When / why did off road tires get to be so beefy?

[Matt_Whitman]

I am a bit surprised that the conversation is just about traction. IMO it is weight. How much did a model T weigh? I am guessing quite a bit more than my 7200 lb LR4. It may have been very simple and very low traction, but you could move it around physically by yourself a bit.

I agree. My truck weighs in at 5840 clean with 3/4 of gas and me in it. lol metal scrap yard scales are awesome for knowing what a rig actually weighs. You can't go buy the sticker on the door or manuals when you modify your vehicle. It adds up quick. I will say the carpet and padding saved me about 200lbs when I took it out.

 

[Overlanding Downunder]

Who needs a 4X4 anyway? [Trying to be funny ]

I do not know if any other countries knows about Jack Absalom or his TV series. I watched Jack on TV, back in the 80's & 90's and have a couple of his books.

Jack is an artist (painter) that drove round Australian in a 2WD Mitsubishi Sigma. Jack would tell the history of the area, bush repairs, survival and cooking.

Jack Absalom:
Website:
http://www.jackabsalom.com.au/

YouTube: The Strzelecki Track

Mitsubishi Sigma:
Youtube: Mitsubishi Sigma Ad

 

[TerryD]

I am a bit surprised that the conversation is just about traction. IMO it is weight. How much did a model T weigh? I am guessing quite a bit more than my 7200 lb LR4. It may have been very simple and very low traction, but you could move it around physically by yourself a bit.

Well, older 3/4 and 1 ton trucks used a narrow, tall tire. Most 3/4 ton and almost all the dually trucks up through the early 2000's at least, spec'd either 245/75/16 or 235/85/16 for the factory tire size. In off-road tires, those are fairly narrow tires, the 235/85/16's are along the lines of the old 7.50x16 tires of the 60's and 70's. I'm not sure what the average size is for trucks nowadays with the 17-20" wheels they have now though.

I have a friend who had 235/85/16's on his 4runner and said he wasn't very happy with them at all. I can't remember his reasons right now but I believe it had to do with flotation on mud around the farm and in his daily business use contracting and he's switched to 265/75/16s on it now. He has been running 36x12.50x15's on his trail truck for a decade now too.

 

[Zydeco blue]

Who needs a 4X4 anyway? [Trying to be funny [emoji2]]

I do not know if any other countries knows about Jack Absalom or his TV series. I watched Jack on TV, back in the 80's & 90's and have a couple of his books.

Jack is an artist (painter) that drove round Australian in a 2WD Mitsubishi Sigma. Jack would tell the history of the area, bush repairs, survival and cooking.

Jack Absalom:
Website:
http://www.jackabsalom.com.au/

YouTube: The Strzelecki Track

Mitsubishi Sigma:
Youtube: Mitsubishi Sigma Ad

I have a new idol, this guy is awesome [emoji106] great show. Cant wait to look up more episodes.

Now those are some beefy tires!

Sent from my SM-G920P using OB Talk mobile app

 

[Ganja_Overland]

I'm still not convinced that wide tires are better for overlanding

35s for overlanding. No. I go with a 265-75/16 bfg all terrain. I do probably about 60/40 highway/offroad. This keeps fuel consumption down, wear and tear down, and gets me through just about a very thing I've encountered off road.

Give me a history lesson here guys. Up until the 80's, it seems that most off road tires were short and skinny. Take this video, for instance:


It seems that the Land Rovers were perfectly capable in most off road situations with the tire style of the day. Heck, there's even plenty of footage of Model A's crossing terrain with skinny tires in 2WD that no passenger car would even think of attempting today:


But today, we have tall, wide, beefier tires, like this (shameless photo of my jeep ):

Was the adaptation of the taller and wider tires we have today simply due to manufacturing advances and consumer taste, or is there a real benefit to modern off road tire designs? Did off roaders in the 60's and 70's wish they had bigger tires, or did the existing skinny tires suit them well? Was it due to necessity or did it just become "in style"?

Would be cool to see a comparison test between an old Land Cruiser with the original style tires, to one outfitted with modern beefy off road ones. Anyway, just thinking out loud - things that make you go 'hmm!'

Sent from my SM-N910V using OB Talk mobile app

 

[Narrow Road Adventures]

Because beards, chainsaws, big wrenches, beef stew, steel armor, hairy chests, beef jerky, more horsepower, chiseled jaw line, 12 gauge super magnum shotgun, ... Big Beefy Mud Terrain Tires. Need I say more??


Sent from my iPhone using OB Talk

 

[The other Sean]

Another thing to consider is engine horsepower and transmission gears or at least the number of them. Growing up, all trucks had 3 speed automatics or 3 or 4 speed manual transmissions and rarely an O.D. gear. Almost no truck had over 200 HP. So, a tall heavy tire was just a no go. Currently, most trucks, even smaller ones, it's nothing to have near or over 300HP, and 4-5 gears with over drive.

My old 2003 Ford Ranger had 140 HP and I ran 31's without much thought. My '11 Frontier has 262 HP and I run 33's without much thought. My Frontier gets the same MPG my Ranger did despite weighing more and spinning more tire. Even with the 4:10 gears it had, I would have never attempted 33's on my Ranger.

 

[JimmyPresley]

There must be a point that wide becomes too wide out here in AZ. Picking a line through the rocks could be tough if tire gets too wide.

 

[Graeman]

I have a new idol, this guy is awesome [emoji106] great show. Cant wait to look up more episodes.



Sent from my SM-G920P using OB Talk mobile app

Me too. I almost like him more than Andrew SP.

 

[Tom Schneider]

Resurrection of this thread! Couple of things when comparing lets say 255/85/16 vs 285/75/16...both 33's.

1. Load carrying ratings are very similar....3500lbs +or- so 14000lbs for the four tires....so the vst majority of our rigs are not too heavy even with mods and fully loaded. Don't say you need wide tires for weight
2. Andrew St Pierre White(and others) have explained that on soft sand the extra traction aired down comes more from LENTHENING the contact patch. The widening actually causes a detrimental increased rolling resistance due to pushing a bigger "wave of sand" in front of the tire. So don't say you need wide tires for soft sand
3. We know narrow is better in most snow and ice situations(other than Greenland et al which needs huge balloon tires, not 33 or 35's)
4. We know narrows roll better on hard stuff whether thats asphalt or gravel or hard dirt, etc.
5. we know narrows steer better and are easier on our suspensions

In conclusion, can't we just admit we like the LOOKS of wide tires, and stop trying to make up reasons why they are better? I like the way wide tires look too.

 

[Smileyshaun]

something to think about , once you get outside the USA you can readily find 35x10.50 tires and they seem to work fantastic in very muddy/brutal conditions. I think alot of it has to do with supply and demand . If more demand came around for tall skinnys manufactures would start producing them more and with more and more people getting into "overlanding" and less of a deamand for hardcore wheeling we will hopefully start to see that push for more tall skinny tires . Personally i would love to have more options open up in a 35x10.50 , you need Less lift , probably still use your stock rims , gain that ever important ground clearance and take less of a hit on mpg and drivetrain wear .