Originally Posted by
mrapocalypse
1. Scuse me JDNSW, but why would a skinny tyre have a longer footprint and a fat tyre have a necessarily shorter footprint when the have the same outside diameter?
If you have a tyre with a 32 inch diameter, length ways they will have the same footprint, cross ways a fat will have more surface area covered, or is there some piece of tyre science I am missing here?
2 Now one big issue with FATS is unsprung weight, which i am sure is something the rally cars mentioned earlier would be taking seriously!
3 And when it comes to "Cutting down through the loose surface material", that's a little random isn't it? I would think that a big, fat mud pattern tyre that grabs a huge handful of the surface, gets grip and stays above the sludge, dust, loose gravel is better than a half submerged skinny tyre! Or is there some piece of tyre technology I am missing here too?