Skinny Tyres Vs Fat Tyres

**Slunnie** · 18th August 2008, 08:17 PM

Originally Posted by uninformed

i dont know the specifics of "MILO" but do know its an old LC that is leaf spung.

how supple and compliant is MILO's suspension??? if its set up for load carrying and touring duties, its probably fairly stiff, this is where the wider tyre may allow some "suspension" and reduce digging

but, as i keep stating, unless you compare same tread, rubber compound and side wall construction, its a moot point.

i always suspect verdicts given in auto magizines, which rely solely on advertising for income, if Toyota is you biggest client, your not going to turn around and bag the crap out of there products......

food for thought

It makes no difference. Coils sprung vehicles can be soft or stiff also. Toyota doesnt have much to do with the tyres on it, I would say ETD has a lot to do with it though, but they are the wholesaler for both Cooper and Mickey Thompson, so there isn't a lot in it. You can always say that this that and everything else is some type of reason for one response or another, but at the end of the day you just gotta accept it - he preferred the fats.

**Slunnie** · 18th August 2008, 08:29 PM

Anyway, despite the muck around... I posted a little while back a picture of a MTB tyre and commented that I hope it didn't break an axle... just for the skinny lovers.

But how skinny is good. I personally think that 255/85's are a pretty good compromise but nowhere near as stable as a lower profile tyre like the 285/75's that I run now when offroad, but the 255's roll better. But lots love skiiiiiiiny. Is the optimum skinny then 235? 7.50's? 185's? MTB tyres? Pizza cutters?

**uninformed** · 18th August 2008, 08:33 PM

Originally Posted by Slunnie

It makes no difference. Coils sprung vehicles can be soft or stiff also. Toyota doesnt have much to do with the tyres on it, I would say ETD has a lot to do with it though, but they are the wholesaler for both Cooper and Mickey Thompson, so there isn't a lot in it. You can always say that this that and everything else is some type of reason for one response or another, but at the end of the day you just gotta accept it - he preferred the fats.

yep he did, thats his choice, and im sure he is no fool.

i never said that coils are soft, but you must agree that apart from fairly custom 4x4's coils suspension vehicles are softer than leaves.

i know my stock SIII was way rougher than my stock 110, and the 110 is designed to carry more weight, the rear coils were extremly stiff!

that aside i was asking about the particular vehicle set up that the so called "test" was done on....

my use of toyota was only an example. i understood when you said ETD supply both so that SHOULD be impartial, but you dont know what deals the manufatures do with there wholesalers, and what tyres and marketing goes where.....

anyway, its at the end of the day its a personal choice...

doesnt matter what tyres i run, when my SALS 8HA drags its fat **** im not going anywhere..............

serg

**isuzurover** · 18th August 2008, 08:36 PM

Originally Posted by JDNSW

As I see it the only substantial advantage of wider tyres (and this is only considering realistic sizes) is on terrain where the surface varies laterally within the width of a tyre, so that the odds are on a better grip for the wider tyre. This would apply to loose rock as noted but also to very rough but firm surfaces where the wider tyre would be less likely to "fall into the cracks". Both are likely to be significant factors only on steep slopes.

I think this is the important issue, but it is more important than you think.

**uninformed** · 18th August 2008, 08:36 PM

Originally Posted by Slunnie

Anyway, despite the muck around... I posted a little while back a picture of a MTB tyre and commented that I hope it didn't break an axle... just for the skinny lovers.

But how skinny is good. I personally think that 255/85's are a pretty good compromise but nowhere near as stable as a lower profile tyre like the 285/75's that I run now when offroad, but the 255's roll better. But lots love skiiiiiiiny. Is the optimum skinny then 235? 7.50's? 185's? MTB tyres? Pizza cutters?

good point even if tongue in cheek.

i dont know how side wall height effects it all, but i guess a tall narrow tyre with low profile, so maybe runing 20 inch rims that is compliant enough, has a good compound and flexs like a cross ply... might be pretty good.

i like the BF Krawler pattern and construction but its 2 wide for me and only comes in 15 and 17, and theres no way im running a 16 inch rim.

Serg

**Slunnie** · 18th August 2008, 08:46 PM

Originally Posted by uninformed

yep he did, thats his choice, and im sure he is no fool.

i never said that coils are soft, but you must agree that apart from fairly custom 4x4's coils suspension vehicles are softer than leaves.

i know my stock SIII was way rougher than my stock 110, and the 110 is designed to carry more weight, the rear coils were extremly stiff!

that aside i was asking about the particular vehicle set up that the so called "test" was done on....

my use of toyota was only an example. i understood when you said ETD supply both so that SHOULD be impartial, but you dont know what deals the manufatures do with there wholesalers, and what tyres and marketing goes where.....

anyway, its at the end of the day its a personal choice...

doesnt matter what tyres i run, when my SALS 8HA drags its fat **** im not going anywhere..............

serg

He had different springs back then to what its now got. IIRC they were still a pretty heavy spring which were made by.......oooh allsprings?? no, I cant remember the make, though I think they were made for him.

**Slunnie** · 18th August 2008, 08:48 PM

Originally Posted by uninformed

good point even if tongue in cheek.

i dont know how side wall height effects it all, but i guess a tall narrow tyre with low profile, so maybe runing 20 inch rims that is compliant enough, has a good compound and flexs like a cross ply... might be pretty good.

i like the BF Krawler pattern and construction but its 2 wide for me and only comes in 15 and 17, and theres no way im running a 16 inch rim.

Serg

Perhaps the km2? I think I read somewhere that theyre now releasing that in a 255/85 again.

I'd better tune out for a while... I'm hogging the thread/

**discowhite** · 18th August 2008, 08:58 PM

Originally Posted by Slunnie

Perhaps the km2? I think I read somewhere that theyre now releasing that in a 255/85 again.

I'd better tune out for a while... I'm hogging the thread/

no, your informing the uninformed

cheers phil

**uninformed** · 18th August 2008, 09:00 PM

Originally Posted by Slunnie

Perhaps the km2? I think I read somewhere that theyre now releasing that in a 255/85 again.

I'd better tune out for a while... I'm hogging the thread/

its all good mate, and you do have the experience to back you up....

joking aside your and bens real world imput has made me think

Serg

**isuzurover** · 18th August 2008, 10:04 PM

For many years I was in the narrow tyre camp. (i.e diameter is the key, apart from that narrower is better/width has no effect).

Since trying wide(er) tyres:

I would never run anything narrower than a 285 on a weekend offroader.

I probably wouldn't run anything wider than a 255 on a touring vehicle (though only for the slightly better fuel consumption and ability to run 7.50s/235s/265s if I needed a tyre in a remote area).

Since some people have been discussing sand... WA sand is finer than any east coast sand I have experienced and doesn't pack down well (since it is often hydrophobic!!!).

Initially I had my (4BD1)110 over here (on 235s). It was a pig on the sand - dug down easily, and I constantly had to change down gears. I then fitted 255/85-16 Bighorns. Slightly better, but still not ideal. There were a couple of instances where I had to use all the ISUZU's 99 BHp, and rapidly change from 3rd-2nd low, to make it over the dunes to get from the beach to inland tracks.

When I brought the IIA over here, I was dreading how it would go with its 60BHp on a good day. Yet to my immense surprise, it just puttered along on all the beach tracks - with much more ease than the 110. I think a lot of this comes down to the lighter engine - making the front less likely to dig in - but some is probably due to the 285s (will have to swap them and see).

Thread: Skinny Tyres Vs Fat Tyres

Thread Tools

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions