- Thread starter
- #41
Tall and skinny tire refers to thinner and taller than stock size.
So that size would not be consider tall and skinny.
Unsprung Weight of a heavy LT tire
- Thread starter Madtiger
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
Tall and skinny tire refers to thinner and taller than stock size.
So that size would not be consider tall and skinny.
Markuson
SILVER Star
I guess...
Term is pretty subjective.
I think of “tall and skinny” more as a ratio of a tire’s own height to it’s ownwidth. Butmeh...
If i keptwidth same but added 3 inches height, it would be tall and skinny to me for sure...if you follow what imean.
Is this tall and skinny?
Looks perfect actually. What size are these?
275/70R18 ST Maxx
Great looking bike tires.
They look good and I take it you have wheel spacers. I’m hoping I won’t need them for my new ICOn wheels 25*+ offset
I had that same size on my previous MY15 with fuel anza wheels. They did me well in Colorado on snow covered trails.
I suspect those are high maintenance and you’ll really take beating if you have to trade them in.
Last edited:
That's the size I am planning on getting. Very common size and perfect for what I do.
Always better to get them used. Let someone else take the hit. With a little extra 'detailing' they look almost like the newer models.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #51
Always better to get them used. Let someone else take the hit. With a little extra 'detailing' they look almost like the newer models.
yeah, but when you trade the used model in, you will take as much hit as the first guy...maybe even more since you did the extra “detailing”.....
Here's some insight from a tire development engineer I interviewed a while back for an article on Subarus, and stupid trends. It's relevant here though:
It's not the increased unsprung weight from aftermarket suspension components, wheels and
tires that are detrimental to a crossover’s performance. It’s the increased rotating mass from
the aftermarket tire alone that decreases the overall vehicle performance. More torque is
required to accelerate rotating mass, and the further away that rotating mass is from the axis of
rotation (axle), the more torque is required. (Moment of inertia i=mr^2). So increased weight
from an aftermarket tire is more detrimental than increased weight from an aftermarket wheel
because the tire is further away from the axis of rotation than the wheel is. And as discussed
previously, much of the increased weight from an aftermarket All-Terrain tire is as far away from
the axle as possible (increased tread and shoulder weight are the furthest points out from the
tire center), so All-Terrain tires have even more of an effect on rotating mass than standard All-
Season tires do. To make this situation worse, since the distance away from the axle is the most
important factor in determining the torque required to rotate the mass (the tire and wheel
assembly), a larger overall diameter tire versus the original equipment tire is by far the most
detrimental method of upgrading ground clearance on a crossover. That statement is completely
counter-intuitive to SUV/truck owners who in theory benefit most from the largest tire possible to
provide the most ground clearance they can get without increasing the center of gravity (and
thus rollover height). The difference between the typical truck or SUV compared to a traditional
CUV is that trucks and SUVs usually have plenty of reserve engine power and braking power to
haul and stop heavy loads as well as tow and slow heavy trailers. So an increased tire size
and/or heavier All-Terrain tire doesn't have as large of an effect on a pickup truck or SUV’s
performance. However in the case of a crossover, there's not a substantial amount of reserve
engine power nor braking power to accelerate or decelerate larger tires.
It's not the increased unsprung weight from aftermarket suspension components, wheels and
tires that are detrimental to a crossover’s performance. It’s the increased rotating mass from
the aftermarket tire alone that decreases the overall vehicle performance. More torque is
required to accelerate rotating mass, and the further away that rotating mass is from the axis of
rotation (axle), the more torque is required. (Moment of inertia i=mr^2). So increased weight
from an aftermarket tire is more detrimental than increased weight from an aftermarket wheel
because the tire is further away from the axis of rotation than the wheel is. And as discussed
previously, much of the increased weight from an aftermarket All-Terrain tire is as far away from
the axle as possible (increased tread and shoulder weight are the furthest points out from the
tire center), so All-Terrain tires have even more of an effect on rotating mass than standard All-
Season tires do. To make this situation worse, since the distance away from the axle is the most
important factor in determining the torque required to rotate the mass (the tire and wheel
assembly), a larger overall diameter tire versus the original equipment tire is by far the most
detrimental method of upgrading ground clearance on a crossover. That statement is completely
counter-intuitive to SUV/truck owners who in theory benefit most from the largest tire possible to
provide the most ground clearance they can get without increasing the center of gravity (and
thus rollover height). The difference between the typical truck or SUV compared to a traditional
CUV is that trucks and SUVs usually have plenty of reserve engine power and braking power to
haul and stop heavy loads as well as tow and slow heavy trailers. So an increased tire size
and/or heavier All-Terrain tire doesn't have as large of an effect on a pickup truck or SUV’s
performance. However in the case of a crossover, there's not a substantial amount of reserve
engine power nor braking power to accelerate or decelerate larger tires.
I'm due for new non-winter tires in a few months, and will almost certainly stick with the stock size for 18" wheels (will find light, P-metric ATs). I'm a weekend warrior, and even with the occasional multi-week trip, 99% of the driving happens on pavement; not wanting to compromise that just to be able to clear a 1"-taller rock that one time per year. Plus, sticking with stock size means there's no need to buy a 5th tire/wheel for a matching spare.
And given that 99% of the time I'm the only vehicle, and with a trailer, if an extra inch of ground clearance is the difference between "getting there" and "not getting there," I probably shouldn't be risking it anyways.
I modified my Tacoma rather heavily, and came to the realization that there's something beautiful about stock, or very, very lightly modified vehicles. It doesn't take a genius to keep throwing parts at a vehicle, but it does take some experience to know what's enough and when to stop. I'm growing to appreciate that.
Yes, increasing the weight of the tire increases the moment of inertia, which makes it harder to change the angular acceleration. So it takes more power to accelerate and decelerate the tire. It would be interesting to do an instrumented test to see whether the effect is large enough to notice.
The math for this is taught in every dynamics class at engineering school, which I took sometime back in the Pleistocene Era.
Weight further from the axle increases moment of inertia more than the same weight closer to the axle.
The math for this is taught in every dynamics class at engineering school, which I took sometime back in the Pleistocene Era.
Weight further from the axle increases moment of inertia more than the same weight closer to the axle.
Taco2Cruiser
Crazy American Off Road
Great conversation, I just walked out the shop and would like to leave two thoughts.
The original question, does a heavier tire of the same size cause more wear?
Yes, but you won’t see components fail at any soon rate. Maybe the difference between 150,000 miles now down to 130,000 miles.
What’s really going to increase wear is driving off road in general, when the components and being banged back and forth while spinning and turning. Sure, and heavier tire adds, but not much more.
Rob’s second thought, someone said that weight doesn’t help off road. Going to say that’s false. That’s why rock buggies have water in their tires. Keeps you planted with more lower weight.
The original question, does a heavier tire of the same size cause more wear?
Yes, but you won’t see components fail at any soon rate. Maybe the difference between 150,000 miles now down to 130,000 miles.
What’s really going to increase wear is driving off road in general, when the components and being banged back and forth while spinning and turning. Sure, and heavier tire adds, but not much more.
Rob’s second thought, someone said that weight doesn’t help off road. Going to say that’s false. That’s why rock buggies have water in their tires. Keeps you planted with more lower weight.
I like the progression that this forum has come to. To understand and balance the weight factor in a build.
This is a good point. It's perhaps a snippet however as it doesn't paint the big picture. Potentially even misleading as it does not acknowledge first order impacts of larger tires. Rotating mass is a lesser secondary factor.
Namely, gearing losses is the primary impact with larger tires. That combined with lesser low end torque of crossovers (which he does acknowledge and perhaps written for things like Subaru's) is the major factor in this. Fortunately, SUVs like ours have better low end gearing and far more torque off idle.
What's also not said is that rate of acceleration matters with rotating mass. In everyday driving where the rate of acceleration is tepid, inertial losses are minimal. Potentially an order of magnitude less than gearing losses. It's when one sends it, particularly from a stop, that rotational inertia become more significant.
This is a good point. It's perhaps a snippet however as it doesn't paint the big picture. Potentially even misleading as it does not acknowledge first order impacts of larger tires. Rotating mass is a lesser secondary factor.
Namely, gearing losses is the primary impact with larger tires. That combined with lesser low end torque of crossovers (which he does acknowledge and perhaps written for things like Subaru's) is the major factor in this. Fortunately, SUVs like ours have better low end gearing and far more torque off idle.
What's also not said is that rate of acceleration matters with rotating mass. In everyday driving where the rate of acceleration is tepid, inertial losses are minimal. Potentially an order of magnitude less than gearing losses. It's when one sends it, particularly from a stop, that rotational inertia become more significant.
It's not all one way, though. Recovering a stuck 8,000 lb rig is harder than recovering a stuck 6,000 lb rig.
Markuson
SILVER Star
All a matter of degree.
My truck is almost 8000 lbs.
This kind of question is why I wish answers on mud included more words like,
“It depends....”
My truck is almost 8000 lbs.
This kind of question is why I wish answers on mud included more words like,
“It depends....”
It is definitely an “all things being equal” statement, and, of course, they never are...All a matter of degree.
My truck is almost 8000 lbs.
This kind of question is why I wish answers on mud included more words like,
“It depends....”
