tyres skinny vs fat

Submitted: Tuesday, Dec 05, 2006 at 16:36
ThreadID: 40083 Views:5854 Replies:10 FollowUps:8
This Thread has been Archived
in my limited experiance skinny is better in mud and fat better in sand i was at rainbow beach a couple of months ago with a mate i was in a 90 3.0 v6 4 runner with 31 10.5 he was in a 2002 rodeo 3.2 v6 with skinny tyres not sure wich ones, not surprising he floged me on the hard flat sand, but in the soft stuff he just couldn't keep up he just dug ruts while i just went accros the top, i had a great time even when i was pulling him out of the 3 bogs he got himself in yes his is a little lower than mine but you could tell by the tyre tracks he was just digging holes.
but how skinny is to skinny when it comes to mud ? fat tyres cake up and slip around on the slippery stuff skinny tyres cut through that to the hard stuff were the traction is. if anyone else has an opinion to share please do
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Member - Davoe (Nullagine) - Tuesday, Dec 05, 2006 at 16:50

Tuesday, Dec 05, 2006 at 16:50
tyre pressure and profile is they key what pressures were you and your mate running? even at the same pressure I would bet his tyres were a lower profile if stock this leaves less rubber to elongate which gives sand flotation.
As for mud well which kind? it comes in 1001 flavours each with its own characteristic. There is not much point digging to the bottom of mud if it has no bottom. Tread type is the most important characteristic of mud tyres - the wider the tread the more esily it will trow mud out and retain grip.
I have run skinnys in muddy conditions with non aggressive tread (rags) and in that case we often got bogged without the vehicle digging itself down to the diffs
AnswerID: 208742

Follow Up By: dirty dirty 4x4 - Tuesday, Dec 05, 2006 at 17:21

Tuesday, Dec 05, 2006 at 17:21
he let his tyres down but i didnt worry about mine thinking that thicker tyres would be fine he had 16s and would have had a lower profile than me but both were ATs whats the wear difference with skinnys if any
0
FollowupID: 468716

Reply By: Member - Axle - Tuesday, Dec 05, 2006 at 16:53

Tuesday, Dec 05, 2006 at 16:53
I came across a mud hole the other day with a Toyo, Nissan, and rodeo all bogged, so i chained them all together and skull dragged them out with the landy which is fitted with standard 7.50 x 16 skinny tyres.

Cheers Axle.
AnswerID: 208743

Follow Up By: Member - Oldplodder (QLD) - Tuesday, Dec 05, 2006 at 17:14

Tuesday, Dec 05, 2006 at 17:14
Those 7.5"x16 are 32" OD.
About the same as a 190 wide, 105% aspect ratio tyre (190/105/16 approx).
They really bag in sand or mud, and the footprint becomes a lot longer with the tall sidewalls.

DD4x4's mate might have had 215/70/16, or about 29" OD.
Don't bag as well with 70 series, and no width to widen the contact patch compared to a 31/10.5/15 (31" OD, 265/75/15 approx.)

Me, I just run the 235/85/16 (32" OD) as a compromise between width and OD.
About the same as running 265/75/16 on a LC or Patrol being heavier.
0
FollowupID: 468714

Follow Up By: dirty dirty 4x4 - Tuesday, Dec 05, 2006 at 17:28

Tuesday, Dec 05, 2006 at 17:28
so do you reccon its the diameter of the tyre including the height of the sidewall that makes the bigger footprint
0
FollowupID: 468718

Follow Up By: Bonz (Vic) - Tuesday, Dec 05, 2006 at 17:50

Tuesday, Dec 05, 2006 at 17:50
definitely dirty the diameter makes lots of difference
.
Time is an illusion produced by the passage of history
.

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message
Moderator

0
FollowupID: 468725

Follow Up By: Member - Oldplodder (QLD) - Wednesday, Dec 06, 2006 at 18:40

Wednesday, Dec 06, 2006 at 18:40
What you are trying to get is a larger footprint in area, whether it is width or length.
This lessens the weight per square meter. Reason why bulldozers do so well with big long tracks.
If the diameter is larger, and with a higher profile, the tyre 'flattens' quicker to a longer footprint as air is let out.
It has been seen with the newer soft roaders with 60 and 50 series tyres that they can not lengthen the footprint so easily as a high profile tyre. They need to go for width.
It has been argued in sand that a tall skinny tyre (190 to 255 maybe) actually works better than a very wide tyre of a lower diameter. Less of a bow wave of sand in front to push aside. Watch a tyre go through soft dry sand and the sand at the edges almost behaves as a thick liquid.
The longer footprint also means the tyre doesn't drop into the sand as far, so doesn't have as high to climb over the sand (that which can not move out of the way) all of the time. Think of a tyre in sand with maybe a 15 degree angle of sand in front of it. It is like climbing a 15 degree hill all of the time the 4wd is moving.
0
FollowupID: 468984

Reply By: Kiwi Kia - Tuesday, Dec 05, 2006 at 17:04

Tuesday, Dec 05, 2006 at 17:04
It all depends on the amount of torque available from your engine.

If ALL things are equal then the skinny tyres will be better in soft sand. Low speed with plenty of torque works better then high revs which just digs holes.
AnswerID: 208747

Reply By: T-Ribby - Tuesday, Dec 05, 2006 at 17:43

Tuesday, Dec 05, 2006 at 17:43
The post about torque and low gear has more to do with traction than just tyres.
A 1927 Buick has 32 x 4.5 inch wheels (split rims). Because it is so low geared, we used ours as an offroader and negotiated creeks, mud, dirt, and soft ash soil on the sides of a volcano. Regularly.
We also tried a model A Ford offroad and it proved to be a sturdy vehicle too. Again, low gearing made the difference, it just chugged along at a slow walk and was light enough for the passengers to ocassionally get out a give a push in places. This was in the 50's.

cheers
T.R.

AnswerID: 208751

Reply By: The Explorer - Tuesday, Dec 05, 2006 at 17:46

Tuesday, Dec 05, 2006 at 17:46
This has been discussed many times before (wide/skinny tyres on sand) - some people still think width is defining factor but it is a misconception - the length of the footprint is what matters most not the width. There is of course a minimum threshold width required, but even the skinniest 4wd tyre available exceeds this. Mud is a different story - in general terms tread pattern may be of some significance here (mud aint mud) - there is so much variety in conditions that it is hard to say a tyre of a certain width would be better overall that any other while ignoring other factors.ie I would not recommend a highway terrain narrow tyre in deep soft mud over a wider mud terrain tyre. I notice rally drivers use skinny tyres in snow for the exact reason you mention - they cut down to harder stuff at depth while wider tyres would aqua plane. Done recommend you go 4wding at 250km/hr though.
Cheers
Greg
I sent one final shout after him to stick to the track, to which he replied “All right,” That was the last ever seen of Gibson - E Giles 23 April 1874

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message
Moderator

AnswerID: 208753

Reply By: Crackles - Tuesday, Dec 05, 2006 at 18:12

Tuesday, Dec 05, 2006 at 18:12
A wide tyre may have more surface area than a skinny but it's greater width must be pushed through the soft sand negating much of the flotation advantage it has. A skinny tyre let down is similar to the track on a bulldozer. Narrow width has less frontal resistance but the tread flattten's out length ways (over double the surface area from 35 down to 15psi) giving exellent flotation. It doesn't really matter if they are skinny or fat, let them down to the correct preasure & either work fine. Your mate may have slightly less ground clearance to the diff in which case dragging the rear end is just like leaving the handbrake on or he may just have no idea how to drive in sand ;-)) not keeping his rev's up or backing off when he shouldn't.

I used to subscribe to your theory on mud tyres (in the good ol days) but modern tyre technology has seen a few improvements. You dont see too many skinny tyres on a winch challenge vehicle now do we? A fatty will grab traction on the side of ruts & present far more lugs to get hold on slippery surfaces. Often in mud you don't want to cut through as you can bog down losing momenteum. Tread patterns have improved for fat tyres & no longer "cake up" like they used to. So in mud I disagree, fat tyres are generaly far superior than skinnys.
Cheers Craig.........
HZJ105 Vic 285/75/16 MTR's
AnswerID: 208758

Follow Up By: The Explorer - Tuesday, Dec 05, 2006 at 19:22

Tuesday, Dec 05, 2006 at 19:22
"You dont see too many skinny tyres on a winch challenge vehicle now do we? A fatty will grab traction on the side of ruts & present far more lugs to get hold on slippery surfaces."

So maybe a wider tyre is better in wider ruts (makes sense) ie benefit of extra width is not related to the mud factor but the rut factor. Prefer narrow ruts myself.
Cheers
Greg
I sent one final shout after him to stick to the track, to which he replied “All right,” That was the last ever seen of Gibson - E Giles 23 April 1874

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message
Moderator

0
FollowupID: 468740

Reply By: dirty dirty 4x4 - Tuesday, Dec 05, 2006 at 19:53

Tuesday, Dec 05, 2006 at 19:53
thanks for everyons response it appears i still have a bit to learn about tyres but i think i get the jist of it
AnswerID: 208776

Follow Up By: Kiwi Kia - Tuesday, Dec 05, 2006 at 20:06

Tuesday, Dec 05, 2006 at 20:06
You can argue about tyres for ever & ever. Just like vehicles, there is no one model that does everything you will ever want it to do. Narrow and bald on sand, fat and agressive tread combined with lots of horsepower on mud.

Don't forget that the competition drivers usually use tyres supplied by their sponsors and MAY not actually be the drivers first choice !
0
FollowupID: 468745

Reply By: Doggy Tease - Tuesday, Dec 05, 2006 at 21:04

Tuesday, Dec 05, 2006 at 21:04
Tyres are:

Round,

Black,

Hold lots of air,

Keep your 4by fom becoming a scraper.

Anything else you need to know?
Oh yeah,,,without them,,,,,,generally you ain't goin anywhere.....

meow.

rick.

sorry,,,,,couldnt help myself.
AnswerID: 208806

Reply By: Muzzgit [WA] - Wednesday, Dec 06, 2006 at 00:10

Wednesday, Dec 06, 2006 at 00:10
hiss, scratch. who's
AnswerID: 208852

Follow Up By: Muzzgit [WA] - Wednesday, Dec 06, 2006 at 00:12

Wednesday, Dec 06, 2006 at 00:12
MMMM I don't know what happened here. I was trying to reply to Doggy Tease but it all went to poo.

OH WELL.
0
FollowupID: 468823

Reply By: Doggy Tease - Wednesday, Dec 06, 2006 at 20:02

Wednesday, Dec 06, 2006 at 20:02
well if all went to the tyres,,,,it woulda rolled out the door.....:)

meow.

rick.
AnswerID: 209016

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (9)