Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: 235/85 R16 versus 265/75 R16. Another tyre thread !

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Brisbane West
    Posts
    7,372
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Psimpson7 View Post
    In Qld that is simply not true. The NCOP isnt in force, and there are no plans as such for it to be at the moment.

    If Qld Transport pull you over you can argue the NCOP till you are blue in the face but you will get a defect notice if they dont agree, which they wont.

    The insurance policies will also have a stipulation that the car is legal to state rules so thats not a good area either.
    Whats not true...my personal concern about insurance not so much the traffic laws...?

    I didnt say it was legal to have them quite the opposite hence why I said ring transport to see WHEN they are going to go with the National Standard. For my part I have a letter from the insurer agreeing to my larger than one profile up tyres (ie I told them it met the standard but not the current laws in qld) and they have noted my policy. I have some idea what I am talking about when it comes to insurance law and I take my chances according to that knowledge. I dont purport to provide advice to anyone here, but I am happy with my situation where the policy's general policy wording is modified by my specific agreement with them.

    So dont worry matey...its all true!

    Cheers

    PS. When was the last time you saw the DOT pulling over people....I last saw it 20 years ago when they pulled over my HQ. Lets face it 31's instead of 29.5 on a Discovery is never going to attract attention. Its all about calculated risks.

    PPS. I know that Qld is dragging the chain on the National Standard and that in the meantime I am running tyres that do not comply with the TORUM Regulations and I thought my posts were clear...if not my post is now tolerably clear.

  2. #22
    Gav110 Guest
    Vlad, why not 255/85 ? This seems to be gathering consensus as the ideal compromise and gives 33 on a tall but not too wide tyre...

  3. #23
    VladTepes's Avatar
    VladTepes is offline Major Part of the Heart and Soul of AULRO Subscriber
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Bracken Ridge, Qld
    Posts
    16,055
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ozscott View Post
    PS. When was the last time you saw the DOT pulling over people....I last saw it 20 years ago when they pulled over my HQ. Lets face it 31's instead of 29.5 on a Discovery is never going to attract attention. Its all about calculated risks.
    Cops pulled up a mates wife the other days said the big wheels (35s I think) have to go as they knew they were too big "for a Land Rover". Now its wearing its 235/85s again and looks, well, sad.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gavster View Post
    Vlad, why not 255/85 ? This seems to be gathering consensus as the ideal compromise and gives 33 on a tall but not too wide tyre...
    Yeah but illegal in Qld due to >15mm increase in rolling diameter - and I have no wish to give an insurance company any "outs" if it comes to that.



    So my original q stands - if i am going to replace my tyres would the 3cm extra width be be useful for anything ?
    It's not broken. It's "Carbon Neutral".


    gone


    1993 Defender 110 ute "Doris"
    1994 Range Rover Vogue LSE "The Luxo-Barge"
    1994 Defender 130 HCPU "Rolly"
    1996 Discovery 1

    current

    1995 Defender 130 HCPU and Suzuki GSX1400


  4. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Brisbane West
    Posts
    7,372
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Fair enough mate. The 35's are big on a rover no question. I reckon an inch or 1.5 up is one thing.

    Cheers

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    6,078
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ozscott View Post

    PS. When was the last time you saw the DOT pulling over people....I last saw it 20 years ago when they pulled over my HQ. Lets face it 31's instead of 29.5 on a Discovery is never going to attract attention. Its all about calculated risks.
    .
    Pretty much every week I am afraid on the coast. Although generally the tyres and lift on the pulled cars do look dodgy.

    If you Ring the DOT they wont even make reference to the NCOP. It wouldn't surprise me if it never came into force in Qld. All my tyres are declared to my Ins company and noted on the ploicy, but I certainly wouldnt run my 35's past a DOT check, least of all like a claim if I was using them.

    Having said all that 255/85 is probably the best option!

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Yarrawonga Vic
    Posts
    40
    Total Downloaded
    0
    I am currently running BFG muddies 255/85, changing from 7.50/16 to the 235/85 allowed the use of more aggresive tread patterns while still maintaining an acceptable tread contact for on road use. The 255/85 is probably a negative compared to the 235/85 in regards to width, depending on the tread type, but a bonus off road for clearance and length of contact patch. So! unless you can gain hight stick with the 235/85. Having said that, wide chunky tyres can look really good! go the 265/75

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Melb. Vic.
    Posts
    6,045
    Total Downloaded
    0
    These are my new BFG 235/85s MTs. I'm pretty happy with them. Planning on new springs to lift it a bit (inch or so, nothing major)
    Attached Images Attached Images

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search AULRO.com ONLY!
Search All the Web!