Skinny Tyres Vs Fat Tyres

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by uninformed

stock gearing/stock engine?

try that on a steep hill without riding the clutch

or anywhere towing a 1.8t trailer

Serg

---

Easy, my 110 ran this size for 6 months towing, offroad, everywhere..

No clutch riding issues..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

For almost all offroad situations the only important factors are the overall diameter of the tyre and the tread pattern - for any realistic width, you mostly won't be able to tell the difference, and pressures will make a lot more difference.

---

I agree that diameter is most important, but IME (and many others) wider tyres have a greater contact patch offroad, which makes a huge difference. Wider tyres will often find grip where narrower tyres don't - especially on (loose) rocky terrain.

Just look at the US rockcrawling guys (many of whom work together with tyre developers). Low weight is everything for those guys. If skinny tyres did as well as wider tyres, they would be running them.

Serg - your old engine must have been a real dog. I know a guy with a 130DC who used to run 35" wheels with stock gearing AND tow a 30' caravan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by isuzurover

I agree that diameter is most important, but IME (and many others) wider tyres have a greater contact patch offroad, which makes a huge difference. Wider tyres will often find grip where narrower tyres don't - especially on (loose) rocky terrain.

Just look at the US rockcrawling guys (many of whom work together with tyre developers). Low weight is everything for those guys. If skinny tyres did as well as wider tyres, they would be running them.

---

I agree. There are very very few narrow hard core tyres available. They are just about all wide.

i think the point was about the fact that tyres are now wideer to appeal to the asthetic demands of todays markets. in a situation where the grip available from a srface is very good (bitumen, hard dirt-roads and big stationary rocks) the more rubber you can get on it the better.

i think many of the surfaces the WRC race on are more relevant to many of our 4x4 adventures (mud, sand, snow, shale and loose rocky terrain) and overall the tyre widths the use arent that wide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simonr23

i think the point was about the fact that tyres are now wideer to appeal to the asthetic demands of todays markets. in a situation where the grip available from a srface is very good (bitumen, hard dirt-roads and big stationary rocks) the more rubber you can get on it the better.

i think many of the surfaces the WRC race on are more relevant to many of our 4x4 adventures (mud, sand, snow, shale and loose rocky terrain) and overall the tyre widths the use arent that wide.

---

Hard core bog tyres are about performance, not aesthetics. Very few of these are narrow which flaws the perspective that wide tyres are for looks. Even on OBC 4WD's which are closer to what we run, they tend to run on the wide side of things at 12.5-13.5" etc.


WRC tyres are controlled by the FIA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by isuzurover

I agree that diameter is most important, but IME (and many others) wider tyres have a greater contact patch offroad, which makes a huge difference. Wider tyres will often find grip where narrower tyres don't - especially on (loose) rocky terrain.

Just look at the US rockcrawling guys (many of whom work together with tyre developers). Low weight is everything for those guys. If skinny tyres did as well as wider tyres, they would be running them.

........

---

No argument - but how many people drive in these circumstances? Wider tyres will certainly give an improvement compared to narrow tyres, but within legal limits the difference is small, and less than the differences in tyre treads - and certaily less than the difference a samll increase in diameter makes.

John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simonr23

i think the point was about the fact that tyres are now wideer to appeal to the asthetic demands of todays markets. in a situation where the grip available from a srface is very good (bitumen, hard dirt-roads and big stationary rocks) the more rubber you can get on it the better.

i think many of the surfaces the WRC race on are more relevant to many of our 4x4 adventures (mud, sand, snow, shale and loose rocky terrain) and overall the tyre widths the use arent that wide.

---

Just a few quick questions:

Are you planning on rallying your Disco?
Would your regular use for the Disco include 180 km/h on a dirt road?
How many WRC cars weigh 2 tonnes?

I run 33x12.5 Claws on my ute when offroad. And to be quite frank I think they are too wide for the weight of my car. Particularly on clay tracks I tent to skate around EVERYWHERE! Where as all the other heavier cars (discos and rangies) on narrower tyres stay firmly planted onto the track.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stirlsilver

I run 33x12.5 Claws on my ute when offroad. And to be quite frank I think they are too wide for the weight of my car. Particularly on clay tracks I tent to skate around EVERYWHERE! Where as all the other heavier cars (discos and rangies) on narrower tyres stay firmly planted onto the track.

---

That's just because radial claws are ****;)

Really Really Really ****:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by isuzurover

I agree that diameter is most important, but IME (and many others) wider tyres have a greater contact patch offroad, which makes a huge difference. Wider tyres will often find grip where narrower tyres don't - especially on (loose) rocky terrain.

Just look at the US rockcrawling guys (many of whom work together with tyre developers). Low weight is everything for those guys. If skinny tyres did as well as wider tyres, they would be running them.

Serg - your old engine must have been a real dog. I know a guy with a 130DC who used to run 35" wheels with stock gearing AND tow a 30' caravan.

---

Ben i think rock crwaling is a very narrow perspective..... oh and arnt these guys running water or lead shot in there tyres???? so i dont think they weight thing comes into it for tyres on RC's. look at the traction of the surface they run on, you wouldnt run skinnies on the back of a top fuel racer would you.

the point here is not for a one of eventer or even obc racer.

just remember once everyone starts to go one way and believe that that works then thats were the development is.... you would know that alot of people believe that KN filters are very good at flow AND filtering.....

reagarding the OBC etc try finding a 36.5 good offroad tyre in 10 inch or less width????? not going to happen. the Q78 is the closest at 35.5 tall and no one is going to give up and inch, or 1/2 of diff clearence to run something that will get them laughed at based on visual trends.

also i think racing is not a good example, i have seem some top end trucks from OBC, these things have some outragess money in shocks alone and then they run standard lenght control arms and the angle of the panhard is really steep because of the lift...... not so good for an all round truck and i would think not even good for high speed events. but this was a very competitive truck....

unless your truck is on a trailer to and from events or play its my person opinion that 10inches is wide enough. anything else is just extra weight, friction and drag. you are also pushing those puppies through the air.

regarding my engine Ben, it wasnt that bad, it had 3 inch mandrel bent exhaust and fuel was turned up, more efficent intercooler.

but i drove 5-6 days a week with the trailer on, and my trailer was a true 1.8-2t and you get to know what the vehicle is like in all situations.

i ran 285/65r16 for a while, fuel consumption went up and the around town drivability went down, they also rubbed on the front shocks and rear spring mount on a rim that had more offset than stock. i went back to 235/85r16. my next tyre i will try 255/85r16 these can be had in a maxxis bighorn(wich i run now) but ultimately i want q78's on a set of 6 inch wide beadlocks to take and play with.

Serg