Fat Tires Vs Skinny Tires (2 Viewers)

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

That video is skewed. It looks from the contact patches like the aired down tires didn't have much weight on them either.

Tires are built for what they are used for. Some are thin and some are wide, both for different purposes.
 
here was a thread on this when it came out.

basically a test to validate what he wanted.
 
Last edited:
A majority of people on this forum do seem to prefer skinny tires for off roading:

 
I love looking at the model variations sold in other parts of the world. Like this one with 245/75 17 tires, and a diesel V8 and 5 spd manual transmission.

 
The scope and narrative of that video is too... narrow. Trucks, especially high performance trucks, can create higher dynamic forces well beyond the static experiments shown in the video.

Balance is the key to all around performance if that's the goal. The best evidence of that is to look at OEM fitments for performance models. Even as OEMs are hyper sensitive to efficiency and MPG, you won't see them fit narrows. That's because these models need to perform broadly. Putting down power, braking, cornering, dynamic performance on and off-road. A balanced width to height fitment is the best way to achieve that.

Where you do see narrows
- tractors that are single dimensional in use case.
- poverty pack trims that have the bottom shelf drivetrain and suspension, that can't turn big tires or create the dynamics to benefit from larger tires.

For owners that have a lower key driving style focused on perhaps travel and overlanding, a narrow tire may not trade off as much for their use.

A majority of people on this forum do seem to prefer skinny tires for off roading:


To be fair, many settle because skinnies are easier to fit. Especially on the LC which has the bane of the KDSS bar.
 
The scope and narrative of that video is too... narrow. Trucks, especially high performance trucks, can create higher dynamic forces well beyond the static experiments shown in the video.

Balance is the key to all around performance if that's the goal. The best evidence of that is to look at OEM fitments for performance models. Even as OEMs are hyper sensitive to efficiency and MPG, you won't see them fit narrows. That's because these models need to perform broadly. Putting down power, braking, cornering, dynamic performance on and off-road. A balanced width to height fitment is the best way to achieve that.

Where you do see narrows
- tractors that are single dimensional in use case.
- poverty pack trims that have the bottom shelf drivetrain and suspension, that can't turn big tires or create the dynamics to benefit from larger tires.

For owners that have a lower key driving style focused on perhaps travel and overlanding, a narrow tire may not trade off as much for their use.



To be fair, many settle because skinnies are easier to fit. Especially on the LC which has the bane of the KDSS bar.

That’s why a 35x 10.5 on an lx is a win, so easy to install but that 35 12.5 takes some work
 
To be fair, many settle because skinnies are easier to fit. Especially on the LC which has the bane of the KDSS bar.

Yep. Back in the straight front axle days, 12.5s were the norm. I still run a 15.5 on my jeep.

But for my IFS vehicles, I run 285s. So much easier to fit with longer travel suspensions and the limited space MFGs give me up front
 
That video is skewed. It looks from the contact patches like the aired down tires didn't have much weight on them either.

Tires are built for what they are used for. Some are thin and some are wide, both for different purposes.
I can't tell for sure, but I'm going to assume he tried to make it a valid test and unloaded the jack. It may be that the tires just didn't deform much aired down.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom