New tires and renewed rims

[Ruadhrigh]

Originally Posted by sandcruiser

very, very nice looking.

definitely wanting to imitate that now. Except maybe using ATs instead of MTs. not sure about that yet.

What suspension? OME? (I thought I saw yellow shocks)

I was looking at the ATs but didn't like what was available.


I have the OME lift. I just recently lowered the rear end. I had 863s and it was a huge stinkbug. Now i have 860s and I'm really digging it.

[alia176]

Good job R, looks good.

Folks, let's not discuss the merits of skinny vs wide here as it has been hashed to death!

Thinking out loud, I wonder how much weight savings, if any between 255 85 vs 285 75 sizes...

[Nay]

Originally Posted by alia176

Good job R, looks good.

Folks, let's not discuss the merits of skinny vs wide here as it has been hashed to death!

Thinking out loud, I wonder how much weight savings, if any between 255 85 vs 285 75 sizes...

Wider tires weigh less because they don't have as much traction.

[Atticus]

Originally Posted by Nay

Wider tires weigh less because they don't have as much traction.

I'm sorry. What?

[Ruadhrigh]

Originally Posted by Nay

Wider tires weigh less because they don't have as much traction.

Originally Posted by Atticus

I'm sorry. What?

I'll have to second the "huh?"


the shipping weight on one tire was 47lbs

[alia176]

I think he meant that wider tires have less contact patch....?

[Nay]

No, I'm giving you guys crap because this debate is always illogical

The argument for narrow tires is always made on the basis of expedition use, and the argument for wide tires is based on rock crawling and some types of mudding.

We hear that "the rest of the world can't be that wrong", and the rest of the world, with few exceptions, doesn't rock crawl for sport.

We also hear a lot about contact patch pressure, and contact "patch" isn't the issue for serious rock crawling where going narrow can have the same disadvantages as going small. Not really where the sport is headed. To make the argument that a narrow tire has a better contact patch in rock crawling would be to make the argument that you should crawl at full PSI. Crawling is about more rubber on rock, not less.

No one type of tire has more traction based on its width in all conditions. Claiming that they do is about as logical as my post above

[TrickyT]

Rory,
Your truck looks awesome with those new tires and freshly refinished rims! I see you've also washed all the mud off from Cedro Peak.

[sandcruiser]

According to the tirerack.com website,

BFG MT 255/85r16 weighs 53lbs
BFG MT 285/75r16 weighs 56lbs
BFG MT 33x12.50r15 64lbs
BFG MT 33x10.50r15 48lbs
BFG MT 35x12.50r15 64lbs

Odd.... the weight for the 35 and 33 is listed as the same, which can't be right.

Originally Posted by alia176

Good job R, looks good.

Folks, let's not discuss the merits of skinny vs wide here as it has been hashed to death!

Thinking out loud, I wonder how much weight savings, if any between 255 85 vs 285 75 sizes...

[Ruadhrigh]

I have the fifth tire unmounted. I will put it on the scale when I get home.

[ashooter]

Originally Posted by Nay

No, I'm giving you guys crap because this debate is always illogical

The argument for narrow tires is always made on the basis of expedition use, and the argument for wide tires is based on rock crawling and some types of mudding....

I don't think everybody got the point, Nay... Which I though you made in a humorous and tactful manner, by the way.

I'm 101% convinced that 255/85R16 is the BEST size reasonably available for "expedition" type use. However, I agree that has absolutely nothing to do with the "sport of rock-crawling". Saying that 255's are the best - period - would be like saying that the same kind of shoes are best for basketball AND football. Just doesn't make any sense. And yes, I have read all the debates and the presentation about "expedition tires" at exp-portal.

For ME, I think the 255's will be the best of both worlds. They should fit great with my OME "low lift", handle better than 285's on pavement, give me a little better gas mileage than 285's, give me a little more ground clearance than 265's, and most importantly they will look cool!

For a guy like me who has ZERO interest in "rock crawling", but needs a tough tire for the 50-100 miles per week I drive on really crappy rock/gravel "roads", 255/85's ARE the best thing out there. But they are NOT the best thing out there for everybody.

[pint]

Nice work. The rims look sweet!

[maybe_a_80...]

Originally Posted by ashooter

I don't think everybody got the point, Nay... Which I though you made in a humorous and tactful manner, by the way.

I'm 101% convinced that 255/85R16 is the BEST size reasonably available for "expedition" type use. However, I agree that has absolutely nothing to do with the "sport of rock-crawling". Saying that 255's are the best - period - would be like saying that the same kind of shoes are best for basketball AND football. Just doesn't make any sense. And yes, I have read all the debates and the presentation about "expedition tires" at exp-portal.

For ME, I think the 255's will be the best of both worlds. They should fit great with my OME "low lift", handle better than 285's on pavement, give me a little better gas mileage than 285's, give me a little more ground clearance than 265's, and most importantly they will look cool!

For a guy like me who has ZERO interest in "rock crawling", but needs a tough tire for the 50-100 miles per week I drive on really ****py rock/gravel "roads", 255/85's ARE the best thing out there. But they are NOT the best thing out there for everybody.

well put. we know most people here on ih8mud are rockcrawler-oriented and it is clear bigger, wider meat works well for rockcrawling applications.

let's not beat it to death. it is an individual choice based on application.

[sandcruiser]

How do you like the MTs on gravel? Do you throw a lot of stones?

I keep swinging back and forth between AT and MT. I'm on gravel/dirt roads most of my driving time (more than asphalt) but when it rains here, it really rains. So I spend a lot of time in fairly deep, greasy mud.

My objection to running MTs is that on gravel roads they tend to throw a lot of gravel up, which sucks for oncoming traffic and beats up the paint.

Originally Posted by ashooter

I don't think everybody got the point, Nay... Which I though you made in a humorous and tactful manner, by the way.

I'm 101% convinced that 255/85R16 is the BEST size reasonably available for "expedition" type use. However, I agree that has absolutely nothing to do with the "sport of rock-crawling". Saying that 255's are the best - period - would be like saying that the same kind of shoes are best for basketball AND football. Just doesn't make any sense. And yes, I have read all the debates and the presentation about "expedition tires" at exp-portal.

For ME, I think the 255's will be the best of both worlds. They should fit great with my OME "low lift", handle better than 285's on pavement, give me a little better gas mileage than 285's, give me a little more ground clearance than 265's, and most importantly they will look cool!

For a guy like me who has ZERO interest in "rock crawling", but needs a tough tire for the 50-100 miles per week I drive on really crappy rock/gravel "roads", 255/85's ARE the best thing out there. But they are NOT the best thing out there for everybody.

[Ruadhrigh]

Today was the first dirt the tires have seen. It was a gravel road. I could hear the MTs kicking rocks into my sliders. I am glad I got the skinnies, because any wider and the rocks would hit door

I think if I were not in asuch a rush and had driven slower I would not have kicked up very much at all.

[sandcruiser]

That's exactly what has me leaning towards ATs... I'm on dirt/gravel for at least 75% of the time I drive and I'm not too keen on slowing down enough to prevent rocks from flying (you gotta go pretty slow).

Originally Posted by Ruadhrigh

Today was the first dirt the tires have seen. It was a gravel road. I could hear the MTs kicking rocks into my sliders. I am glad I got the skinnies, because any wider and the rocks would hit door

I think if I were not in such a rush and had driven slower I would not have kicked up very much at all.

[alia176]

Originally Posted by sandcruiser

That's exactly what has me leaning towards ATs... I'm on dirt/gravel for at least 75% of the time I drive and I'm not too keen on slowing down enough to prevent rocks from flying (you gotta go pretty slow).

Ahh, but do realize that R is not running fender flares so his "kick up" is more severe than normal - just a guess.

[sandcruiser]

good point on the flares
I'd pull mine off in a heartbeat, except that with the mud & gravel, my truck would get thrashed.

[Ruadhrigh]

Finally tried the tires out, they worked out perfect. Great traction on the rocks and great traction in the deep sand. No regrets

[89s rule]

Very nice! Pizza cutters.

[sandcruiser]

nice pics. Were you aired down at all? or rather: what psi were you running?

do you have any pics of the truck sitting level?

[Ruadhrigh]

18 PSI all around. Are you wanting a profile shot on a non-inclined surface? I probably have something like that....

[sdnative]

I am running those tires on mine, and routinely air down to 15 psi, with great results. They fold really well:

[maybe_a_80...]

ruadhrigh, truck looks sick in action!

[Ruadhrigh]

Originally Posted by maybe_a_80...

ruadhrigh, truck looks sick in action!

Thanks!

here are a couple another HDC member took:





this is going down where the 60 was in the shot before ^^^^^