New Falken A/T4W

[sedole]

I wonder if the weight on the 285/70R18 on the PDF is an error. It shows 68lbs in load range C (6 ply) but the 285/75R18 is showing 67.2lbs in load range E (10 ply), which doesn't make a lot of sense.

View attachment 3536715

I agree, a bit odd, however falken's C rated tires have always seemed to be a good bit heavier than their E rated counterparts for whatever reason. Also that youtube video posted above bought 285/70/18 and confirmed their weight with a scale at 68.8 lbs per tire.

 

[Valgrind]

Im seeing the same weight 65.4lb for C rated and E rated from Falken's website. idk if they updated it?

 

[TeCKis300]

I agree, a bit odd, however falken's C rated tires have always seemed to be a good bit heavier than their E rated counterparts for whatever reason. Also that youtube video posted above bought 285/70/18 and confirmed their weight with a scale at 68.8 lbs per tire.

Load rating (LR) of a tire and how it relates to weight, durability, and other factors isn't what most people think. Doesn't help there's archaic "ply ratings" which leads people to think a LR-E is logically thicker and heavier than a LR-C tire. Modern tires haven't used bias-ply construction in ages, and is a rough equivalence.

Load rating is strictly about air pressure headroom and heat management of the tire carcass. A driving factor is the more material/mass in a tire, the more heat it will generate when going round and round cycling in compression. Pressure reduces compression, reducing heat generation. Which is all subject to the max rubber temperature of a tire before structural wear/failure, somewhere in the range of 200-250F.

LR-E tires often just have stronger/more steel cords to enable more pressure headroom. They may have less, but stronger material, to prevent heat build-up carrying heavier loads as the noted example shows.

For the 200-series, even the heaviest will generally never use the pressure headroom of a LR-E tire. LR-E isn't necessarily more durable than LR-C. LR-C is likely more compliant in sidewall and composition. Generally not giving up much of anything and is a win-win. All subject of course to the actual design of whatever manufacture of the tire.

Don't get me started on another misconception which is the lightest tires = the best ride or efficiency. More than often, you just get less tire.

 

[Rednexus]

Don't get me started on another misconception which is the lightest tires = the best ride or efficiency. More than often, you just get less tire.

More weight is always more rotating mass....which always affects both MPG, acceleration, and braking. The effect is more pronounced the bigger the tire gets (regardless of weight), as rotational inertia (I) is equal to the mass times the radius at which the weight sits squared.

 

[TeCKis300]

More weight is always more rotating mass....which always affects both MPG, acceleration, and braking. The effect is more pronounced the bigger the tire gets (regardless of weight), as rotational inertia (I) is equal to the mass times the radius at which the weight sits squared.

Not wrong. But it is not the primary driving factor unless someone is racing their 200-series in constant stop and go.

Tire design and rolling resistance of said tire has much more impact on efficiency and ride quality. Overall diameter also has more direct impact to what you're stating than weight.

 

[Valgrind]

For the 200-series, even the heaviest will generally never use the pressure headroom of a LR-E tire. LR-E isn't necessarily more durable than LR-C. LR-C is likely more compliant in sidewall and composition. Generally not giving up much of anything and is a win-win. All subject of course to the actual design of whatever manufacture of the tire.

So since C and E are the same weight and price, at least for a 33. What would you go with for a 200 series? Personally, I think the higher speed and weight rating is nice a peace of mind if there is no downside.

Are there any downsides to an E load range versus C aired down?

 

[TeCKis300]

So since C and E are the same weight and price, at least for a 33. What would you go with for a 200 series? Personally, I think the higher speed and weight rating is nice a peace of mind if there is no downside.

Are there any downsides to an E load range versus C aired down?
View attachment 3540142

I don't think you can go wrong with either. Since this is one of those rare sizes with an option, I personally would tend to go with the LR-C tire. The differences will be incremental, but suspect there would be better ride and off-road traction to the LR-C. There's enough load capacity headroom that I'd doubt you'd be heavy enough to need 50 PSI.

Back in the day in Ford's Raptor development, the story goes that the engineering team weren't happy with the KO2 LR-E that was available. They sent BFG back to build a LR-C spec for their 315/70R17 fitment. Which is why we have two load ranges available in that size today.

 

[Valgrind]

No way lol. Now they are starting to go out of stock.

 

[Rednexus]

Not wrong. But it is not the primary driving factor unless someone is racing their 200-series in constant stop and go.

Tire design and rolling resistance of said tire has much more impact on efficiency and ride quality. Overall diameter also has more direct impact to what you're stating than weight.

Apples to apples....say a SL vs. C vs. E in a AT4W for the same size and tread pattern, based Newton's 2nd law, the lighter offering will provide better efficiency, acceleration, and braking based solely on the reduciton in rotational mass. Otherwise, yes I agree with you that a different tread pattern will change the result in some areas (rolling resistance) but is still subject to the same physical laws for acceleration and braking.

This is why I stick with SL tires on my rig . Wildpeaks have a good sidewall in the SL and I've never had a issue airing down to 15 psi, even with the sharp volcanic rocks and chert with have here.

 

[TeCKis300]

Apples to apples....say a SL vs. C vs. E in a AT4W for the same size and tread pattern, based Newton's 2nd law, the lighter offering will provide better efficiency, acceleration, and braking based solely on the reduciton in rotational mass. Otherwise, yes I agree with you that a different tread pattern will change the result in some areas (rolling resistance) but is still subject to the same physical laws for acceleration and braking.

This is why I stick with SL tires on my rig . Wildpeaks have a good sidewall in the SL and I've never had a issue airing down to 15 psi, even with the sharp volcanic rocks and chert with have here.

Yup, and I agree with all of that.

The context that I'm talking more to is the common comparison of say a Falken A/T3W vs a BFG KO2. Lighter is arguably not better there. The latter runs smaller, has less tread depth, and rides firmer.

Now I'm interested in how the A/T4Ws and KO3s play out. Fight...

 

[Rednexus]

Yup, and I agree with all of that.

The context that I'm talking more to is the common comparison of say a Falken A/T3W vs a BFG KO2. Lighter is arguably not better there. The latter runs smaller, has less tread depth, and rides firmer.

Now I'm interested in how the A/T4Ws and KO3s play out. Fight...

KO3s were high on my list until I saw this thread and realized the AT4W is an option. With both tires being new it will be hard to pick the BFG over an improvement on the AT3W with how stellar mine have been.

I just wish Falken kept them cheap....the AT3Ws cost $165/ea in 2020....

 

[Valgrind]

$165 each to now hurts....

 

[Hayesthebuilder]

Having a set of 275/70/18 installed on the wife's 2016 LC today. Will post pics when I can. OEM spacer lift on front. Everything else stock. Have considered Bora 1.25 spacers but wanted to see what my rubbing situation will be. These are slightly larger 33's at 33.43'' so I anticipate there will be some. I preemptively removed front mud flaps this morning.

 

[NYC570]

So since C and E are the same weight and price, at least for a 33. What would you go with for a 200 series? Personally, I think the higher speed and weight rating is nice a peace of mind if there is no downside.

Are there any downsides to an E load range versus C aired down?
View attachment 3540142

Have you checked if there are any difference in tire compound and/or thread pattern between the two load ratings? Sometimes lower load rated tires come with the advantage of more silica in their compound and/or more siping.

 

[Valgrind]

Have you checked if there are any difference in tire compound and/or thread pattern between the two load ratings? Sometimes lower load rated tires come with the advantage of more silica in their compound and/or more siping.

No. I will look though, good idea.

They do say that the AT3W and AT4W are different compounds. The 4th W in AT4W stands for warranty, 65k mile Warranty (60k mile LT sizes). Wear, Winter, Wet, and Warranty. So you have to assume its a harder compound on the AT4W.

Also interesting bit from Falken's Website on the AT3W.

Should I put LT tires on my truck? Do I need Load Range E? 265/70R17 or LT265/70R17? 265/75R16 or LT265/75R16? P285/70R17 or LT285/70R17 LRE?

Good questions. If you have a ¾-ton truck like the RAM 2500 or Ford F-250, go with LT Load Range E (LRE) tires to ensure you’re matching or exceeding the OE tires’ Load Index. If you have a half-ton truck (F-150, RAM 1500), mid-size pickup (Tacoma, Colorado), or an SUV (4Runner, Jeep Cherokee), avoid Load Range E. Instead, stick with Load Range C or avoid LT sizes altogether. Putting LRE tires on these applications is generally overkill, often resulting in a decrease in power, fuel economy, and overall vehicle longevity. Your tires should enhance the capability of your truck, not detract from it. Whichever way you go, please consult a trusted tire installer to discuss the tradeoffs between LRE sizes (towing, off-road durability) and LRC / non-LT sizes (MPG, tread life). With that said, we’re confident that every A/T3W is built to perform both on and off-road. Every size has been rigorously tested for off-road durability, and all sizes come with a 55,000-mile Tread Life Warranty. Light Truck (LT) = Built for trucks. Includes LRC, LRD, LRE, and LRF-rated tires. Load Range C (LRC) = Equivalent to 6-ply rated. Not ideal for heavy duty pickups that tow and haul. Load Range E (LRE) = Today’s equivalent to 10-ply rated. Great for heavy duty towing and hauling.

 

[Hayesthebuilder]

Having a set of 275/70/18 installed on the wife's 2016 LC today. Will post pics when I can. OEM spacer lift on front. Everything else stock. Have considered Bora 1.25 spacers but wanted to see what my rubbing situation will be. These are slightly larger 33's at 33.43'' so I anticipate there will be some. I preemptively removed front mud flaps this morning.

 

[Hayesthebuilder]

 

[skrypj]

The KO3's should be interesting. It seems like they addressed a lot of the things I didn't like about the KO2's, which I personally think were an over rated tire. I was pretty disappointed with them in the snow and wet. The 315/70's I had on my F150 wore like crap despite keeping the pressures right where they should be and chalk testing them.

The AT3W's had always been on my radar because the general vibe from the internet was that they were a great snow and all around tire. Never tried them though.

 

[codyaustin5]

Posted in another thread.
285/70/18

 

[777Gage]

That's a very busy sidewall - definitely draws your eyes in