Thread: Narrow tyres V Wide tyres

Ive recently had both. Currently I have 285/75R16 Silverstone MT117's and previously I had 255/85R16 BF muddies. There's a bit hard to compare because one is more of a hardcore tyre compared to the BF which is more 'all round' off-road tyre.

In nearly every aspect, the MT117'sn are much better although a bit wider. Rocks, mud, anything you throw at 'em they keep on gripping. The BF's were better on loose gravel and on-road but the widht is negliable to be quite honest.

Still, if Silversone had a 255/85 size, I would of bought it there and then but that was the next best size and so far I'm happy with them.

Trav

I run 33x12.5" on my Rangie Classic. IMHO 12.5" is too wide. On road it wanders around and off road although it has a nice wide stance with offset rims, I found they are a bit too wide to dig in properly. I'll go to 33x10.5 next time.

-Dave

Im really surprised as pretty much everyone who has posted runs narrow tyres and the reasons behind it have been much to my thoughts as well.

I havnt got a problem with anyone running wide tyres, but I just havnt found them to be of much advantage so I thought Id ask the question.

A P38a in our club runs the silverstones 117 thingys and they are a really good tyre, heaps of grip but he only went 1 track that I couldnt last time out and the only vehical that made it was another mate in his 96 Disco (300TDI manual, 4"susp, 2" body, 35" Simex creepies and ARB lockers) Highly modified so I dont think that tyre width was really high on the list of things thatmade a difference.

I have noticed that wider tyres float a fair bit in muddy situations which can rip up the tracks a bit but that could also be put down to driving style.

I have 255/65 R16 on my Range Rover Classic. They are a lot wider than the original fitment tyres (205). I only bought them because they were very cheap for a (supposedly) good tyre.

My next tyres will be 245/75 R16. Not quite so wide, but a little taller.

Originally Posted by mcrover

Im really surprised as pretty much everyone who has posted runs narrow tyres and the reasons behind it have been much to my thoughts as well.
<snip>
I have noticed that wider tyres float a fair bit in muddy situations which can rip up the tracks a bit but that could also be put down to driving style.

I think the reason why most of these replys say that skinnies are better, is because thats the tyre which they run and its also whats easiest to fit to on a Land Rover product.

If you go to any of the 4WD comps where they are really pushing their tyres hard in the worst conditions you'll notice that there is nobody that runs skinnies and performs well. Probably the skinniest tyre now used would be a 12.5" tyre, possibly a 13.5" tyre. Comps are the same conditions that we drive when fanging around in the 4WD, except for touring, but comps are a lot harder and a lot more demanding on the tyre.

You'll probably also notice that there isn't a lot of tread pattern acknowledgement in this thread with what is being compared, and this makes a significant difference to performance.

You'll probably also find that a wide tyre in comparison to a narrow tyre elongates by the same amount, though the wide tyre maintains its wider footprint. I'm surprised to constantly hear that a skinny elongates, where a fattie doesn't as it's just not the case.

From what I've seen and experienced, the larger the diameter of the tyre and the wider the foot print, the better the traction in sand, road, rock etc etc etc.

In mud, the pattern is what makes the biggest difference, and the wider the tyre the more drive you get off the pattern. A 7.50 open pattern Ag tyre will never outdrive a 11.5" Simex JT2 in the mud.

Best on Sand I've experienced was my 315-75-16s...

followed closely by my 305-70-16 claws....

Worked well in mud too, in places nothing else was getting through.

Rolling diameter is the key....

Originally Posted by Slunnie

I think thats the reason why most of these replys say that skinnies are better, because thats what they run ad thats whats easiest to fit to a Land Rover product.

If you go to any of the comps where they are really pushing their tyres hard is worst conditions you'll notice that there is nobody that runs skinnies and performs well. Probably the skinniest would be a 12.5" tyre, possibly a 13.5" tyre. Comps are the same conditions that we drive, except touring, but a lot harder.

You'll probably also notice that there isn't a lot of tread pattern acknowledgement in this thread and what is being compared, and this makes a significant difference.

You'll probably also find that a wide tyre in comparison to a narrow tyre elongates by the same amount, though it maintains its wider footprint. I'm surprised to constantly hear that a skinny elongates, where a fattie doesn't.

From what I've seen and experienced, the larger the diameter of the tyre and the wider the foot print, the better the traction in sand, road, rock etc etc etc.

In mud the pattern is what makes the big difference and the wider the tyre, the more drive you get off the pattern. A 7.50 open pattern Ag tyre will never outdrive a 11.5" Simex JT2 in the mud.

I agree. Compound and tread pattern are just as important - but having a wide tyre is a big advantage in many cases - as long as you are not sacrificing diameter like many people do.

I had always been a fan of narrow tyres, but bought some MTRs in a 285/75-16 because they don't make a 255/85. Now the MTRs have a great rubber compound and tread pattern, but the extra width and supple sidewalls made a HUGE difference offroad. The tyres bagged out really well, and stuck to the ground like glue. They made MUCH more difference than fitting a rear locker did (though I am not about to give up the locker).

and what rim are you running them on?