Tires: Height or Width?

[Kelly]

I've been watching all these Overlanding shows on YouTube. Most of the rigs seem to be running relatively narrow tires, and they're constantly getting stuck in sand & mud. While taller tires are great for smoothing out the bumps, and getting you over larger rocks, the difference between a 10.50" and a 12.50" is like having a fifth tire on the ground. I know clearance while turning is a consideration. It can't be about tucking inside the fender, because the traditional Overland rigs have terrible articulation. So, why the narrow tires?

 

[Cam_Cam_Tech]

You nailed it, little articulation and clearance space, so they used skinny tires. I also think the idea was that if you happen to blow a tire and your spare, it was a popular size to find in other countries.
Now we can find bigger and wider sizes more commonly available in stock vehicles. So we can use something like the 285/75/16.

I believe in running biggest size you can that your drivetrain will allow reliably. The weak point on most IFS being the cv, so if your cv can take 32-33 and 12.5" wide and go for it.

 

[Steve]

There's also the theory that narrow tires, or "pizza cutters" allow the tire to dig dow to a more solid surface. This works fine in shallow sand mud, or snow where there's something solid underneath, but not so well with deep, soft sand, snow, or mud.

That's why 2WD mail carriers and old VW Beetles had tall, narrow tires. They could go nearly anywhere!

 

[MOAK]

I've also noticed, for some odd reason, the older we get, the narrower our tires become. I used to run 255-85s on my Rubicon. Around here in PA I was the odd vehicle out. Everyone else had big fat wide tires.. Then we went to Moab the 1st time, and low and behold, we found that 255-85s and skinnier, were very popular out west, especially with the 55 and older crowd. I'm now running 285-75s and I wish they were a bit narrower than they are. For me, it is a matter of practicality and dependability. Great big wide tires are very hard on drivetrain efficiency and suspension components. BTW, BFG is a very good choice. They are just about the strongest sidewalled tire out there, and they'll last for 50k miles or more.. good luck..

 

[Kelly]

There's also the theory that narrow tires, or "pizza cutters" allow the tire to dig dow to a more solid surface. This works fine in shallow sand mud, or snow where there's something solid underneath, but not so well with deep, soft sand, snow, or mud.

That's why 2WD mail carriers and old VW Beetles had tall, narrow tires. They could go nearly anywhere!

On pavement, that's absolutely the case. Big tires hydroplane on water and don't dig in to snow to get to the road beneath. But the idea of Overlanding is to stay off the pavement :-)

As for deep snow, ask the guys who do it most...

 

[WJ - Firefly]

There's also the theory that narrow tires, or "pizza cutters" allow the tire to dig dow to a more solid surface. This works fine in shallow sand mud, or snow where there's something solid underneath, but not so well with deep, soft sand, snow, or mud.

That's why 2WD mail carriers and old VW Beetles had tall, narrow tires. They could go nearly anywhere!

Exactly. This is why the front tire on Lear jets is so narrow. It looks like a bicycle tire, but it is charged to 80 PSI and cuts through a rain cover surface to allow the pilot maximum control.

So the problem is surface based. If you are going into really sloppy terrain, then wide helps you to float a little bit. But if the terrain is only sloppy in top, then breaking through an contacting the bottom will probably result in better traction.

Good discussion!

 

[MOAK]

On pavement, that's absolutely the case. Big tires hydroplane on water and don't dig in to snow to get to the road beneath. But the idea of Overlanding is to stay off the pavement :-)

As for deep snow, ask the guys who do it most...
View attachment 9035

You gotta remember those guys at Expo spent 10s of thousands of dollars just for the suspension, bearings and axles to support those monster tires... That is a trip specific rig... If only the rest of us had money to throw at a rig LOL ,,,, actually on snow coverd roads in the lower 48, skinny is best..

 

[Kelly]

Agreed. The focus of this thread was really sand & mud. Although, even a little snow, over dirt, equals mud. Deep snow is another world.

 

[Barton Fink]

.

 

[Kelly]

Some interesting reading about pizza cutters vs wider tires for offroad/overland. Some of this is over my head, but I think it makes sense. I've seen this article come up on other forums re: this particular discussion.

I've got a Jeep Wrangler, so articulation won't be as much a concern once I've upgraded the suspension. I'll probably end up with 33's in either 10" or 11".

I ran 33x10.50s on my rig for years. Then I switched to 33x12.50s. The difference on the road is negligible. The difference in sand and mud is very noticeable. I'm never going back.

 

[Kelly]

You nailed it, little articulation and clearance space, so they used skinny tires. I also think the idea was that if you happen to blow a tire and your spare, it was a popular size to find in other countries.
Now we can find bigger and wider sizes more commonly available in stock vehicles. So we can use something like the 285/75/16.

I believe in running biggest size you can that your drivetrain will allow reliably. The weak point on most IFS being the cv, so if your cv can take 32-33 and 12.5" wide and go for it.

Size of tires available in other countries makes total sense. I hadn't thought of that.

You may have misunderstood my point about articulation. If your suspension has no flex, your tires aren't going to get anywhere near your fenders, so you can go taller/wider. Vehicles with a ton of flex are the ones that have to be careful about having tires so large that they won't fit inside the fenders when you're crossed up.

 

[Comanche]

I'm a believer in tall and skinny. 34 10.5 17 or 255 80 17 work well on and off road .

 

[Cam_Cam_Tech]

Size of tires available in other countries makes total sense. I hadn't thought of that.

You may have misunderstood my point about articulation. If your suspension has no flex, your tires aren't going to get anywhere near your fenders, so you can go taller/wider. Vehicles with a ton of flex are the ones that have to be careful about having tires so large that they won't fit inside the fenders when you're crossed up.

Ya I got what you says sorry if I didn't explain myself better.
I'm not a big fan of too skinny, even aired down contact patch is just not enough.

I guess I come from a perspective of mix between Rubicon runs and baja trips. In both of those worlds as hobby or racing, don't really see a 10.5 tire on the traction wheels.

For us in daily driving and weekend trips somewhere in the 11.5-12.5" wide range regardless of 32-33-34-35" is a good fit. Anything past a 13.5" wide tire under a 39-40" tire is not worth it.

Oh and I should add I have run on Jeep TJ (just sold) 32x11.5 33x10.5, 33x12.5, 35x12.5
Toyota 31x10.5, 285/75.

Have always liked the traction better with the 11.5-12.5 tires on snow, mud, rocks. Life is good at 8-15psi!

 

[mase001]

I think the somewhere in between route is the way to go! I see so many extremes out on the road and off. My rig is essentially stock right now but even if it weren't I plan on running 275/70-17 indefinitely. They seem to be a good all around. Wider is great at some thing, narrow great at others. I try to be a decent at a lot