Thread: Big Tyres: Pros and cons

Originally Posted by MrLandy

Thanks Slunnie, interesting that footprints appear similar, however there is clearly less bagging widthwise in the 7.50R16... Meaning less frontal resistance especially in sand...

Both have the same rim diameter and the same tyre diameter. If aired down to the same footprint length the bag will the same - sidewall rubber cant be made or disappear. The 7.50 is a much heavier carcass, so airing down to a given pressure will not give it the same footprint length and that can be seen in the picture I posted, the wide tyre actually had a much longer footprint and so bagging is greater. It however is footprint you are after for floatation in the sand, not the tyre pressure, so the sidewall bagging will be the same for the same length.

This is looking at it one dimensionally though. Because of the reduced ground pressure from the wider tyre, you will also find it is not sitting as deeply into the sand as the skinny one.

Originally Posted by Rick122

Which supports the theory that if there is little difference between skinny and wide tyres when aired down, then there is little reason to go to a bigger tyre when there are so many more compromises to be made. Each to their own.

I think thats unique to the tyres that happen to have been used. Thats the widest 7.50 I've ever seen and its absolutely abnormal for them to be comparable in width to a 265/75-16! But a footprint isn't the whole story when offroad, there is also carcass stability etc etc etc.

Originally Posted by MrLandy

Umm the 'track' looks pretty stuffed already, lucky he's got narrow tyres.

The lucky "he" with the narrow tyres is me. And that's my 110DC in that pic.

The fler with the big wide muddies in this pic had no issues in the same mud coincidently. (Oh look my little 110 is in the background)

The fler in the pic with the REALLY skinny tyres (both of them) was the one having real difficulty.....

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Fat tyres would just spin and sink on that.

The post just above this with another pic of a fler with big wide muddies in the same slop... Didn't go down as you opined.

Just sayin'...

(Not saying the big fat tyres are better)

Originally Posted by Rick122

Really thick, sloppy mud is about the only place that wider tyres do better than skinny and then an aggressive tread pattern helps too. Maybe on soft sand a wide tyre is beneficial also [...]

The ONLY place? You actually suggest soft sand too... So there are only TWO places where wider is better?

I would add another scenario - In my experience wide tyres also work better on hard packed greasy slippery clay where you don't dig in at all. Both wide and narrow tyres spin on the surface rather than dig in. Wider tyre has more points of contact with the surface and with appropriate throttle control can make progress when narrow rubber struggles.

In the Antarctic we also ran wide AT tyres on the hiluxes and they worked well on ice and snow.

Since "without pics it didn't happen" is a meme here:

All three of these vehicles with chunky, wide, open, aggressive tread patterns would spin all 4 wheels if you are gruff on the throttle on soft snow or on blue ice so slippery you find it hard to stand upright even when sober.

However all 3 will also find traction and get mobile even on blue ice if you are sensible with the throttle.

As above

How good of you to pick parts of my post to use as the full basis of your argument. Maybe we should list every scenario you could possibly encounter giving the pro's and con's of each tyre, and then list every tyre available and rate it against each scenario. Don't think it's going to happen. You like big tyres and are prepared to live with the compromises, good for you.