3 Scientific Experiments to Settle This | Wide vs Narrow Off-Road Tires
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 лип 2023
- Are wide or narrow off-road tires better for 4X4? We compared 315/70R17 vs 255/85R17 pizza cutters (35x12.5 vs 35x10.0) Mickey Thompson Baja Boss A/T. You will see visual and data driven experiments to settle this age old debate.
Please thank @yotaxpedition for making this video possible.
yotaxpedition.com/
Check out @L2SFBC's video on the same topic. • Are wide or narrow tyr...
Link (affiliated) to the 255/85R17 tire:
amzn.to/3DDCTo1
yotaxpedition.com/products/mi...
Link (affiliated) to 315/70R17 KM3:
amzn.to/3Kg09we - Авто та транспорт
Awesome video Kai! Very informational! Glad to be working with you on this!
Thanks again for your generously support! We’ll collaborate on more interesting topics
you guys only support 5th gen 4runners right now? I don't see anything on your website for the other generations.
Thank you Yota Expedition!
Thanks Yota !
Thanks for sponsoring. You guys need to sell some 1st gen Tundra stuff.
Great video. Now we just need someone to spill the deets on which tire manufacturer chickened out when they realized you were an objective scientific reviewer not just another brand influencer. Because I’d much rather support a company that stands behind their product.
Haha I don’t think they have bad products. They are just doing big corporate stuff. I’m not disclosing them and mess with big corporate lawyers.
@@TinkerersAdventure why not just use them in a future test without indicating it's the same tire? that way we get to compare for ourselves.
great vid by the way, keep it up!
@@TinkerersAdventure I get it, from a business perspective, I truly do. And I don’t blame you for not wanting to reveal it.
But at the same time, similar to how more consumer demand for “pizza cutters” leads to more options and sizes of these tires from manufacturers, more consumer demand based on objective performance measures should eventually lead to objectively better performing offerings from manufacturers.
I suspect it was bfg, I have seen similar with another former brand ambassador
@@roberttaylor7451 Nitto has done the same thing to another youtuber who had some issues with multiple sidewall failures.
I'm a pizza cutter guy myself. Your overall fuel mileage will improve and you'll notice a slight difference in the throttle response too. Less rubber=less weight=less rolling resistance. Plain and simple. Given the data you've come up with, the way the pizza cutter contacts the ground compared to the wider tire, it's no wonder why they perform so well in mud, snow and rocks. The contact patch is llonger rather than wider. Giving you that"caterpillar" affect. Lol. That's what gets you through and over obstacles. They sink through the slop and grab hold of the solid bottom. Narrow tires fold over obstacles more easily, giving you more positive traction. Like mud and snow. Wider tires tend to float a bit and slide around. How many wide tires do you see on military trucks? They had it figured out decades ago. Great video!
Nd Henry Ford had it figured out many yrs b 4 th military,hence th model A nd T
@@harrycraft3359 lol. I think in those days it was because wagon wheels were narrow and rubber tires were in their infancy. But I get where you're comin from. Lol.
You see these old videos of model ts going through a foot of mud like nothing with 4 inch wide treads lol
You'll also throw less gravel at pedestrians on your way out of town.
Less rolling resistance 🤔
Are you sure?
The exact same weight is pressing down on the tyres from each corner of the vehicle, no matter how wide they are or not. Therefore, you are actually increasing the pressure per square inch pressing down on the ground, the narrower you go. The only way you lessen rolling resistance is tyre material and vehicle mass.
This is exactly the sort of thing I like to see in proper testing. Fair and unbiased date across the boards. I would be interested to see what the differences are on different kinds of terrain as well, such as mud, ice, snow, gravel, etc, given that (to my knowledge) the tires do act different on various terrains, and seeing pros and cons of each
yep the points you raise about surface conditions is what it's all about, this is where people think they can get away with all weather/all Terrain tyres, but they are a jack of all trades and master of none type of tyre, you can get specific tyres for ice and snow and they would perform much better on those surfaces, than an All Surface Tyre (AST), but put them on a wet asphalt road, and they would not perform well at all. different horses for different courses is really the key when it comes to tyres.
I think the aspect you missed is that the KM3 was well used/aired up and down and flexed many times over thousands of rocks and obstacles. This greatly changes the sidewalls and flex characteristics over the life of the tires vs a new tire like the two Mickey Thompson test subjects🤙🏻
Sir, BINGO. My BFG KO2's are softer after 10K than when new. I can now crawl over areas that were a no-go when they were new. And damn, you beat me to the punch.
Great video with good info but he missed the break-in of the tires.
@@FLHTdriver It would be good to see these experiments again after a few thousand miles.
Also i imagine if they made a skinny KM3 it would be the best performer by far
Also, it appears the Km3 is on a wider rim which may also affect the results.
Krawlers are just a superior tire new or old. I've been running the red labels in 35" then 37" many years and they're the best of the trails and especially in the rocks.
Something big to take in to consideration is terrain you'll be driving on. Soft sand acts much different than hard rock or even snow. My brother had large 35" and very wide KM3s and struggled to get through snow about 8 inches deep. His tires kept floating on top of the snow and causing spots he would just sit and spin tires on. My 33" ko2s were about 2/3 the width and would dig down though the snow and had no problem with getting stuck. In deep soft sand though it is the other way around.
Wide for dirt and mud
Tall and skinny for rock crawling
Air up for road and highway
Air down for off-road
Same for mud, wide floats and slips, narrow cuts the mud
Yup that in snow.
This was my thinking when I lived in Alaska. I had a full-sized Bronco and I wanted to get a taller tire than the 31×10.50s that were on it already. I had heard that 32x11.50 could fit without issues. But I decided to try out 33x10.50s from BFG which were available, but not common. Everyone typically went with 12.50 in the 33' size. But I had always heard that skinny tires were better in snow. Anyway, the 10.50s worked out great! I had no clearance issues. They did a decent enough job in the snow, although I aired them down in the winter, too. They rode nice, and noise wasn't terrible either. And once I had them on, I actually kind of liked the look.
Good information only problem I got is ,you did not take into consideration the width of the rim. Thanks for explaining the difference everybody always thinks wider is better that's farther from the truth. The question their missing is what are you trying to accomplish with this four-wheel drive? what train are you running on?
This is one of the best tire videos I have ever seen. Tires are such a black box. Those of us who play in the mountains (and drive on roads) know that pizza cutters are the way to go but I couldn't tell you why with any specificity. This is the sort of testing that all off road tires should be subjected to otherwise its all just fluff. Great job.
I've always preferred a tall, skinny tire. I never got scientific, I just knew through experience that tall, skinny tires just work better. I really liked the QR 78 and PR 78 Buckshot Mudders. Unfortunately, tire manufacturers don't really have many offerings in tall, skinny sizes. They cater more to the mall crawlers with really wide tires on ridiculously wide rims.
You have more pounds per square inch on the ground with the narrower tire..Traction is derived from ground pressure per square inch not from the number of square inches contacting the ground.
@@wuffa4503 Uhhh. I think you need to re-watch the video. One of the main points was that contact patch does not necessarily correlate with tire width. Also, tires are a long way from a brick on an incline hence my characterization of them as "black boxes." Go as a tire engineer what he doesn't know about tires (and buy him a beer) and he'll talk your ear off. The sheer number of variables makes it really hard and it lends itself to an iterative process. Unfortunately for non-experts, this leaves us scratching our heads and reliant on mostly "Bro Science."
All I can say is my 38.5 x11.5x15 boggers dig.
@@HD46409 the video is flawed bc he stretched the 255 onto an 8” rim giving it the widest possible contact patch, and he pinched the 315 onto the same 8” rim giving it the most narrow possible contact patch. You can even see that in the testing, where the 315 tread is clearly bulging up more in the center because it’s being pinched onto the 8” rim instead of being on a 9.5” rim it was designed for.
When you stretch a rim the bead will come off easier, that’s the tradeoff, otherwise running a wider rim only has benefits.
255 manufacturers recommended rim is 7” wide. 315 manufacturers recommended rim is 9.5” wide. He tested both on 8”, which gives the 255 a big advantage.
Thanks for another great informative video Kai. I am running 255/80/17 on my modified 2005 sequoia and am super happy with them. your data seems to match the great performance I've been getting! really looking forward to your video you mentioned on the relationship between front locker and cv axle breakage. As a machinist I appreciate the technical explanations. Thanks again
Something else that I believe is important to mention is the sand wall or mud wall in front of the tire causing resistance. The thinner the tire the less resistance it needs to overcome. Ive noticed a big difference going skinny on the sand especially with underpowered engines such as my 3fe on my land cruiser. I dont think id ever go back
Great work and thanks for crediting me! Pleased to see your results back mine up; narrow tyres aren't as terrible as people make them out to be!
Thanks for stopping by Robert! Always enjoy your technical content.
i agree and also why would the military use narrow tires if they didn't perform better.
No but you are.
@@TinkerersAdventure Looked up the tires you're comparing, any chance the phenomenon you're observing in this video could actually just be the inherent difference between 3,195 lbs @ 65 psi rated tires and 3,195 lbs @ 80 psi rated tires... maybe tires rated for high load capacities at pressures as low as the former (65 psi) are too stiff, even at very low pressures when put on relatively light vehicles.
@@TinkerersAdventure More to that end, haven’t seen anyone do a deep dive into load inflation tables and how a Tire’s load capacity varies with its psi. Could be particularly useful info for those who are switching to out of spec tires making their door jamb oem recommended psi less than ideal. There’s a tire pressure calculator on the tiresize site to convert oem spec tire psi to that of an out of spec tire on the same vehicle, also gives a decent explanation on the topic.
We really need more UA-camrs like this to dig into the technical details of each product so we can push the manufactures to make more things that's really functional not just playing marketing tricks. I learned new things again today. Thank you Kai for presenting such a good video again!
Too many shill sellouts out there they all are going for the money, Kai is one of the talented exceptions
Which one is more efficient thin or thin tyre or bikes?
Best sponsor plug ever! I usually skip past but you made it informative and relevant. Excellent video
I wish that all reviews could be this comprehensive. Thx for your efforts.
The nerd in me is so happy with how he followed the scientific formula so well. The variables controlled so well and the diagrams to show the growth as the psi drops. I should have expected it based on his major, but many props.
@@scsherman207love your comment. I think it went over most people's heads.
@@Ton0987 I'm no native speaker so I'm not sure if I got it. but I think I do
You forgot the fanclubs, shouting down of opposition, ad homen attacks with optional -ist casting.
@@fireblow6842 So a majority of the "science" in last 30+ year's(probably longer) has financial and political strings attached. That's why scsherman207 said "predetermined outcome". Any "study" done ignores or skews data that interferes with the predetermined conclusion. Most studies are not verified through the process of following the same steps and arriving at the same result. If another team of scientists does the same experiment and arrives at a different conclusion. They are blacklisted from being hired for future studies. That's why studies are almost never checked for accuracies, also first team is only one to be funded. Usually second does it out of curiosity if at all. Hopefully I cleared it up a little. English is not my first language.
TLDR: Scientific process has been corrupted to give favorable data result to benefit the organization that pays science team.
The variables were not controlled well! He needed to get a 9.5” rim for the 315 which is what the manufacturer recommends. You can’t test the narrow tire on the manufacturer recommended rim width and then test the wide tire on that same rim, which is way too narrow for the wider tire.
I was really surprised he overlooked such a basic thing. Both tires should be tested on the rim size that they were designed for.
Look at the results of the KM3, and observe its a different rim. I would bet the reason the KM3 performed better than the MT 315 is due to the KM3 being mounted on a rim wider than 8”, and actually has nothing to do with the tire itself.
I'm almost speechless at how excellent your videos are, the quality of information you are putting out there is peerless. Thank you so much for your hard work and dedication. It is a privilege to be able to learn from this channel.
Great video. I'm surprised you didn't address one of the biggest reasons folks choose pizza cutters: gas mileage. Intuitively, they weigh less and should improve mpg. But by how much? I'd love to know! Been rocking KM3 pizza cutters for 3 years and love them.
Good point. The pizza cutters are way easier on suspensions too. You don't mess with the scrub radius as much with them. ( I run 235/85/16)
Although they weigh less the pizza cutters are less round, at least in theory, because of longer contact patch. Would love to see this comparison!
Also easier on ball joints and steering parts.
Not only do they weigh less, but getting taller/shorter ones can also make a difference due to wheel turning speed and engine speed to maintain it.
I like springing for taller tires on motorcycles for that reason, lower rpm's, longer lasting tires, and extra fuel economy at the cost of a little bit of acceleration power
Yeah would be great to have a full set of both and do a fuel comparison. Another theory I have heard is the wider tyres have more cross sectional area and so more frontal wind resistance. No idea if it is a significant factor or not though.
This video is wonderful. Thank you. Be proud of yourself, this was a huge amount of work for you, well done, very informative and no theatrical nonsense. Never have seen your videos before this and now I will subscribe and watch everything. Well done.
My favorite story about this topic is from when I was a kid on a hunting trip with my father that I will never forget. It was in the mountains of Colorado and everyone seemed to want to go to the same area, but it had just rained and the dirt roads were a mess. Everyone in their big 4x4 trucks got to this one clearing and that was it, no one could go any further, because their tires wouldn’t allow it. Then along comes this antique VW microbus, puttering along with super skinny tires. It drove past all of the 4x4 trucks and just kept on going up the mountain road like it was nothing. You’ve never seen so many dejected 4x4 vehicle owners in your life.
There was a reason for those skinny tires on the military equipment in WW2, and your VW bus story demonstrates it quite well
Same thing with my Subaru and it's skinnier tires here in the Sierras 🤣 so many flabbergasted jeeps, Tacoma's etc.
Nice. I have a very similar story. As a kid in the 80's I had the opportunity to visit and spend the day with the Am. Red Cross while I was a Civil Air Patrol cadet. We jumped in a 4Runner, and I remember the driver telling me as we climbed this slick muddy hill in La, that these trucks can go where other 4x4's can because of the skinny tires. He went on to tell me how he would pass other 4x4s with big tires stuck in areas they needed to get to. He explained how he preferred skinny tires, for their purpose as they are more beneficial. I always thought that was a cool experience and story. I have always enjoyed off-roading and off-road vehicles ever since. Nice to see and hear the engineering and science behind it all.
Different tyres for different terrain. Those skinny tyres are great in mud where you want to sink through to get a bite on the solid surface beneath, but can more easily bog down on dry sand, where the wide ones may float better. (Also very pressure dependent!)
Model T. Tall narrow tires and went anywhere it wanted
Thank you for making this video, and making it so scientific. I run pizza cutters on my truck. I actually love the look. It's like a throwback to the old high boy trucks.
I agree just put 35x10 on Gladiator I love the look of old school look. Looks like grandpa was right, tall skinny gets you through LOL
If it was really scientific he would have tested each tire on the manufacturer recommended rim width. A 315 is meant to be run on a 9.5” rim and he pinched it down onto an 8” rim, which negatively effects contact patch and flex. A 255 is meant to be run on a 7” rim and he stretched it onto the 8” rim, which gives it a better contact patch and better flex BUT when stretching a tire you increase the chance the bead will come off especially when putting a side load on it like doing donuts in rocks.
So yeah, the 255 got tested in absolutely ideal conditions and the 315 got tested in the worst condition possible. Not very scientific at all really, unless the question is specifically “what tire is best on my 8” rims that I refuse to replace”.
Skinnies are for when you want good traction in mud and snow. Wides are for when you want people to think you do.
Hands down, you have the best analysis on UA-cam!! Love your work.
One thing not mentioned is the time saved airing up and down for the trail. It's a very minor consideration and one I wouldn't even think about when picking a tire size but it's one more pro for a narrow tire. As a tire nerd myself, I absolutely loved the information in this video and I really appreciate how much time it takes to gather this data. Thank you, Kai!
Many books have been written about pneumatic tires. I'm confident we still have plenty to learn about tires. Each region has its own terrain, and requires a specific tire. Squirm and contact patch are the issue.
Your air up and air down time is the determined not by what tank or compressor you have. It’s determined by the slowest person in your group 😀
if you are nerd, are you a graduate of STEM?
I have ran Narrow tires on my Jeep and boy did they do better in the rocks then jeeps with wide tires. But when I went to 35s I could no longer find narrow M&S tires. Been looking for years. Thank you for this video.
I’ve noticed exact opposite. Skinny tires were worse on rocks and mud.
Great study. I'm surprised someone out there was even curious about this. I've been off-roading since the 70's and have come to find the narrower tire do better at biting down to good ground in mud or snow. The wider tires have better floatation if you don't have "good ground" within reach and you have lots of horsepower. I like 37" x 11.50s, but few manufacturers make them anymore.
Love the analysis, evaluation and detail that you've gone into - thank you!
Great video, I would also mention that you see a lot more pizza cutters used in Europe and Australia. Another thing that I noticed is that military vehicles tend to use comparable narrower tires as well.
yep, copying military would make more sense as a starting point in general I'd say
@@sinephasehaha in General.
@@AlexM-np1cx what? They also cut corners for cost reasons, too
It would be interesting to know how they stack up comparatively in slick and slippery conditions. Mud/ clay/ snow/ ice sort of thing.
This what I want too see
I agree. All my wide tires were junk in the winter.
It would be great to see the comparison but the answer is already out there. Narrower is better in slippery conditions. You aren't maximizing for contact patch or surface area, you're maximizing for surface pressure. Also, in most circumstances you can go taller the narrower you run and he didn't cover that or a few other topics. Title should have included "Rock Crawling" in it.
Km3s suck in the rain. There’s that.
@royguidry1311 - sipes are generally what make the difference in snow and ice. Run your wide tires through a sipe machine at a tire shop (maybe a big truck tire shop) for the winter, if you can find one.
Otherwise, if you can afford to run a separate set of winter tires, you will be much better off.
Excellent video! The testing and data is very thorough. Much appreciated.
Very interesting video. I remember some of what you found from physics and pavement design in college. We had some problems for asphalt design. These mostly concerned tire pressure effects on asphalt at different loadings.
Up until the 4x4 boom in early 70s, most people I knew with military surplus jeeps up to CJ-5s ran tires like the narrow ones the military used and swore they were better all around than wider tires but especially in mud and general off road. Not much sand here in foothills of NC. When the 4x4 boom hit, almost everyone I knew went to softer, wider tires but bigger, heavier vehicles became the norm also. I've never seen a study like yours. I have a '66 CJ-5 that is parked but I keep thinking of getting her back on the road / off road. You gave me something to think about. Hats off to your tenacity and hard work. Thanks.
I just bought new tires and also chose the narrower tires. I had an overall height limitation but had 3 options for how to get there. I went with the narrowest tire basically for rolling resistance and weight. I'm glad to see I also made the best choice for off-road performance as well. No, I'm not going through all the work you just did to prove it. I'll simply take your word for it! Great video!
Oh really Bill? You went for narrower tires for the rolling resistance and weight? I’m sure you get laid lots.
Worth keeping in mind as well is that load range E is really stiff for a truck that light. I made the switch from E's to C's on my Tacoma and gained way more low-PSI traction. Of course, I had to be a bit more cautious of sharp edges off road, but it was worth the trade off.
Would of been even more interesting seeing differences between E and C.
It would be great to run that experiment between C and E with identical brand new KO2s in 315/70/17 (both C and E are available in that size).
Great break down of measurables on this. Would love to see a practical comparison to verify the data- crawl on the same trail using each set and see if you can feel the difference.
Awesome work, the flex was the part I never would have thought of. I would think the narrower would work better as the contact patch would actually be longer . The same principle works for snow tires, longer narrower can slice through snow and mud easier than wide an short. The WRC use really narrow studded tires for the snow rallies for this purpose.
They're mostly driving on packed snow/ice and maybe light dustings. That doesn't work in deep powder. You need more flotation in snow deeper than your bumper or you'll just get Gandolf'ed.
I have to say that I am very pleased with your approach to gathering data. I'm a biologist and environmental scientist. I've always said that I wish more people would think of things in a scientific way. Regardless of how I feel about something, the data dictates to me the truth and I must follow the truth no matter what I feel. Your extensive work and experimentation here has proven just that. This was an awesome video. Thank you again for your diligence and scientific process to answering a common question many of us have had.
Relax guy
He tested both tires on an 8” rim. 255 manufacturer recommends a 7” rim, 315 recommends a 9.5” rim.
By stretching the 255 onto an 8” rim he increased contact patch at the cost of the bead breaking easier.
By pinching the 315 onto the same 8” rim he reduced the contact patch (the tread will bulge up in the middle more because the carcass is being pinched in), reduced flex on the single rock test.
This is why data isn’t always the answer - if you don’t have a very firm gasp of exactly what the testing methodology is and whether or not it’s flawed, then you can’t analyze if the data is even useful and you can be convinced of something that isn’t even true - all because you “trust science” but don’t actually understand how to evaluate the science yourself.
@@TheWallsocket 100% agree. That's why its should be considered real-ish world data for 1 approach. Much like the bogus MPG reading on vehicles. Many people don't understand that rating either and how that gets measured and applied......and how mostly it will not be the same for them. The data is TRUE for the specific conditions the tests were conducted in. Not applicable across the board.
As a fellow Mech E and Toyota enthusiast, I sincerely enjoy the technicality in these videos and love to see someone choose a different tactic about product exploration; AKA using hard data to prove the best instead of recommendations based on subjective feel. I really appreciate the hard work in these videos making them as controlled as possible! Thank you!
Your socalled pizza cutter is also a wide tyre. True pizza cutters were on the T model Fords, and they went everywhere before there were roads.
ICE and MUD=WIDE. Snow=Taller and narrow.
Works with posi two wheel RWD and AWD.
Really works great with 'Get out and lock the hub' types with front and rear posi.
More ground clearance. More better. As long as it is from tire diameter.
Oh and use just enough pressure to keep the tire from spinning inside the wheel.
But nothing round beats a track. Some track vehicles made for mud, have double wide tracks.
@@warrenpuckett4203 Bottomless mud=wide. Mud on top of a base or in rocky soil (mountain terrain)=narrow to dig to traction. Ice=narrow for greater psi ground contact. Snow- wide to float on top of deep snow, narrow to cut down to traction (paved/gravel surfaces). Sand=wide to float. And from experience: if you're gonna be seriously off camber with skinnies, don't air down as much...sidewall folds over and slides downhill with minimal contact patch...run enough psi
{ '89 XJ Cherokee running 34/9.50 15 TSLs on custom 5.5" wide beadlock wheels most terrain, 38/12.50 15 TSLs (hot knifed & siped) on 10" wheels @ 2-3 psi for deep snow wheelin'.}
Glad I found this channel. Extremely informative, loved the breakdown of information!
Incredible video! Thank you for putting this together 🙂
Another really interesting point that I think you made, is how the MT tires performs its job of maximizing traction much better than the AT tire, particularly as you air it down. Everything is a compromise, as you mention, but if you're up for it, I think this deserves a follow up video, doing the same thing but with similar size and load range tires across 2 or 3 brands, but comparing their best AT and MT tires and the differences between them (and maybe even throw in a few RT tires too).
That be a FULL YEAR OF WORK :D
I actually really appreciate the unbiased and science-backed facts that show the skinnier tyre to be superior. All these years I've stood by the concept of a wider tyre having more ground coverage, but this shows that to be untrue, not only is it literally physically proven - it also makes so much sense now that I've seen it explained. Excellent work mate. I know this would've taken a while and I appreciate the extra effort you go to using nitrogen instead of standard compressed air. Would've taken ages to make this!
Before you take off and base decisions and opinions on that info, just remember that it's true for this particular tire only. Some tires will be the exact opposite, for some it won't matter, and adding to that, it may be the opposite once a tire has seen some use. It's better to research the performance of a particular tire than applying generalizations to all of them, regardless of what a test may show. Also, that was CO2, not nitrogen he was using.
The tire pressure on the wider tire has to be adjusted as it has more air volume and doesn’t require the psi that the skinny tire does. You cannot compare both tires with the same pressure.
I'm just curious - why did you ever think that that ground coverage would be affected by tire width? It's basic physics. The car's weight applies applies a certain force through the tires due to gravity. Divide by 4 to get the force exerted on each tire. This force therefore must be constant unless the vehicle's weight changes. Force = pressure X area. So unless you're putting a different PSI into different width tires, the the area must be the same.
No fantasy here...the work is outstanding and thorough.....I'm very impressed
its not controlled for the weight of the vehicle so this only applies if your vehicle has the same weight on the tire, my truck is way heavier than an FJ for example so the tire flex on 315s is much greater at higher PSI. One persons wide tire is another persons skinny.
Fascinating! A lot of this goes contrary to what you would do with sports car or mountain bike tires. In both cases, going wider (and fitting wider rims) allows you to drop tire pressures, which yields more grip. The exception with MTB and cyclocross tires is that in the mud you often need a skinny tire to cut down through the mud to stickier ground. Well done.
Great video! So refreshing to see true controlled experiments and useful - even surprising data! I've moved to 255/85R17 pizza cutters on my lifted 2017 Colorado ZR2 and I LOVE them! Not only are they great rock-crawlers down in Moab, but they are also very smooth and directional on the highway and excellent on the snowy roads we get here in the mountains of Idaho. The narrower tire is also much easier to fit on an IFS vehicle like mine - really the only practical way I could have the ground clearance advantages of a tall 35" tire and not rub while steering under full articulation.
Love this. I was stranded in Utah years ago (not off-roading) and the tow truck driver told me his off-road group only uses tall/skinny tires to go back into rutted trails for fishing.
Getting stranded in Utah beats a bad day at work in CA any day of the week.
@@MPjustamanyou must be in the wromg part of california.
@@joelmora2826you've obviously never been to Utah
True, a day on the Dusy, Rubicon, Fordyce, slick rock. ...does not disappoint. Broke my yoke on my t case this summer on the Rubicon so I can speak with experience. 😅
Would love to see you run this series of tests on the BFG KO2.
BFG at have always sucked.
Given that it's a tire that is good at everything but the best at nothing, I'm not sure a test like this will be flattering. I buy them because they're quite, smooth, and dependable.
good in deep snow. horrible on ice. they r good on snow because the tread pattern traps the snow into it. and snow on snow traction is really good. bad on ice because the tread wile not as hard as most at tires it is still alot harder than winter tires. they pretty much turn into plastic when its cold
@@Menofthemountain they suck on wet tar too. Horrible tyres
I had the KO2 and they are terrible in the rain. I mean extremely slippery, zero traction.
very informative video. I just changed the tires on my f250 from a 295-70 R18 to a 285-75 R18 the new tire is a bit narrower and slightly taller but I noticed a drastic difference in the ride and steering. the new tires have a lighter steering feel and a smoother ride. the new tires are also a few pounds lighter than the old set. I have also noticed a slight increase in fuel mileage. I do still prefer the look of the wider tire but the narrow tire is turning out to be the better choice for many reasons
Man, thanks for doing all that work man. That looked brutal. Awesome information.
Great video. As an engineer, I appreciate the time taken to collect real world data. I wasn't too surprised to see that the narrower tires flexed more, particularly at higher pressures. I'm not a rock crawler. I want the best off road performance with tires that are good on the street without airing down. Narrower tires produce better fuel economy and a bit less noise on the road while flexing more to conform to off road obstacles.
As an engineer did you notice the 255 was tested on the widest allowable rim which stretches the contact patch to the max, and the 315 was tested on the narrowest allowable rim which pinches the contact patch to the minimum?
The 255 was tested in ideal conditions (8” rim) and the 315 was tested in the worst possible conditions (8” rim). Unless the question is specifically “what tire is best for my 8” rims I refuse to replace” I find this test to be very biased. Tires should be tested on the manufacturer’s recommended rim size.
@@TheWallsocket - I agree that the tires should be tested on the manufacturer's recommended rim width, but I doubt it'll make a huge difference in the results. I think the issue of contact patch length being relatively longer on thinner tires will still apply, allowing narrower tires to caterpillar over obstacles and provide better traction in the direction of travel, useful for acceleration or braking. I'm sure that those with religious beliefs in big ol' fat tires will continue to find any excuse to disqualify the real world results from this test. Data never proves anything to those with beliefs founded in faith. By definition, faith doesn't require proof, therefore proof is meaningless to those with faith based beliefs.
@@Liberty4Ever these aren’t “real world results”, these are data points collected using flawed methodology. “Real world results” would be time trials, obstacle course results etc, not measuring static values.
And yes, the LENGTH of the contact patch would obviously not change with the correct wheel width, but the WIDTH of the contact patch would change.
Considering the entire conclusion of this test is based off measuring TOTAL contact patch area, WIDTH is equally important as LENGTH, but the flawed methodology used here negated any difference in WIDTH by using the wrong wheels.
When you base your conclusion on one data point - contact patch size on pavement while the car is not moving (because in a turn the camber of the wheel changes and therefore the contact patch as well) - and you don’t even collect that data properly, you end up with a “test” that gives you no actual useful data at all.
Fwiw I don’t have some belief that wide tires are better - in my experience narrow tires are more versatile and do better in rain snow etc, and the only advantage wide tires have is on sand loose gravel etc. Ironically enough I’m the one that trusts “real world results”, but this video does not constitute that.
That doesn’t change the fact that this test was so flawed that the data is basically worthless.
@@Liberty4Ever here’s another comment that explains it better, and why this isn’t “real world proof” like you think it is
“He tested both tires on an 8” rim. 255 manufacturer recommends a 7” rim, 315 recommends a 9.5” rim.
By stretching the 255 onto an 8” rim he increased contact patch at the cost of the bead breaking easier.
By pinching the 315 onto the same 8” rim he reduced the contact patch (the tread will bulge up in the middle more because the carcass is being pinched in), reduced flex on the single rock test.
This is why data isn’t always the answer - if you don’t have a very firm gasp of exactly what the testing methodology is and whether or not it’s flawed, then you can’t analyze if the data is even useful and you can be convinced of something that isn’t even true - all because you “trust science” but don’t actually understand how to evaluate the science yourself.”
@@TheWallsocket - One of my engineering principles is, one good test is better than 8,367 expert opinions. Do you have a link to the data from your testing? I'd love to see it.
Your most popular video in less than 4 days. Definitely need some more real world testing for tires. It would be great to see a practical test on an off road training course too.
Oh really Ian? Would that be great? He’ll get right on that just for you.
You want to crawl back into your hole bud
Dang bro your Snark Guage is in the red
Thank you for doing this, THIS is what people need to see. Clip it up, Cut it up and share it all over social in 30 seconds!
This is the most scientific tire review i've watched. Kudos to your effort! Very insightful! 🎉
Amazing work! Just solidified many of my reasons I went with 35x11.5x17’s instead of 35x12.5x17’s! In the majority of situations, the “pizza cutter” is the best choice!
I'm also running 35x11.5x17s on my JLU. Hoping to go up to 37x11.5x17 in a couple years (Nitto makes their Recon Grapplers in this size). Just need a few more mods before that happens tho. 😅
Wider is better
@@2asianguys667 that’s what she said! 🤣
I'm so glad you're doing videos like this that actually examine, not simply "challenge" the common ideas. I can't help but wonder about Pizza cutter BFGs compared to the thiccbois.
Agreed on the 255 km3 setup being bonkers good
Brilliant review and data! Thank you! I’ve been wanting 35 x10s in Australia for my 79 dual cab, now I’ll chase harder!
What a great piece of work.
Thank you!
Excellent experiments and video!!! Wow, I am about to reveal my age. Back in the early 70's, Dick Cepek, Mickey Thompson and a few others decided they wanted and needed a wider tire to run in the desert sands due to their off-road racing like Baja. Hence, the wide tire was born. How do I know this? I was working in the off-road racing industry at that time. Now, with that being said, what tire do I prefer? Tall and narrow unless I am in the dunes, yes, even in the mud, I want taller and narrower! BTW, there is a reason for BEAD LOCKS and TALL SIDEWALLS!
Thanks! That make sense! The sand is soft so the ground itself also deforms, creating a larger contact patch. The contact patch I measured was on rigid surface so it cannot apply to sand.
That's ironic considering that Dick Cepek and Mickey Thompson both make pizza cutters in desirable sizes now. I ran Dick Cepeks in 255/85R16 for years before going to 35s.
@@brianescamilla Yep! They KNOW the truth!
@@TinkerersAdventure I have some experience with sand, having driven across the Sahara from Egypt to Morocco. Not being native to the dunes, we had locals to guide us, and they all ran narrow, nearly bald tires while we foreigners had sponsored MTs. What we learned from them was to air down to 14psi for normal driving, and down to 7psi when the ground became softer than usual. It worked.
@@PaulSi I drive recreationally in the UAE. Some locals run those tall (usually 34x12) bald sand tires. Some use 315/70 r17. Almost all of them use y61 swb platforms. The guys with 315s definitely go harder and faster. Which one to use? Personal preference, until Kai does a video using soft sand as the ground!
I put some pizza cutter KM3's (255/85/16) on my 3rd gen this spring. And one place I expected them to not do as well was in deep loose dry sand. But a few weeks ago in Moab I went through multiple deep loose sand obstacles (including a fairly steep climb and a big bowl) and they had no issues at all. Seemed better than the 285/75/16 KO2's I had on it prior.
Thank you so much for doing this. After 12 years of driving a FWD Ford Focus places it has no business going, I'm finally getting my first 4WD (Bronco), and I have been trying to figure out the tire question.
Fantastic objective breakdown my guy. I appreciate the time you put into this.
Hi! Nice job man. It meets the choices we made in Djibouti in the 1990's, by pragmatism : thinner tires (we were operating in semi-desert area with fast tracks or very damaged asphalt, sand, rocks, and many mixed areas). We experienced widers had way too fast wear compared to thinners, much more puncture in rocks, no better grip on all zones, lesser grip in turns and flubier stearing on fast tracks, a bit more radius of turn on every terrain.
Later back in my country, an off-road preparator explained us it was right, as thinner tires have more caterpillar effect (you nailed it in your video!) which is essential on these terrains (and even more when sand becomes softer and softer !), and thinner tires have less friction on the flanks in rocky zones. Moreover, we greatly appreciated the gain of weight (again, you nailed it :) ) for payload and for lifting wheels to or from the roof by hand when changing flat tire in the desert, and the fact that it has always been easier to supply thinner tires in Africa for a same brand and model.
Thanks for sharing your findings and being so thorough in your research! I am still loving my 255/85R17 Baja Boss AT tires 😁 and I’m sure you’ll love yours! I never knew just how much better they would be compared to a wider tire, but this video reaffirms my love for this size! And thanks for the mini feature 😉
Thanks for your work put into your videos man. Very good info and production.
I'll probably never go off-road [broke af], but I really enjoyed watching this video and the information given, complete with visuals. Great Video!
Thank you for this awesome break down and analysis of the tires and their respective performance in terms of tread area and grip on solid objects. I'd find it interesting if you could find a way to do analysis on their performance in sand and mud. Respectively based on useable tread area in contact with the drive medium and floatation to see if you get any noticeable drive difference as well as floatation difference that could potentially help prevent burying axles, I suspect yet again the results may be surprising. Also keep up the good work!
While I am not a Toyota guy, but I want to say thank you for changing my mind about tires on my RAM 1500 build. I was contemplating 275/65/20 vs 295/60/20's. I love the thick tire look also, but my truck is a daily driver like most. This video helped me realize the 275/65/20 is going to be the more practical tire for my all around needs. I will get increased height, should get greater contact area when aired down, reduced rolling resistance and save some excess rotational mass.EXCELLENT video @Tinkerer'sAdventure !
And maybe even a more comfy ride if it flexes better. Win , Win , Win
Wide... thick is not any tire specification.
@@Look_What_I_Did no, but thicc is universally recognized in the pneumatic tire industry
@@Skinflaps_Meatslapper Nope.
@@Look_What_I_Did You're just a pitcher of sweetened water what would you know
Pretty good experiment. I think you're used tires have more flex from repeated deformation, in other words they are "broken in". One variable that wasn't considered in this experiment was different types of terrain/surface that the tire is riding on. To me this experiment is applicable to concrete or rock only that is uniformly distributed across the tires surface. If you are driving on sand, mud, or even soft topsoil, I would hypothesize that the contact area of the wide tire will be significantly larger than that of the skinny tire as the ground itself will deform around the tire. Also vehicle weight comes into the equation. Your 3000-4000 lbs toyota and my 8500 lbs diesel will cause a much different flex in the same tires. Enjoyed the experiment and video, thanks for sharing.
possibly but like he said the skinner tire would have a longer contact area, as opposed to a wider... and in soft terrain id prefer a longer contact area still.
didn't even think about vehicle weight that's a good point
Do u troll many OFF-ROAD videos while ....lol- useing an 8500lb diesel to 4 wheel?
@@wlh3640 To be fair, it was never mentioned in the title that it was off-roading. I came looking for info on snow driving for example, and stayed because this stuff interests me.
Thank you. Outstanding. 100% subscribed
Love the thoroughness of your videos. I actually went with KM3's for the linear flex feature. I was originally set at getting 35's but opted for the 285/75/17 for weight purposes
This channel is so very underrated. Thank you for all you do, these experiments and the way you explain it are fantastic. I look forward to every video and wish your channel all the success!
This level of effort to uncover the unrealized in trail performance is a rare thing. Keep it up. Well done.
Excellent info , thank you. I am interested in the rolling resistance of these types of tires and how it affects gas mileage. My experience has shown me that a wider tire will give better floatation on soft surfaces but does not work as well as a narrower tire on slick hard surfaces. The downward force on the contact patch is a very important factor. Function over form gets the job done.
This is a VERY cool experiment, and major kudos to you for doing all this work! A lot of this had to do with rocks and other obstacles... I wonder how the differences would show in mud handling... I was always so surprised by the really narrow tires used in military vehicles (such as US Willis Jeep and Mutt, or the Soviet UAZ) - the vehicles designed to basically follow tanks and other tracked vehicles through messed up terrain....
I’m in Florida. All we have is mud. I stick with skinnier because they tend to clean better than the wider tires. I’m in a v6 jeep though. An 8 cylinder probably has enough power for the wider tires to clean on equivalence.
Take a look at Russian and surrounding areas that do truck trials. Alot of mud and swamp. They use thin tires. Jungle trekker tires a go to are crazy looking tires
Just anecdotal evidence here. My father and I spent many years buying, restoring and reselling military (United States) wheeled vehicles. Unless one was in very "soupy" mud, the narrow tires did extremely well off-road. We restored "GP", 3/4-ton trucks, 1 1/4-ton trucks, 2 1/2 trucks and the occasional 5-ton truck. As long as the axle lockers were working properly, all of them were incredibly capable vehicles, if a bit on the utilitarian side. The only modification we made was to cut the military tires to have a cross groove between the wicking grooves.
@@mattbrown5511you would actually cut the tires?
@@cwr8618 The tread area, not the belts or side wall. Common sense prevails.
What’s crazy is I have always gone with this train of thought looking at it analytically… but till now have never seen anyone break it down in a well detailed data laden scientific explanation. Well done! Subscribing for future videos and watching your other ones as well. Thanks for the time and work put in 👍🏾
I'm not sure why this is unexpected. On a flat surface the area in contact is always going to be the same for a given tire pressure. Constant load decided by same psi always gives the same area.
Excellent vid Kai. I dream of this kind of data, and you produced it 🤙 Thank you.
Greatly informative video. I have a three year old Tacoma Sport. Been thinking about different wheels and tires for some light overlanding when I get time. Wasn’t crazy about rushing out and just buying a fat set of off road tires. I’d realized over the years that narrower tires tended to work pretty well in the real world for a lot of years based on experience with military vehicles.
Great video, I've always liked the more narrow tyres better for the various reasons, weight, easier fitting, gas mileage, etc, but they have always been a real chore to find. Like you said, the more people buy them the more choices we will start to see.
I've been looking for a decent AT in 33x9.5 16 or 17 and there's nothing. Closest I've found is the Toyo Open Country in 255/80R17. I'd really like some more choices in reasonable tire sizes.
I am running a Kenda Klever 601 35x10.5r17 on my 2012 Nissan Pathfinder. They are awesome!
There’s the Cooper ST Maxx available in 255/85R16 but they’re quite heavy
Other good options in the 255/80R17 (33 x 10) are the Falken Wildpeak AT3W and the Nitto Recon Grappler AT.
@@ianparsons8894 255 is not 33", .....305 is
New sub, thanks for the content. I remember my grandfather starting to teach me to drive 4X4 off-road when I was about 5 years old. His belief was much as your result, except that one of his rigs had wide tires and that was specifically for driving on soft beach sand. It would be interesting to see the science of that dynamic.
This is your first video I watch and I'm suscribed, keep up the good job!
Great video and explains what we all new in the 70s and 80s with landrovers and very skinny tyres they used to go anywhere until they broke something of course!
Well done. I’m running Nitto Terra Grapplers 265/70/R17 on my 2013 FJ and I absolutely love them. I’ve even 4 wheeled with them pulling a travel trailer through a rugged ATV trail. Mud, large rocks and uneven terrain. They never skipped a beat!
Props on the time and dedication it took to produce this quality video. I came to the same conclusion on my Tacoma tires, through trial and “testing.” Im very impressed with the thoroughness of this experiment you documented.
Dude. Awesome video. Thnx for all your hard work
The amount of variables is large, tire construction, tread pattern, rubber compound, vehicle weight (contact pressure), what surface you're driving on, etc. A small scratch on a very large surface but very well done, you made a believer out of me as far as running narrow tires on rocks. Keep up the good work.
Wish you would have also included different load rating (lower for the MT) tires to see how that would have impacted the results. Should have a big result since you are focusing on tire flex at different pressures. A lower side wall stiffness would be interesting to see how it compares to the E.
No need, you'd get redundant results. The trend of how the tire flexes stays the same with only the magnitude of how much it flexes changing.
@@aidanduncan5086 Agree, but lots of us have to choose between C and E and I'd like to know how much worse my flex is with E instead of C.
Very true. The 46in military tires I had on my toyota looked pretty normal at 0 psi. (Load range G if I remember right?) Great if you get a flat, not great for tread flex. 🤣
@@Brandon_Makes_Stufffalse, its great for flex, just not the appropriate weight of vehicle.
Oh you do, do you? You wish he included more information? Tell us more about how your glass is half empty. We would all love to hear it 👀🤌🏻🙄
I'm going to download your video and preserve it on various methods because your work here is definitely a piece of art and science, the effort and courage to face common myths is admirable, your work deserve the ultimate respect, thank you!
Jesus Christ, get off the internet dude
Most I knew, some I didn't.
Thank you for your hard work.
That was a very time-consuming test to do. Very good video.
This is such great content. The effort and analysis sets this miles apart from other creators.
I love that you're pairing your love for science and love for Toyota Off-roading into a channel. Keep it up.
Almost like a 4x4 Mythbusters!
Thanks for doing this. Great testing. One thing that I think is also important to measure would be the contact patch measurement at speed (say in mid speed cornering where handling really matters, especially in offroad situations where there are top heavy vehicles. It would be interesting to see the side pressure bias and how the sidewall of the tires with wider contact patch would fare against the narrower tires, and the lower ability for them to flex during high side weight bias at speed... This is an important metric that should be taken into account. Thanks for posting this!
I am developing a racing sim and this video came handy to understand better about tire contact patch under different tire pressure scenario. Big like!
i was looking for pizza cutters and i settled on these tires because they encompassed that slim/tall look. Glad you guys picked the same one!
Thank you for being the voice of reason. Being on 16s I love 255/85/16s over 285/75/16s. I’ve contacted several manufacturers to see if they’d eventually release pizza cutters, with no luck. Fortunately a handful of decent MT tires exist in that size. It would be nice to have more options though, especially in AT design
I’ve exactly the same opinion, and request. I run 255/85 R16 Toyo MT, but whould like to have an option in AT ou hydrid Tire. No luck in Europe to get tire options on this size 👎
Great video! Interesting to see different tires have different characteristics, kind of curious about how they perform differently in mud and heavy snow.
Fascinating results. Given your results, the pizza cutters look pretty ideal for rock crawling due to the deforming characteristics but I am curious how this translates to situations wear floatation/even weight distribution is more ideal. For example, on sand.
Or deep snow.
@@williamevans6522 mud too right?
Wide on sand...that is a fact
Man I loved this vid! Great info, well explained too! Thanks, do more!
Not being ready for the other suspension and body mods needed for 35's I was already in love with the KM3 255/85r16. It feels like you have confirmed it is not a bad decision on my part, though I await your video on why you chose MT vs BFG. I definitely like your content style.
I was told by most of my experienced elders its about how much mud or snow the tire has to push away from the trail. Wider tires take more power to go through mud n snow than thinner tread, maybe you can try a test on this. Very informative video and I always choose thinner too- (higher the tire the better clearance) was the other bit of knowledge i was told too.
Thank you for putting some real research into this and explaining your result. Very interesting.
This is a fantastic video and good on you for standing your ground and values.
Great video! I switched to 255/85R16s on my land cruiser a few years ago. Great decision. I wish BFG would make their AT in that size.
Really good job doing a objective data-driven presentation and leaving subjective comparisons out. I have been involved with Jeeps my entire life and for 50-years been a rock crawler and desert racer. Also, I’m a PhD engineer and have spent my 50-year career working in engineering laboratories and teaching at universities. I’m always happy when someone like you puts their engineering knowledge, skills, and abilities to use making a presentation that conveys salient results to the public in an easily understandable manner. If you are in Southern California I have some BFG KR2 37x12.50Rx17 race tires if you would like to compare them with your BFG KM3. Keep up the good work! I’m subscribing.😎😎🏁☮️
Great video. Thanks for all the hard work.
Amazing Vid! I have been running the trailboss's for over a year and love them, would love to see a vid on snow performance! Tha ks for sharing all the hard work!