 16 or a 35" x 12.5" x 16 is in N. and S. America. Obviously it's a VERY popular size in the U.S. What about down south?
bj70_guy
Adventurer
Yes, doing the math I come up with only 33.06"... same as a 255/85R16.... unless I've missed something.
Boy what a great thread. There are certainly some knowledgeable members on here.
This is my view on this as well. It seems everything on my rig is a compromise of sorts. The truck will certainly see more time on the highway than off.
I feel that the narrower tire's advantages outweigh the little increase in offroad handling I would get by going to a wider tire.
Also, even with "float" tires, how well is my 8800lb loaded rig going to "float"?
This is my view on this as well. It seems everything on my rig is a compromise of sorts. The truck will certainly see more time on the highway than off.
I feel that the narrower tire's advantages outweigh the little increase in offroad handling I would get by going to a wider tire.
Also, even with "float" tires, how well is my 8800lb loaded rig going to "float"?
Rigged
Observer
255 80 r17
Maybe he meant 255/85R17 which is 34.1x10R17....Just a guess.
Hilux_Max
Adventurer
nobody makes a tyre that size, BFG KM2 is 255/80x17.....equivalent to a 255/85x16 just to suit the 17 inch rim....same diameter and width.
chasespeed
Explorer
When I switched to 33x10.5s on my Rodeo, it DID handle, on and off road MUCH MUCH better than the 33x12.5s......
I had a set of 235/85/16s when I sold it... in hard pack, gravel, and snow, it did much better.. and their on road manners were much more.... friendly
Currently, I am running 285/16s on my ram... its HEAVY... period... in my case, I running about as narrow of a tire as I am willing... and moving up to 315s when its time for new rubber....I would love more ground clearance... but, I also need more rubber on the ground, considering the amount of towing I do, as well as an E load range.....
Chase
I had a set of 235/85/16s when I sold it... in hard pack, gravel, and snow, it did much better.. and their on road manners were much more.... friendly
Currently, I am running 285/16s on my ram... its HEAVY... period... in my case, I running about as narrow of a tire as I am willing... and moving up to 315s when its time for new rubber....I would love more ground clearance... but, I also need more rubber on the ground, considering the amount of towing I do, as well as an E load range.....
Chase
JIMBO
Expedition Leader
:sombrero: Yea they do !!!
Super-Swamper-LTB 34/10.50-17LTB and they're BIAS ply, not radial
So it depends on your jeep uses, I'm getting a set soon, cause my jeep stays here in nevada, they'e actually about 33.8 " dia and that will depend on your wheel width !!
:coffeedrink::safari-rig::safari-rig: JIMBO
Super-Swamper-LTB 34/10.50-17LTB and they're BIAS ply, not radial
So it depends on your jeep uses, I'm getting a set soon, cause my jeep stays here in nevada, they'e actually about 33.8 " dia and that will depend on your wheel width !!
:coffeedrink::safari-rig::safari-rig: JIMBO
Rigged
Observer
Redline
Likes to Drive and Ride
I liked Andre's post on the 25th enough to go back to it ...
While I have not run any of the larger 35-37” sizes that Andre has used, I have run many tires in the 255/85R16, 265/75R16, 285/75R16 (probably the most popular and practical "ExPo" tires sizes) and a couple 245/75R16 & 235/85R16. Mostly I have very much preferred the 255/85 size for most of my rigs for the past 13-years. But even within this size, there are plenty of variances between manufacturers. Some are very narrow, like the Cooper ST and its cousins that use the same casing. With a tread width of about 7.2-in and very light, soft, flexible sidewall, these tires do have plenty of lateral lean, the difference is lateral stability can be felt compared to a more typical 255/85. The manners of this tire/casing make me think of it more as a 235/85, though it lacks the sidewall stiffness.
In general I don't consider a 255/85 a 'skinny' tire, instead it is a 'normal', best all-around tire. 285/75 are not super wide, but in my uses a 11.3 - 11.8 inch wide tire is a wide tire compared to my ‘standard' 255/85. Surprisingly and somewhat reluctantly, I have found that at least of of my vehicles likes at least one tread in 285/75R16 ☺
Platform, wheel width, and the overall chassis set-up can make a huge difference. I have run 285/75R16 on 7-inch wheels and in my opinion (and that of the tire/wheel manufacturers) 7-in is just too narrow for a 285, I'm currently using the narrowest recommended wheel with a 285/75R16, 7.5-in., and it's working okay. The bead is seated tightly but the tire would possibly be happier on an 8-in wheel, testing continues.
My recently towing experience with my 06 4Runner is similar. I've never had concerns using mostly 255s for towing/hauling, particularly on my old F350. But as I continue to tow larger and heavier trailers with substantial tongue loads with my shorter wheelbase 4Runner I have felt lateral push from side winds, and also when turning and maneuvering. You can feel the torque leveraging on the narrower tires. 285s do seem to add to the stability and flotation support (even on highway).
I've only popped a bead once on my F350 many years ago in Moab, but testing this week with 285s on 7.5-in rims with lots of sidehill/side loading of the tire at 15-psi indicated the tire wheel combination was still happy and both seemed more protected that running a 255/85, particularly a softer/narrow tire like the Cooper ST mentioned above.
On-highway efficiencies with moderate width tires (255s) can be easily under appreciated, as well as the ability to clear a tire of a certain height (33") with less lift, fit chains, etc. I have done some recent testing and the difference between the 255/85 and 285/75R16 with different tread patterns on the same platform can be as little as 0.8-1 MPG or as much as 1.8 MPG. I love the way a nice 255 drives down the highway.
This is currently my biggest concern... if I continue to run a 285/75 instead of a 255/85, how poor will my winter snow/slush/ice traction be compared to my standard 255/85? Surely tread pattern, siping and contact pressure will be a part of the performance.
While I have not run any of the larger 35-37” sizes that Andre has used, I have run many tires in the 255/85R16, 265/75R16, 285/75R16 (probably the most popular and practical "ExPo" tires sizes) and a couple 245/75R16 & 235/85R16. Mostly I have very much preferred the 255/85 size for most of my rigs for the past 13-years. But even within this size, there are plenty of variances between manufacturers. Some are very narrow, like the Cooper ST and its cousins that use the same casing. With a tread width of about 7.2-in and very light, soft, flexible sidewall, these tires do have plenty of lateral lean, the difference is lateral stability can be felt compared to a more typical 255/85. The manners of this tire/casing make me think of it more as a 235/85, though it lacks the sidewall stiffness.
In general I don't consider a 255/85 a 'skinny' tire, instead it is a 'normal', best all-around tire. 285/75 are not super wide, but in my uses a 11.3 - 11.8 inch wide tire is a wide tire compared to my ‘standard' 255/85. Surprisingly and somewhat reluctantly, I have found that at least of of my vehicles likes at least one tread in 285/75R16 ☺
Platform, wheel width, and the overall chassis set-up can make a huge difference. I have run 285/75R16 on 7-inch wheels and in my opinion (and that of the tire/wheel manufacturers) 7-in is just too narrow for a 285, I'm currently using the narrowest recommended wheel with a 285/75R16, 7.5-in., and it's working okay. The bead is seated tightly but the tire would possibly be happier on an 8-in wheel, testing continues.
My recently towing experience with my 06 4Runner is similar. I've never had concerns using mostly 255s for towing/hauling, particularly on my old F350. But as I continue to tow larger and heavier trailers with substantial tongue loads with my shorter wheelbase 4Runner I have felt lateral push from side winds, and also when turning and maneuvering. You can feel the torque leveraging on the narrower tires. 285s do seem to add to the stability and flotation support (even on highway).
I've only popped a bead once on my F350 many years ago in Moab, but testing this week with 285s on 7.5-in rims with lots of sidehill/side loading of the tire at 15-psi indicated the tire wheel combination was still happy and both seemed more protected that running a 255/85, particularly a softer/narrow tire like the Cooper ST mentioned above.
On-highway efficiencies with moderate width tires (255s) can be easily under appreciated, as well as the ability to clear a tire of a certain height (33") with less lift, fit chains, etc. I have done some recent testing and the difference between the 255/85 and 285/75R16 with different tread patterns on the same platform can be as little as 0.8-1 MPG or as much as 1.8 MPG. I love the way a nice 255 drives down the highway.
This is currently my biggest concern... if I continue to run a 285/75 instead of a 255/85, how poor will my winter snow/slush/ice traction be compared to my standard 255/85? Surely tread pattern, siping and contact pressure will be a part of the performance.