Narrow Tires
#1
Narrow Tires
a close 4x4 and reptile huting friend of mine here locally told me about this page....
http://www.expeditionswest.com/resea...tion_rev1.html
I'm posting this "as is" in that I haven't read the page yet, but am just going off of what my friend had mentioned and that it got my curiosity stirring. Let me know what some of you "experts" think. Meanwhile I'm going to be reading the article.
http://www.expeditionswest.com/resea...tion_rev1.html
I'm posting this "as is" in that I haven't read the page yet, but am just going off of what my friend had mentioned and that it got my curiosity stirring. Let me know what some of you "experts" think. Meanwhile I'm going to be reading the article.
#3
Originally Posted by buckgnarly
There's TONS of people that swear by the 33x10.5 tires, but many other people will tell you that it does not "look cool"....but they are also probably the same people running 35+tires on things like Dana 35s......
Narrower tires for one thing are better on snow. Part of it is that with a smaller contact patch mroe pressure is put onto the ground thru each and every lug.
In mud more surface area allows your vehicle to float better, aka not sink into the mud as easily.
I'm not sure what is best for rockcrawling, other than airing tires down allows them to grip rocks better..
Also you might have seen that a certain type of tractor tire fits ranger. with its extremely aggressive tread pattern and narrowness it is very good for offroading. I've only seen one ranger use them before though.
Aaron
#6
#7
Originally Posted by 04lvl2
I can tell you one thing, this is going to be a debate thread once again as all the others are.
Now I just need to see if Discount Tire or Big-O will price match 4wheelparts.com or summitracing.com on 33X10.5X15 BFG Mud-Terrains. 4 wheel wants $655.25 (shipping included) for a 4 set, but that price increases on Monday as their employee pricing sale ends at midnight and summit wants $675.80 shipped. Only reason I'm even thinking about this is because my stock 31s are a tad worn in the teeth.
Something I did find interesting though, through cecking the site out, is that somewhere within the site the guy vaguely mentions something along the lines of needing a 2-3 inch lift to clear 33s (this is in reference to Tacomas, not Rangers). My friend I initially mentioned in my starter post called BS on me a while back (when I got my truck) that I couldn't fit 33x10.5x15s on the Ranger without trimming. I mentioned this over on ORR and 1 or 2 people did say they needed to trim, but most said they didn't experience any rubbing. So what I'm thinking is that my friend called BS because he's running a 2in custom BL to clear his 33X10.5 BFG mud-terrains, yet I don't need a BL or suspension lift to clear 33x10.5s.
Ehh, whatever. Still a neat read.
#8
We don't need body lifts cause our stock suspensions are adjustable. That is his loss that his truck isn't as cool as ours.
But if you get narrow tires they will look like "pizza cutters" which basically look kinda dorky. Wider looks better and it has benefits in mud. You don't have to worry about snow.
But if you get narrow tires they will look like "pizza cutters" which basically look kinda dorky. Wider looks better and it has benefits in mud. You don't have to worry about snow.
#9
Chris, I just got a price from Discount tire for those same tires mounted and balanced with road hazard for $711.00 out the door.
As for wide tires vs narrow I believe it all depends in the type of offroading you do. In the rocks and sand I prefer a little wider tire but in the mud a narrow tire works better.
Chad
As for wide tires vs narrow I believe it all depends in the type of offroading you do. In the rocks and sand I prefer a little wider tire but in the mud a narrow tire works better.
Chad
#10
Originally Posted by Red_Ak_Ranger
But if you get narrow tires they will look like "pizza cutters" which basically look kinda dorky. Wider looks better and it has benefits in mud. You don't have to worry about snow.
FWIW though, I don't care if I look like pizza cutters. I have a 4 set of BFG ATs 33x12.5x15s on FX4 alcoas that I got from DeviousFred. Got them and his 3in BL for $250. I just haven't installed either. But that's aside the point. Reason I don't care is because I actually use my truck for practical reasons. I don't just drive around for looks. Hell, if I did that I'd wash all the mud off the sides my truck acquired while I got this pic....
Last edited by Lefty04LevelII; 07-23-2006 at 08:12 PM.
#11
Originally Posted by casfz1
Chris, I just got a price from Discount tire for those same tires mounted and balanced with road hazard for $711.00 out the door.
As for wide tires vs narrow I believe it all depends in the type of offroading you do. In the rocks and sand I prefer a little wider tire but in the mud a narrow tire works better.
Chad
As for wide tires vs narrow I believe it all depends in the type of offroading you do. In the rocks and sand I prefer a little wider tire but in the mud a narrow tire works better.
Chad
I'm going to see what Discount will do for me tomorrow, as per leaving Big-O. I don't expect much, but ya never know.
#16
Originally Posted by zabeard
i just hate narrow tires. that is the only reason.
i could care less of the benefits of either.
i got what i like. nuff said.
i could care less of the benefits of either.
i got what i like. nuff said.
#17
Originally Posted by SniperSmurf
And THAT, right there, is all that matters. It's not what so-and-so likes, or he likes, or she likes, or he-she likes (must be politically correct). It's what YOU like! All that it boils down to, plain and simple.
yep so if narrow tires are what u want and will help you out go for it.
#18
Originally Posted by rolla_guy72
Try summit Racing, they charge like 11 per tire to ship or something like that, and they will price match.
#19
#22
theres a couple small holes i see in his arguments...
one, the "rough surfaces" picture. ok so one, he doesnt give any proof or real life facts that a narrow tire is more likely to mold to anything.
for two, in the picture the narrow tire is in a lot of contact, whereas the wide tire just touches a little bit. by his physical theory, a smaller contact patch will adhere more, because of vertical load. the wide tire would have more traction by his theory..
three, the train argument. thats quite a stupid analogy, because trains are hooked to the tracks by a little shelf. all but the engine are rolled, not driven by themselves and trains dont experience much traction losing angles or roadways. they are generally very small grade climbs and what not.
four drag racing ideals. drag radials are usually wider than the 12.50 that he is using as comparison. also, there are tread voids on offroad. so the idea that adhesion is for street, vertical load is for offroading kinda loses validity because by his theory both the wide and the narrow use much more "vertical load" by his explanation. the offroad tires dont have nearly as much contact surface due to said voids. and he also says that too narrow is not good because of not being able to sustain the carrying load.
five, he argues rotating mass. well this is an easy kill because the small amount of weith saved on tires will be made up for and more by the increased diameter of the tire that you move to when you went taller and more narrow.
six, he says that a lighter tire/ wheel combo (in advocacy of the narrower taller tire which will weigh very slighty different than a wider tire) will help the suspension work better. now i dont know where the frick this was made up, but tires and wheels dont affect suspension. and definately not in the way he says they will...
in the end many of his arguments I find very VERY hard to prove anything upon just say so. There are areas the wider tires will do better and there are areas where narrow tires will do better. obviously the locals will know the best combos and you should pay attention. I find that 12.50s are a VERY good mix of the "arguments" in colorado areas for most of the wheeling.
a couple things he didnt mention(or emphasize) that i feel are worth mentioning.
a wider tire will be MUCH more stable. off camber wise, this is invaluable.
what happens when the whole tire isnt making contact? he makes the point around the tires being fully planted on flat grounds at all times. what happens when half the tire is on a ledge, or only the shoulder of the tire is on a slant wall setup?
anyway thats my two cents and im not saying which is "better" because I havent experienced enough of both to make a full comparison. im about to move to a narrower tire to try, but who knows how itll work on my truck
one, the "rough surfaces" picture. ok so one, he doesnt give any proof or real life facts that a narrow tire is more likely to mold to anything.
for two, in the picture the narrow tire is in a lot of contact, whereas the wide tire just touches a little bit. by his physical theory, a smaller contact patch will adhere more, because of vertical load. the wide tire would have more traction by his theory..
three, the train argument. thats quite a stupid analogy, because trains are hooked to the tracks by a little shelf. all but the engine are rolled, not driven by themselves and trains dont experience much traction losing angles or roadways. they are generally very small grade climbs and what not.
four drag racing ideals. drag radials are usually wider than the 12.50 that he is using as comparison. also, there are tread voids on offroad. so the idea that adhesion is for street, vertical load is for offroading kinda loses validity because by his theory both the wide and the narrow use much more "vertical load" by his explanation. the offroad tires dont have nearly as much contact surface due to said voids. and he also says that too narrow is not good because of not being able to sustain the carrying load.
five, he argues rotating mass. well this is an easy kill because the small amount of weith saved on tires will be made up for and more by the increased diameter of the tire that you move to when you went taller and more narrow.
six, he says that a lighter tire/ wheel combo (in advocacy of the narrower taller tire which will weigh very slighty different than a wider tire) will help the suspension work better. now i dont know where the frick this was made up, but tires and wheels dont affect suspension. and definately not in the way he says they will...
in the end many of his arguments I find very VERY hard to prove anything upon just say so. There are areas the wider tires will do better and there are areas where narrow tires will do better. obviously the locals will know the best combos and you should pay attention. I find that 12.50s are a VERY good mix of the "arguments" in colorado areas for most of the wheeling.
a couple things he didnt mention(or emphasize) that i feel are worth mentioning.
a wider tire will be MUCH more stable. off camber wise, this is invaluable.
what happens when the whole tire isnt making contact? he makes the point around the tires being fully planted on flat grounds at all times. what happens when half the tire is on a ledge, or only the shoulder of the tire is on a slant wall setup?
anyway thats my two cents and im not saying which is "better" because I havent experienced enough of both to make a full comparison. im about to move to a narrower tire to try, but who knows how itll work on my truck
#23
Member
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: West Topsham, VT
Posts: 1,709
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Red_Ak_Ranger
As opposed to your Dana 30 rubicon being better? Hehehe
Aaron
Aaron
So I guess the Ranger 8.8 is really a 7.5 then, since they share so much in common?.....
Ah yes, this comment gets so old......first of all, the 30 got UPGRADED in the past with the spicer 760 ujoint, the R&P is a 44, the inner shafts are a 44, the housing is a 44, the only thing the 30 and 44 share is the outer stub, the aforementioned u joint, and the balljoints/unit bearing etc. So how are they the same again.....
Last edited by buckgnarly; 07-24-2006 at 05:21 AM.
#24
#25
Originally Posted by buckgnarly
So I guess the Ranger 8.8 is really a 7.5 then, since they share so much in common?.....
Ah yes, this comment gets so old......first of all, the 30 got UPGRADED in the past with the spicer 760 ujoint, the R&P is a 44, the inner shafts are a 44, the housing is a 44, the only thing the 30 and 44 share is the outer stub, the aforementioned u joint, and the balljoints/unit bearing etc. So how are they the same again.....
Ah yes, this comment gets so old......first of all, the 30 got UPGRADED in the past with the spicer 760 ujoint, the R&P is a 44, the inner shafts are a 44, the housing is a 44, the only thing the 30 and 44 share is the outer stub, the aforementioned u joint, and the balljoints/unit bearing etc. So how are they the same again.....
It doesn't matter that it has many strong parts. As long as one part of it is small, you have the strength of that part. Until you get the upgraded shafts your weakest point is the smallest point, dana 30. So as long as it isn't upgraded, it's not strong as a traditional D44. Once upgraded tho,its tough.
Aaron