[Greg B]

Originally Posted by ats4x4dotcom

I only work on data, not theory, I report on what we see, not what we think, I collect allot of data from what we sell, service, fit, maintain, and manufacture, and the hundreds of vehicles Ive taken on trips, because I only sell and recommend what I have tried, or we have trialled and tested, and know works, and continually develop products that overcome vehicle shortfalls, while we build total projects for customers, rather than order parts out of catalogues.

So dont make the mistake of thinking I comment on field samples of one, like your post.

This is a bunch of chest thumping. How many 100's have you PERSONALLY run with 255's on them? Of the ones, "you know of" that you didn't personally run but know of issues with poor handling and wear problems, how many of those were run under-inflated or not at the right pressure for the surface they were on? You don't know because you weren't with those people. Lot's of people have tires that wear quicker than others, and a lot of those people don't take care of their tires properly and cause a lot of that pre-mature wear themselves.

You make this blanket statement on 255's:

Originally Posted by ats4x4dotcom

The 255 is a bugger of a size on a big heavy truck, because they are so tall and skinny they drive terrible, especially when aired down, and the tend to wear the outside edges because they move so much on the sidewall.

But then make this statement after that:

Originally Posted by ats4x4dotcom

I dont see the link to the 235 though, given its 20mm narrower, and nearly 2" smaller dia.

And then, follow up with this:

Originally Posted by ats4x4dotcom

BFG MT's always worn edges, and at 85% ratio, they are narrower, and shorter, and having run 235/85's before as well, and they dont have the same wear patterns.

You don't make sense.