Some more point data that supports what those running skinnies already knew 
35x10.5x17 Kenda Klever R/T (6 Viewers)
- Thread starter fireball
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
Some more point data that supports what those running skinnies already knew
Dude, too funny! I just finished watching this same video and was reading this thread earlier, immediately thought to come back and drop it off for future reference for others but you beat me to it by 32 minutes!
Some more point data that supports what those running skinnies already knew
Man, I want to love this video. His points are usually spot on. IMO, his conclusion is ultimately inconclusive because of a bad assumption.
He states this is a true controlled variable experience with the only difference being width as they are both load range E and - has the same stiffness. That last assumption is not true.
Notably the tires have equivalent load handling only when inflated to very different pressures. With the narrows needing 80 PSI to the wides 65 PSI.
His experiments do more to show the fact the narrows have a more pliable sidewalls to the wides when at the same pressures. The wides having stiffer sidewalls.
I really wanted this test on tires that weren't showroom new. Like the worn in KM3, for example - is it more pliable, or is it just worn in?
Also, since there's a new sponsor, why not get two sets and get driving impressions at 15psi or something, head to head?
I care about 18, 15, and 12 psi data, this is where I care about traction. Differences in construction that affect performance are real world limitations here.
I don't know if what you are saying is exactly right. The 35x10R17 has a max PSI of 80psi, but it reaches the max load at the same 65PSI as a Load E 35x12.5R17. I don't know how that affects the argument one way or the other.
Not sure I'm following? 255/85R17 is a funny size so I can't seem to find an inflation table. Did you find one?
Is having that data pertinent to considering real world use? How often are you running your tires over 40psi?
I didn’t, but there was one for the 35x10R17 in your screenshot.
Just saw that video yesterday and had me second guessing my upcoming jump to 35x12.5, but ultimately I think I'm going to do it anyway. Tire deformation aside, I feel more comfortable airing down a wide tire for bead retention, so I could go lower psi comfortably with a 12.5" compared to a 10.5", 11.5" or 285mm. No question the 315 E on my 80 gave better comfort aired down than 285's (C) or 265's (E). Traction is so dependent on situation, hard to say which is best for any particular obstacle or traction environment.
Or maybe I'm just mentally justifying fat tires because they look cool
Or maybe I'm just mentally justifying fat tires because they look cool
Like the intent of the author of the video, it's important to control for variables to know what we're comparing.
Taking a representative inflation table of a 265/70R17 that probably pretty close to the 255/85R17 in question that has the same LT-E load index 121 requiring 80 psi. The different pressures they need to achieve load equivalence is what's in question. Because that's the best we can do to approximate differences in sidewall stiffness. Which Tinkerer unfortunately assumes is the same which definitely skeww results.
This is important because, with the LC for example, wants a tire load handling of 2295lbs RCTIP per tire for normal on-road use. That means with data from the data is that the skinny needs 46PSI RCTIP whereas the wide only needs something like 28 PSI RCTIP for tire load handling equivalence. (note that practically this should not be lower than 33 psi, but that's a different point). That's a huge 18PSI delta!
For Tinkerers graph, the red trend line may need to be shifted to the left by some offset, perhaps 18psi, as it's important for tire to support the load carrying. @Heckraiser also makes a good point that most aftermarket rims we run are 8-9" wide, irrespective of tire width. That that's going to impact and limit useful airing down of the 255 for bead retention.
Why do on road pressures have anything to do with this?
Pretending they do, I can definitely say that running 265 wide (10.5”) 35s does not require 46 psi on a LX. They are correctly pressured anywhere between 33 and 38, depending on what you want. Call 36 the best fit midpoint.
Poor man’s headlock is completely reasonable to bring in, would love to have that tested to for 10.5 vs 12.5 on a 8.5” rim.
And what about soft locks like the method groove and channel thing.
And what about useability stuff like air down and air up times.
And a subjective ride quality rating or Offroad control rating (wallowing, grip, precision)
Pretending they do, I can definitely say that running 265 wide (10.5”) 35s does not require 46 psi on a LX. They are correctly pressured anywhere between 33 and 38, depending on what you want. Call 36 the best fit midpoint.
Poor man’s headlock is completely reasonable to bring in, would love to have that tested to for 10.5 vs 12.5 on a 8.5” rim.
And what about soft locks like the method groove and channel thing.
And what about useability stuff like air down and air up times.
And a subjective ride quality rating or Offroad control rating (wallowing, grip, precision)
Good point.
I didn't bother saying this earlier, and to your point, it may not matter for an off-road focused toy focused on that. But Tinkerer left the video talking about other considerations and balance. For most owners here, the 200-series isn't a strict weekend toy prioritizing max tractive force in only the longitudinal direction.
On the point of balance - does it not matter to have a good tire that rides well daily? We see this with people running 275s on this board having to deal with higher inflation pressure and NVH. IMO, it's also pretty important to have safe, stable, and strong handling traction on-road where narrows give that up greatly. Tinkerer is just talking about static weights but dynamic weight transfer affects tire footprints and contact patches which is why any high performance car, including factory high perfomance trucks and SUVs uses meaty tires. These principles carry to off-road too. Just as many times, I'll hit a fireroad at full pressure, where the lesser required RCTIP will make the wides run with better stability and traction. Balance is optimizing for all use cases (that an owner prioritizes).
IMO, the stronger case for narrows are rigs with weak powertrains where they have a harder time turning big tires, and can't create the dynamics that leverage big tires. MPG is strongly in favor of narrows too. Even though that's the case, OEM performance trims don't take that trade.
That's just my opinion. I do look forward to Tinkerers thoughts in this future video.
I haven’t run the tire in question (MT Baja 255), but that 42psi inflation pressure seems pretty high. Would love to get a number from a person running them.
I totally agree day to day pressure matters, and I run my 121load D rated 35s at 36psi. They are very compliant and soft feeling. Honestly a great riding tire, much easier to deal with than my last set of 129load E rated 35s.
Data varies on whether E vs D vs flotation actually is different tire construction (maybe varies by manufacturer), but using two tires in the same line certainly a good start at controlling for variance.
The contact patch size made total sense to me, particularly within tire lines/brand. Vehicle has so much pressure to meats the ground, and the tire will resist consistently across the width. When it runs out of width, it will start on length.
And yes, I’ve see that long narrow aired down patch in mud and loam, it isn’t hard to observe.
I totally agree day to day pressure matters, and I run my 121load D rated 35s at 36psi. They are very compliant and soft feeling. Honestly a great riding tire, much easier to deal with than my last set of 129load E rated 35s.
Data varies on whether E vs D vs flotation actually is different tire construction (maybe varies by manufacturer), but using two tires in the same line certainly a good start at controlling for variance.
The contact patch size made total sense to me, particularly within tire lines/brand. Vehicle has so much pressure to meats the ground, and the tire will resist consistently across the width. When it runs out of width, it will start on length.
And yes, I’ve see that long narrow aired down patch in mud and loam, it isn’t hard to observe.
Great video but it is a sample of one tire brand and type. Would be great if the same data could be had for more of the popular brands and models that are used. The KM3 he had tested shows that this is relevant.
UPR LC
GOLD Star
Just came in here to say that I think TeCKis300 has really valid points. The psi at rated load is something I overlooked when watching the video, but I do understand the differences.
Load ratings at different PSIs will affect how a tire flexes if compared at the same psi. I have experienced this on a full size truck with two different Load Range E tires (one with a load rating (lbs) at 80psi and one with a similar load rating (lbs) at 65psi).
Load ratings at different PSIs will affect how a tire flexes if compared at the same psi. I have experienced this on a full size truck with two different Load Range E tires (one with a load rating (lbs) at 80psi and one with a similar load rating (lbs) at 65psi).
I hope Kai does a video on RUG and premium next 
Back on topic. I think Method’s bead grip technology is a bigger impact on any size tire in terms of off-road performance than benefits afforded by tire width. 8-psi all day long on a pig of a rig.
Back on topic. I think Method’s bead grip technology is a bigger impact on any size tire in terms of off-road performance than benefits afforded by tire width. 8-psi all day long on a pig of a rig.
I hope Kai does a video on RUG and premium next
Way off topic, but since you went there...
Here's a real world example of an old school 5.3L LS V8. A Vortec truck engine that lived a life from the OEM setup for 87 octane.
Same exact hardware but now setup in a rig doing hard work. Just cause people here are anecdotally using 87 octane and doing nothing more than low effort cruising doesn't mean all is well.
Im sure ive missed something along this thread, just stumbled across it but Im currently looking into these mickey thompson baja at's at 255/85/r17 but just ran across the Kenda klevar 35x10.5x17 which I might like even more. currently running general grabber x3's in 285/70/r17 and they're great and all but wearing very fast, had to swap the spare this week after ripping tread down to the core over the weekend, and since I'm doing a long trip in a month from now Id like to be on a fresh set right before I start that. So I've got two questions:
How do you like the klevar 35x10.5's (are these more of an AT?) or should I stick with the mainstream mickey thompsons since I haven't heard of this other company?
Did you need a bmc to fit these tall skinny tires? (I have a 3" lift 2016 4Runner non-kdss)
Thanks for any input!
Edit: Placed an order for Kenda Klevar 35x10.5x17 on 706 Methods with 0 offset hoping because of the narrow tire I wont need a bmc but that is being very hopefull
How do you like the klevar 35x10.5's (are these more of an AT?) or should I stick with the mainstream mickey thompsons since I haven't heard of this other company?
Did you need a bmc to fit these tall skinny tires? (I have a 3" lift 2016 4Runner non-kdss)
Thanks for any input!
Edit: Placed an order for Kenda Klevar 35x10.5x17 on 706 Methods with 0 offset hoping because of the narrow tire I wont need a bmc but that is being very hopefull
Last edited:
I like them a lot. More of an MT than an AT, it’s an MT leaning RT. However it is nearly as quiet as an AT.
I can’t help with fitment advice as I have a LX570.
I can’t help with fitment advice as I have a LX570.
