Narrow vs Wide

[chiko]

Hey all, i just thought i would bring up the debate about Narrow vs Wide tyres. What are everyone's opinions!

[nismine01]

Remember the OLD cars that travelled around Aus, they had about 3" X 20" tyres and went almost everywhere!

So for my money that is the way I would go.

The larger the dia of the wheel/tyre the less angle it hits the road at so it rolls over things better, won't dig into the sand as much.

Cheers

Mike

[Aaron IIA]

I run wide tyres on my Land Rover. 7.50 x 16.
Aaron

[sjane]

In the mud or on sand, would you rather be in a road roller, or tracked excavator or tank? Both have 2 long thin contact patches but one is across the vehicle and the other along. That's the extreme but for me illustrates the concept. Width adds resistance for its increase in contact patch where as length doesn't. I'd rather have a tyre that flattens out length wise when aired down.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using AULRO mobile app

[superquag]

From the discussions I've had with people who know lots more than me, the drift seems to be toward skinnier/higher profile for general road and sandy off-road performance. Thin but long is better in sand than fat and wide...

The rationale given centres around a higher-profile (80% upwards) which grows proportionately more length when deflated, than low-profile/wider.

As has been mentioned 'Length' is more useful in sand that steam-roller width.

I'm currently running the traditional 235/70 R16 on my Classic. Identical rolling radius to the 'Recommended' 205 R - 16 which are 82%.
These tyres are past their use-by date, and I'm sorely tempted to go for 225/75 R16 simply 'cos I've got 3 useable ones on rims as spares, and this would standard-ise for both work and playtime.

[kelvo]

Narrow or wide are meaningless. At what size does a tyre go from being narrow to wide?

[superquag]

Progressive in sizes, from recommended width (narrow) to larger (normal) and then to road-roller.

With a Classic, 205 wide and 82% aspect ratio was standard fitment. I'd call this Skinny.
Next step is 235/245 and 70% aspect ratio. Normal.

WIDE would be 255 and up, and either 70% or lower aspect ratio.

Maybe not accurate, but it's a starting point for The Argument.

[olbod]

From the discussions I've had with people who know lots more than me, the drift seems to be toward skinnier/higher profile for general road and sandy off-road performance. Thin but long is better in sand than fat and wide...

The rationale given centres around a higher-profile (80% upwards) which grows proportionately more length when deflated, than low-profile/wider.

As has been mentioned 'Length' is more useful in sand that steam-roller width.

I'm currently running the traditional 235/70 R16 on my Classic. Identical rolling radius to the 'Recommended' 205 R - 16 which are 82%.
These tyres are past their use-by date, and I'm sorely tempted to go for 225/75 R16 simply 'cos I've got 3 useable ones on rims as spares, and this would standard-ise for both work and playtime.

I have had 225/75/R16 on Me Disco for many years and from that experience I would never go to a different size.

[Tank]

Remember the OLD cars that travelled around Aus, they had about 3" X 20" tyres and went almost everywhere!

So for my money that is the way I would go.

The larger the dia of the wheel/tyre the less angle it hits the road at so it rolls over things better, won't dig into the sand as much.

Cheers

Mike

Try riding a pushbike in soft sand, then hop on a quad bike, nuff' said, Regards Frank.

[Jeff]

If you do a search, this subject has been done to death, with opinions by experts and the opinionated alike.

It would depend on your usage and how much you want to spend, also what is big on a D1 or RRC is standard on a Defender.

I have two sets of wheels, some 33/12.5-15 KM2s for playing and 235/85-16 ATRs for commuting and long trips. Both have their good and bad points.

Jeff