View Poll Results: Would you support limiting tyre size to 33 inch?

Voters
113. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    57 50.44%
  • No

    56 49.56%
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 54

Thread: Tyre Sizes

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oatley, NSW
    Posts
    974
    Total Downloaded
    0
    What churns up a track is someone using a vehicle that is incapable of negotiating the terrain.... As a result you gotta use plenty of right foot and numerous go's to finally cross.

    As was said earlier, not the tyre... it's the driver.

    Having said that, I myself am guilty of trying things beyond my vehicles abilities, and giving it a go a few times. But I don't try 50 times before finally giving up. If you don't get up after 5th go, find another way.
    Stirling

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Maryborough QLD
    Posts
    4,322
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Whilts I'm not a huge fan of big tyres (although I run 33's), nobody has the right to tell you what you can and can't fit as long as it's safe and legal but the legal tyre size is a grey area and not inforced atm so it's open slather.

    Re- track damage due to tyre size. Most times it's the goose behind the wheel who makes the track impassible, digging out the track because they have to prove there manhood or something stupid. Some people can't drive off-road to save themselves and don't know when to give it away (always told 3 goes and that's it).

    Trav

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Central West NSW
    Posts
    14,148
    Total Downloaded
    99.87 MB
    My 35's have more traction than my 33's... and so do less damage.

    I actually reckon that unlocked 4WD's should be banned, as actually these are the vehicles that are really doing all of the damage by digging holes rather than driving through.

    Oh what... don't need to drive there? Then ban 4WD's.
    Cheers
    Slunnie


    ~ Discovery II Td5 ~ Discovery 3dr V8 ~ Series IIa 6cyl ute ~ Series II V8 ute ~

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Yinnar South, Vic
    Posts
    9,943
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Slunnie View Post
    My 35's have more traction than my 33's... and so do less damage.

    I actually reckon that unlocked 4WD's should be banned, as actually these are the vehicles that are really doing all of the damage by digging holes rather than driving through.

    Oh what... don't need to drive there? Then ban 4WD's.
    Please don't bring realistic views into this debate










    Bloody wayne kerrs and their 35's
    Last edited by rovercare; 12th April 2008 at 06:58 PM. Reason: Dyslexia

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Yinnar South, Vic
    Posts
    9,943
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Slunnie View Post

    Oh what... don't need to drive there? Then ban 4WD's.
    Like that so much, thought I'd quote it again

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Down the road from Sydney
    Posts
    14,702
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Slunnie View Post
    My 35's have more traction than my 33's... and so do less damage.

    I actually reckon that unlocked 4WD's should be banned, as actually these are the vehicles that are really doing all of the damage by digging holes rather than driving through.

    Oh what... don't need to drive there? Then ban 4WD's.
    I see what your saying but IMHO I feel a little unfair......everyone should be able to enjoy the outback......It shouldn't be made into a rich mans sport, my point being not everyone can afford to put 2000 grands worth of lockers in there cars.
    Our Land Rover does not leak oil! it just marks its territory.......




  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oatley, NSW
    Posts
    974
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Now that I think about it a little more... what should be banned is tires with monstrous side biters and a really aggressive tread. Once those tyres slip they really start to dig and cut huge ruts.

    Then again... on the flip side say you had an AT tyre and a MT tyre... the MT tyre will have a reduced chance of slipping... but when it does it will do more damage... it's a compromise really.

    Would banning 35's fix the problem anyway? I mean the ruts will eventually reach the depth of the 33" tyre and then from then on cars will have all sorts of trouble getting up. And then you will find that the cars with smaller diffs will keep going whereas cars with diffs like the salisbury will be stuck high and dry...
    Stirling

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Central West NSW
    Posts
    14,148
    Total Downloaded
    99.87 MB
    Quote Originally Posted by dullbird View Post
    I see what your saying but IMHO I feel a little unfair......everyone should be able to enjoy the outback......It shouldn't be made into a rich mans sport, my point being not everyone can afford to put 2000 grands worth of lockers in there cars.
    Actually I agree.

    People have vehicles that are designed to go to the places which interest them. Be it the outback or the gnarliest of hilltops. I'm just throwing the same point back in the other direction. Like those that want 4WD's banned in cities, it's all to easy to throw out an egocentric perspective without any real consideration. I can probably see it from all sides as I run 33's and 35's, lockers or unlocked and I drive the gnarly stuff and love to tour. Many wouldn't want mandatory lockers otherwise they couldn't see and do what they love, likewise with a ban on tyres over 33's for those that see and do what they love in more challenging terrain.
    Cheers
    Slunnie


    ~ Discovery II Td5 ~ Discovery 3dr V8 ~ Series IIa 6cyl ute ~ Series II V8 ute ~

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Central West NSW
    Posts
    14,148
    Total Downloaded
    99.87 MB
    Quote Originally Posted by stirlsilver View Post
    Now that I think about it a little more... what should be banned is tires with monstrous side biters and a really aggressive tread. Once those tyres slip they really start to dig and cut huge ruts.

    Then again... on the flip side say you had an AT tyre and a MT tyre... the MT tyre will have a reduced chance of slipping... but when it does it will do more damage... it's a compromise really.

    Would banning 35's fix the problem anyway? I mean the ruts will eventually reach the depth of the 33" tyre and then from then on cars will have all sorts of trouble getting up.
    Only Landcruisers, Patrols and Salisburys would have problems. What they winch, snatch and level.... everybody else drives.
    Cheers
    Slunnie


    ~ Discovery II Td5 ~ Discovery 3dr V8 ~ Series IIa 6cyl ute ~ Series II V8 ute ~

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Free Again Thanks Dan
    Posts
    10,150
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Slunnie View Post
    My 35's have more traction than my 33's... and so do less damage.

    I actually reckon that unlocked 4WD's should be banned, as actually these are the vehicles that are really doing all of the damage by digging holes rather than driving through.

    Oh what... don't need to drive there? Then ban 4WD's.
    You might be on to something there

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

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!