who's NOT running BFGs or MT/R's??

[3puttcop]

I have not heard anyone mention MAXXIS tires. I have them and love them. Maxxis is also a very popular with Quad, motocross, and bicycle. I have the Buckshot Mudder. Relatively quiet, clean out great and are priced pretty good compared to the larger companies. It’s a Japanese co. with its US headquarters in Georgia; therefore I have seen a pretty large marketing campaign in my area (N. Florida).

http://www.maxxis.com/

 

[Behemoth60]

I wish you kids would quite dabbling with these little children's tires. Michelin military tires are what people who are serious about serious wheeling, and also need to get to the trail and back. The IRoks are definately very grippy and very light, and are probably a better dedicatd off road tire, but not if you need to put any road miles on.

I run the 325/85R16 XML's on my 74, the 16.00R20's XL's on y 60. With 4 different tread patterns, and a bunch of different sizes, all virtually bullet proof, excellent bead retention, designed for mud with a soft rubber compound that sticks well to rocks... I just don't know why more people aren't investing in them. Sure, they're ridiculously heavy, but whatever...

Peter Straub

 

[lovetoski]

I wish you kids would quite dabbling with these little children's tires. Michelin military tires are what people who are serious about serious wheeling, and also need to get to the trail and back. The IRoks are definately very grippy and very light, and are probably a better dedicatd off road tire, but not if you need to put any road miles on.

I run the 325/85R16 XML's on my 74, the 16.00R20's XL's on y 60. With 4 different tread patterns, and a bunch of different sizes, all virtually bullet proof, excellent bead retention, designed for mud with a soft rubber compound that sticks well to rocks... I just don't know why more people aren't investing in them. Sure, they're ridiculously heavy, but whatever...

Peter Straub

They are also a little hard to find, and way expenseive...but do appear to be really awesome tires.

 

[Mace]

Peter, super heavy tires on a cruiser axle is a bad idea.

 

[esh]

Interco makes a bias-ply TSL SX in 32x11.5. Unfortunately their 33" is 15.5" wide.

Very tough tire that hooks up everywhere. Going to run 36x12.5s on the 40 when the moola comes in.

Ken (who won't be running 54" military tires anytime soon)

 

[Behemoth60]

Peter, super heavy tires on a cruiser axle is a bad idea.

Well, I've done both. Running 'light' tires like Goodyears, and Swampers, I spent a lot of time running with spare tires attached to my axle. Since I switched to Michelins in 2001, I've used a spare tire exactly once... which, ironically, happened to be just 2 weekends ago... The valve was ripped out of the rim, deflated the tire, pulled it off the bead. No fault of the tire.

I'll stick to my heavy bullet proof tires, thanks.

Peter Straub

 

[HZJ60 Guy]

I wish you kids would quite dabbling with these little children's tires. Michelin military tires are what people who are serious about serious wheeling, and also need to get to the trail and back. The IRoks are definately very grippy and very light, and are probably a better dedicatd off road tire, but not if you need to put any road miles on.

I run the 325/85R16 XML's on my 74, the 16.00R20's XL's on y 60. With 4 different tread patterns, and a bunch of different sizes, all virtually bullet proof, excellent bead retention, designed for mud with a soft rubber compound that sticks well to rocks... I just don't know why more people aren't investing in them. Sure, they're ridiculously heavy, but whatever...

Peter Straub

Alright then Peter, TELL US WHERE WE CAN GET SOME! It's easier to SEE the air around here and it is to find those tires for sale!!!!!

 

[Sporin]

Those special Michelins are awfuly rare in the US, and expensive when you DO find them.

EE carries a few sizes when they can get them. I'd consider them if money were no object.... but it is.

https://www.expeditionexchange.com/michelin/

 

[Mace]

IMHO, I would rather change a tire out than an axle..

 

[sandcruiser]

Peter, super heavy tires on a cruiser axle is a bad idea.

HA!
Nothing Peter does to his truck can be categorically referred to as a "good" idea...

Oh, wait, you said cruiser axle... none of those on that truck, so no worries.

 

[Behemoth60]

Alright then Peter, TELL US WHERE WE CAN GET SOME! It's easier to SEE the air around here and it is to find those tires for sale!!!!!

Detail Plus Tires, Edmonton: 780-475-0999, ask for Lee
Dollar Tire, Edmonton: 780-447-4400
Mike, the guy I got my XML's from... Calgary, 403-230-4718, mr_mike@telusplanet.com

I paid CAD$150 each for my 325/85R16's.
I paid CAD$270 each for my 11.00R16's.
I paid USD$42.50 each for my 16.00R20's.

That's a llifetime total of CAD$2,485 I've spent on 15 tires, all except for 2 of which are still in use (I wore out on a trip to Alaska).... all three sets are on operable rigs this very day.

IMHO, I would rather change a tire out than an axle..

Curious... how does tire weight lead to broken axles?

Peter Straub

 

[HZJ60 Guy]

Thank you Peter. One last question. What % are these babies when you get them? They're not new are they? Do you think a person needs bead locks for these tires? As far as airing them down is concerned?



Tom

 

[HZJ60 Guy]

Wait a minute one more question. Im looking for 38" tires. Would you suggest XL's or XML's for all around street/logging road/off road tires?


Tom

 

[Behemoth60]

Thank you Peter. One last question. What % are these babies when you get them? They're not new are they? Do you think a person needs bead locks for these tires?

Usually about 70% tread left. They are usually retired by the miltary due to having a cut in them or something. Not enough of a problem for a guy like me, but any excuse to put new tires on an APC, I guess. Plus, they are re-groovable. I've regrooved a few, and other than being slightly shorter than new, the certainly look like new tires. Anyway, that's why you can get them for under 1/2 price of new. Like I said before, my first set I bought in 2001 are still on a rig... they're re-grooved, but they're still going strong.

As for beadlocks, I would always recommend them. I never had any and ran my 11.00R16's on brand new rims, and never had a problem. But, those rims are a little older now, and getting a bit rusty around the bead, and a bit leaky. Marc had a few problems as a result with them on the Rubicon.

I don't have beadlocks on my 325's either, and have also lost a few beads, although never a fault of a tire. In two cases, they were valve problems that let the air out on the trail, and in the third case a patch applied by the military let go and made the tire leaky.

Wait a minute one more question. Im looking for 38" tires. Would you suggest XL's or XML's for all around street/logging road/off road tires?

I do love the XL's. The are adequate on the street, totally kick ass on gravel (if you can believe it, they are actually quieter on gravel than pavement) and work really well in almost all conditions off road. The rubber is quite soft and I've seen these tires hook up real well on the granite of Rubicon and the slick rock of Moab. The radial design allows them to flex extremely nicely. The directional tread digs extremely well, even at slow speeds... these tires were designed as military tires, to be turned by little underpowered diesels, so they don't need to be spun very fast to be effective like swampers do. The grand exception to their performance is snow and ice where they are so bad as to be downright dangerous. The other thing they don't do well is climb out of ruts due to poor side lug design and placement.

The XML's have a huge advantage over the XL's though. They are wider and therefore they look better on the truck. As much as I am a function over form kind of guy, my aesthetic limits are breached by a rig whose tires are too narrow for the body and don't 'appear' to provide more stability. For this reason alone, I prefer them. They also have a bit better side lug. They work adequately in mud, but I think the XL's are a bit better at digging in as the XML tread patter is a quite a bit tighter. Also, they tend to float around on gravel way more than the XL's. I don't have experience with them on snow/ice yet as this rig was parked for the winter.

So, there you go... pluses and minuses. You can decide for yourself which you like.

Peter Straub

 

[Mace]

Curious... how does tire weight lead to broken axles?

Peter Straub

rotational mass.

A heavy tire is harder to get spinning and harder to stop spinning.
Two examples;
To get quicker HP out of a bug you lighten the flywheel, to get a dirt bike to deal with lower RPM's you run a heavier flywheel.
Less rotational mass is easier to get spinning and to stop.

Also, think of the comp guys, they fill their tires with water to decrease the cog. But by doing this they put a significant amount of stress on the drivetrain.

Tire size does not always lead to axle breakage. Tire weight is a huge chunk of axle breakage as well. Most of the time when you go to a bigger tire you are increasing the weight. So it is kind of a mute point. But now a days some of the bigger tires are actually fairly light (I have a 39.5" IRok mounted ona 15" steel rim that actually only weighs 5 lbs more than a stock firestone superduty radial on a steel rim)

Additionally, the heavier tire will slow you down. If you go from a light 35" tire and ar enot impressed with your power you will really hate it when you go to a heavy 35" tire..

 

[Behemoth60]

rotational mass.

That really has nothing to do with an axle shaft.

A heavy tire is harder to get spinning and harder to stop spinning.

Aha! Torque. That's a better answer. But torque doesn't come form a heavy tire. It comes from your engine/drive train.

If you're making 10,000ft-lb of torque, and use apply it through 110lb irok, how is this different than applying 10,000 ft-lbs through a 190lb Michelin?

Granted, a heavier tire will require the same amount of torque applied to it for longer, or a larger amount of torque applied to it for the same amount of time (change in velocity times mass is called an Impulse in the studies of Kinetics) to generate a certain amount of rotational speed. But the torque is a function of your engine output multiplied by the gearing in your drive train. The tire resists that torque, indeed, but that resistance has to do with overall vehicle weight and the diamter of the tire, and little to do with tire mass except in terms of what it adds to overall vehicle mass. Besides, in the real world, what kind of jack-ass would have to do a clutch drop in double low first gear because his tires are heavy and take a few extra seconds to build up speed?

Sorry Mace... still not buying it. Now, if you had said spindle strength or somethign like that, then I still would have rebuffed your argument as being irrelevant to actuall tire mass and more to do with tire diameter.

I accept your position that a heavier tire requires more 'Impulse' to achieve a given rotational momentum, but still haven't been convinced that the actual mass of a tire has anything to do with breaking axles.

Peter Straub


Two examples;
To get quicker HP out of a bug you lighten the flywheel, to get a dirt bike to deal with lower RPM's you run a heavier flywheel.
Less rotational mass is easier to get spinning and to stop.

Also, think of the comp guys, they fill their tires with water to decrease the cog. But by doing this they put a significant amount of stress on the drivetrain.

Tire size does not always lead to axle breakage. Tire weight is a huge chunk of axle breakage as well. Most of the time when you go to a bigger tire you are increasing the weight. So it is kind of a mute point. But now a days some of the bigger tires are actually fairly light (I have a 39.5" IRok mounted ona 15" steel rim that actually only weighs 5 lbs more than a stock firestone superduty radial on a steel rim)

Additionally, the heavier tire will slow you down. If you go from a light 35" tire and ar enot impressed with your power you will really hate it when you go to a heavy 35" tire..[/QUOTE]

 

[Mace]

That really has nothing to do with an axle shaft.



Aha! Torque. That's a better answer. But torque doesn't come form a heavy tire. It comes from your engine/drive train.

If you're making 10,000ft-lb of torque, and use apply it through 110lb irok, how is this different than applying 10,000 ft-lbs through a 190lb Michelin?

Granted, a heavier tire will require the same amount of torque applied to it for longer, or a larger amount of torque applied to it for the same amount of time (change in velocity times mass is called an Impulse in the studies of Kinetics) to generate a certain amount of rotational speed. But the torque is a function of your engine output multiplied by the gearing in your drive train. The tire resists that torque, indeed, but that resistance has to do with overall vehicle weight and the diamter of the tire, and little to do with tire mass except in terms of what it adds to overall vehicle mass. Besides, in the real world, what kind of jack-ass would have to do a clutch drop in double low first gear because his tires are heavy and take a few extra seconds to build up speed?

Sorry Mace... still not buying it. Now, if you had said spindle strength or somethign like that, then I still would have rebuffed your argument as being irrelevant to actuall tire mass and more to do with tire diameter.

I accept your position that a heavier tire requires more 'Impulse' to achieve a given rotational momentum, but still haven't been convinced that the actual mass of a tire has anything to do with breaking axles.

Peter Straub

Sit back and think for a sec. Torque comes from the DS but is transferred to the ground by the axles. The opposing force that allows momentum to be created. A heavier tire will take longer to get spinning (driving up a hill will be harder) and will be harder to stop (braking will be reduced) All of the forces we are discussing will increase by adding weight to the tire. Cruiser axles in their stock form are not overly strong. With all of the options out there for tire type I see no reason to go for a stupid heavy tire when lightre ones will be easier on the drivetrain.

BTW, I have needed to dump the clutch to make it up a rock. Comp guys do it all the time. I guess I am a jack-ass....


Ah yeah, the difference between running 10,000 ft lbs of torque through a set of Michelins and a set of Irocks is the Iroks will hook up better

 

[Behemoth60]

Sit back and think for a sec. Torque comes from the DS but is transferred to the ground by the axles. The opposing force that allows momentum to be created. A heavier tire will take longer to get spinning (driving up a hill will be harder) and will be harder to stop (braking will be reduced) All of the forces we are discussing will increase by adding weight to the tire.

Clearly, we're not going to find concensus on this. I agree that more torque is required to accellerate a heavy tire at the same rate as a lighter tire, but the torque doesn't come from the tire, it comes, in a long and round about path from the driver's right foot, which, in a surprisingly small number of situations, is controlled by a brain.

Besides, the issue is moot. Gearing, lockers, inadequate tire/body clearance, and more importantly, driver input are way more likely to break an axle than extra torque used to accellerate a heavier tire at the same rate as a lighter tire. Even a stock Cruiser can make 10,000ft-lbs of torque, and the very best longfield axle is only rated for about 8,000 ft-lbs before it brakes if you get in a situation where 80% of your torque is directed to one wheel and it's got enough traction to hook up. Maybe, Mace, you should get Michelins so the WON"T hook up like Iroks and break your axle.

Peter Straub

 

[stinkyfj60]

You know, that is interesting stuff Peter. I never could figure out how tire/rim weight destroyed axles. I once had a jeeper tell me while looking at my steel rims "Steel rims break parts". I thought... ODD, maybe if you dropped one on your foot you may break a few parts....



Jason

 

[Mace]

Clearly, we're not going to find concensus on this. I agree that more torque is required to accellerate a heavy tire at the same rate as a lighter tire, but the torque doesn't come from the tire, it comes, in a long and round about path from the driver's right foot, which, in a surprisingly small number of situations, is controlled by a brain.

Besides, the issue is moot. Gearing, lockers, inadequate tire/body clearance, and more importantly, driver input are way more likely to break an axle than extra torque used to accellerate a heavier tire at the same rate as a lighter tire. Even a stock Cruiser can make 10,000ft-lbs of torque, and the very best longfield axle is only rated for about 8,000 ft-lbs before it brakes if you get in a situation where 80% of your torque is directed to one wheel and it's got enough traction to hook up. Maybe, Mace, you should get Michelins so the WON"T hook up like Iroks and break your axle.

Peter Straub

Wow, you do like being insulting don't you.

We are not going to come to a consensus on this. I do ask you this tho. Why do bigger tires break parts?

I was posting the acceleration statements as more of a street issue than a off road issue.

BTW, I already have bigger axles. and I will take as much traction as I possible can thank you