I was thinking of this exact setup also.

 

Thats what I run without spacers and have no problems.

 

Go with a taller rim such as 17, 18, or even 20". yet keep the width at 8.5 or no wider than 9.5.

 

[QUOTE=TEEJ;252143]Interco's LTB comes in 16 and 17" versions of the 34x10.5 size, and is a very tough, aggressive tire.




I have had this tire before on my xj and the tread life was awful. Dont know how many miles I put on them but were gone in about a year,

 

[QUOTE=jeepin08;408421]Yeah - That's why I run AT ko's as DD's....I have about 80k miles on the set mounted right now.

If I got ANY MT, it would NOT be for DD Duty....

My goal is to use the spare rims I've been accumulating, and mount a set of aggressive tires, such as the LTB's, that would wear out too quickly and generally suck ON road....for strictly OFFROAD use.

Frankly, My AT ko's have gotten me through some stuff that people in MT's could not. (Those stuations do NOT include deep gumbo mud...)



ALL of the tread / tire choices have advantages/disadvantages.

Its like saying "What's the best gun?"

Well, are you fighting off a Mountain Lion that just jumped from a tree, stopping a charging water buffalo, picking off the driver of an enemy convoy from a mile away, at 45 mph, plinking, hunting geese, etc.

Ain't no one best answer.

As for a taller tire....its gives a longer contact patch...which is best on low friction surfaces, such as slick ice or wet rocks, etc....think long tank tread type contact patch. Taller tires swing through a wider arc on turns, and, when compressed on a one side drooped/other stuffed scenario, etc....the tires hit more things inboard.

A wider tire gives lateral stability....and flotation, more traction surface available to interact with your substrate, be it rock, mud, road, etc. They do not swing in a wider arc, but, they DO protrude more, and therefore end up ALSO hitting more inboard components analogous to a taller tire, except that they do NOT hit more from the wider arc scenario....unless of course ALSO part of a taller tire, etc.

As for the best COMBINATION of tall/fat....the best answer is almost always the tallest, fattest tire that FITS....and allows turns tight enough to work on the trails you run.

That's ONE of the reasons a lot of people hit the point of diminishing return around 12.5" of section width....for rigs of our weight, and wheel well size, it gets the job done.

Off road Examples - A 35x12.5 will out perform a 33x12.5, which will out perform a 33x10.5, but a 35x10.5 might out perform a 33x12.5 on some situations where flotation/bogging is les of an issue, and length of contact patch compensates for width of contact patch.

Conversely, in other situations, the width of the contact patch compensates for the length of the contact patch, and so forth.

In situations where you need ground clearance for the diffs/axles...ONLY a taller tire helps.

In situations where you are running on hard packed ground, like dirt roads, even temporary spares work...if these dirt roads are heavily rutted, then high centering can be ameliorated with a taller tire, but a wider tire will only help if its wider than most of the rut width, etc.

This is one reason "Expedition" rigs go this route some times...they are primarily on dirt roads that are heavily rutted, and count on their winches, sand ladders, , etc, to keep them moving when the conditions change, and the dirt road becomes a muddy, sandy, or snowy road, etc.

A lot of Rovers, etc, just do not have room in the wells, especially the older rigs made when a fat tire was 7-8", etc.....back in the day, they just could NOT build fatter tires, the technology was not there yet.

Same for low profile tires...in the 70's, a 70 series tire was a serious tire.....now a days, 60's and 65 series tires are standard equipment, and you can buy 35's, etc.

As tire technology improves, so does the available options.

For example...a post above somewhere showed a chart that had a skinny tire squishing its tread into a series of grooves in the road, and a fat tire's tread riding the crests of those grooves....which, for a modern tire, is no longer the case....the ability to conform to the terrain is carcass construction dependent, not width dependent....

IE: Take the chart pic with the skinny tire's tread going into each groove, and add a filled groove or two to the sides as well...and that's more like reality.



If you look at the tires of competition rigs, off road, or racing, you'll see what THEIR engineers tested, and found to be the bset compromise between height and width.

Generally, they are running fat tires.

If running on hard ice pack, they are running studs that look like dinosaur teeth on skinner tires, so that each dagger has enough contact pressure to dig in.

If running on sand, the tires look like big balloons.

If running in mud, the tires look like a river steam boat's paddle wheels.

If racing on a dry track, they have slicks, maximum rubber n the road, no tread blocks to squirm at high speed, etc.

If that track is wet, they substitute tires with a rain tread...sipes, and channels to pump the water out from under the tread blocks, etc.

If running on rocks, they are typically treads with tread blocks designed to grab edges and pull them over...and depending upon the weight of the rig, at least 12.5" wide, but sometimes a lot wider, etc.

The lighter the rig, the less it needs to propel it...so, the point of diminishing return is reached at different points.

Some other factors make a huge difference independent of the tire, like the PSI you choose for the terrain.

MOST people I know run TOO LOW for rocks for example. (Not ALL, - but most...)

I've seen street tires, not aired down, walk up wet rocks where 3 psi Boggers are slipping.

When its wet, more psi helps the kerfs and sipes work, and helps get the water out from under the tread blocks, etc.

So - its not ALL about the tires....they are tools...and, you pick the tool that works best for the job YOU are doing.

 

Teej, I agree with you on many things, but Landys have had skinny tyres for a long time, till lately, when they went for looks. American off roaders have lotso big tyres, and heavy power to push 'em. British off roaders, had skinny tyres, great 4 low boxes, and small four cylinder, five cylinder/BMW diesel, and if you went out on a limb, a Buick V8 , later in the 110's/Defenders. A bush vehicle in Africa runs around on skinny Dunlop Super all grips, or Continentals lately. A Land rover for the Namib Desert was given fatter tyres by the owners for flotation.

Land rover stayed with Cookie cutter tyres long after wide tyres were available.

One African's point of view....for what it is worth

Cheers

Paul

 

Well, sure...it was that romantic tradition...I was talking about how it got started, the "Classic Look", etc....and, just as you pointed out, the people actually off roading them, if they needed to, ran fatter tires.

I do not disagree with you at all...you are correct about them staying with the "Look".

Hell, most rig Marques stay with their "Look"....

Its not like Jeep never gained the technology to hide the bolt heads that show on the outside of the rigs....its there for the "Look".....etc.

Same with laddeers up to the roof and big racks, tires on the hood blocking your forward vission, etc...its part of the charm....and that's part of the traditions that people expect.

Hell, when Jeep abandoned round headlights for the YJ, you'd think the world would end the way "traditionalists" reacted to the new headlight shape.....

....So, Land Rover, Jaguar, and Jeep, etc....companies with traditions, "A Look", etc....have to stick with it.

The tests have been run, there's really no debate among those who do this for a living, or at least understand what they ARE doing, etc...If you buy a Pizza Cutter equipped Rover that has the "Traditional Look" on the lot....and have to drive over sand....you either get proper British Sand Ladders to proudly mount along that giant roof rack, and lay them down to drive over when you get stuck....or, you just do as your African dessert example did, and replace the pizza cutters with fatter tires for flotation....and save those quaint British Sand Ladders for decorating your Rover Dealership Show Room for "Traditional Ambiance" etc.




BTW - as far as shade of meaning....

"Pizza Cutter" tires are skinny like a Pizza cutting wheel...they are round thin blades that roll, cutting the pizza.

"Cookie Cutters" are not wheels, they are typically strips of metal shaped like an item you wish to stamp into the cookie dough...as you press them down into the dough, and it cuts the dough in the shape of the object, like a Christmas Tree, a Ginger Bread Man, etc....they do not roll.

The expression "Cookie Cutter" is really meant more to imply that they're all the same....like cookies all stamped with the same cookie cutter, etc., all look the same, etc.

So - really, not that a skinny tire would REALLY be skinny enough to cut through pizza dough in any useful way....the expression is used to merely refer to how skinny the tires were....but, cookie cutter is pretty much referring to an item's lack of uniqueness, rather than its skinniness.

I only point this out, as, being from Africa, perhaps the vernacular is different...not to be a PITA. (Not supposed to be a put down....more of a cultural reference/observation).

I guy from Ghana told me my Xterra looked just like the way they modify the bush trucks where he's from....and I've had similar conversations with other people from other parts of the world, and they also modify for THEIR terrain in much the same way....so I imagine the larger tire thing, for practical purposes, is fairly widespread.

 

Some of you should be happy:

https://www.jk-forum.com/forums/show...579#post646579

 

As to the Blizzacks; I put a set on a spare set of wheels for my wifes Buick Park Avenue. They are amazing in the snow and on icey surfaces. I took her out on some vacant parking lots last winter and we played in the snow so she would gain confidence in what they could do. However they would be a lousy general purpose off road tire as they don't tolerate heat well and wear more quickly then the norm.

I have a hard time imagining a better general off road tire than my 35" KM2's. Thye've gone everywhere I've wanted to and some places I shouldn't have tried. I can't see the same tire but skinnier doing better. And as for some of the traditional (and vaunted) skinny tires mentioned in earlier posts, I've had them on vehicles and wouldn't have them if they were free. Maybe, just maybe, in snow with a known hardpack right beneath you the skinny might be better. But in every other scenario I have encountered I can't buy that they are superior. They may be traditional on LandRovers; but that doesn't necessarily make them better.

 

Sorry to hijack the thread, but I thought it might be important to note that a huge factor in traction is suspension flexibility. My last truck was a one ton Superduty with the V10, limited slip and 35" Hankook MT's. It would get stuck on wet grass! No offense to the big truck owners, I really liked that truck, it just WAS NOT an off- road truck (despite what the stickers said).

Don't get hung up over one inch of tire height, it only equals one half inch of clearance at the differential, right? There's a huge selection of 33" tires available, pick the one you like and don't look back.

Good luck.