Isuzu SUV Forum banner
1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
715 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The reference to "pizza cutters" in another thread has me wandering if anyone has really compared 1050s to 1250s in a 33" tire, preferably the same other than size. When I replace my tires I hope to get 33s but am not sure whether to go with the narrow, or wide. I think most of the time the 1050s would be great and possibly better in some situations. I got a taste of snow wheeling this winter and I know that the "wider the better" is the rule in deep snow. In reality, I don't know how much, or even if I would do that though.
Anyone tried both to compare?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
337 Posts
I have never compared 10.5 and 12.5 but if you only think you need a wider tire for deep snow and you don't drive in it that often, then pick the 10.5. The skinny tire will be better on gas and easier on drivetrain parts and will still perform satisfactory in the deep snow. And besides, you have a winch. I bet you're dying to use it anyway. 8)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
When you go to a larger diameter tire, the length of the footprint increases as well as the width. A 10.5 would be prefferable for better fuel economy. Have you found any 33x10.5s? 255/85R16s are about 33" tall by 10.5.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
715 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
BFG makes tires in 33x1050. Someone mentioned another brand that does too, but I don't remember it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,925 Posts
Toyo does. (Or did. Havent checked)
.
If it means anything, my old freing who was a airport security guard for 2 years in Alaska ran 34x.9.50 swampers that he had studded the whole time he was up there. Were on a '98 Discovery 2 and he swore by them!
Odd. I allwaus thought LTB's were sucky in the snow. :roll:
.
In hindsight after buying my 33x12.50's, I would HIGHLY RECOMEND going with a 33x10.50!
.
I HAVE owned & ran the 255/85/16 in an all terrain, the 33x12.50 in my current mud terrain. I would still take the 255/85/16 or 33x10.50x15 over the 12.50's any day! But that's just my opinion based on past experiance.
.
NOW, to add to the "Wide vs. Skinny" debate, one thing to keep in mind:
If you are trying to NOT make any ruts (Say, driving across the back yard!) then the wider the better. THIS was the sole reason for my
decision when I went with the 12.50's. At THAT TIME, I was spending LOTS of time checking cattle & repairing fences and did not want to rut up the pasture ground. Last November they sold ALL their cattle, both puting me out of my after work 2nd job and making my wide tires no longer needed. True that in reality 99% of the time I used the UTV to do the farm work. But my reasoning was sound at the time of purchase.
.
Speaking of tearing up the ground, if you are wanting to disturb as little ground as possible, run an all terrain, as the cleats on a mud tire tend to mess the ground up, even without wheel spin! :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
337 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
715 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I appreciate all the comments & insight. It will be awhile so I might change my mind by then, but I will most likely go with the narrower tires. the snow driving I was referring to was the deep stuff. I have a brother in law who likes driving in deep snow (6' deep and deeper) and in that situation, you want all the floatation you can get. I probably won't do much of that and if I was, I would probably want something taller than 33s anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,925 Posts
If it is REALLY DEEP snow you need this!
.
.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
715 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Enemigo said:
How does a wider tire have a longer footprint? Does it have to do with air pressure?
It doesn't have a longer footprint, but a bigger footprint. If you are quoting someone, it was probably a misstatement.
A wider tire of a given diameter will have more area contacting the road (or mud, snow etc) Airing down also increases the the area somewhat. A larger diameter will also have more contact area. So if deep snow driving is what you want to do, you want the tallest and widest tires you can fit (and of course have the power and gears to turn them) under your truck.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,617 Posts
Fidel said:
When you go to a larger diameter tire, the length of the footprint increases as well as the width. A 10.5 would be prefferable for better fuel economy. Have you found any 33x10.5s? 255/85R16s are about 33" tall by 10.5.
I see, he said a larger diameter tire. I missed that the first time around.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,560 Posts
Split the difference and go with a 32x11.50. I've run them since the late '80s on my troopers. It's the perfect mix of size. 33s are getting pretty dang big to push with a 2.6 1st gen especially in heavy snow. My Trooper does awesome in snow.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
326 Posts
A wider tire of a given diameter will have more area contacting the road (or mud, snow etc) Airing down also increases the the area somewhat. A larger diameter will also have more contact area.
This isn't true. For the same vehicle weight and the same air pressure in the tire(s), the contact patch will be the same regardless of the tire size. Really - it's the physics. We can all agree that the entire vehicle weight is supported by the 4 tires. Let's say your vehicle weights 4000 lbs and you're parked on level pavement, and there's perfect 50/50 weight distribution spread equally left to right so each tire is supporting 1000 lbs. Let's say you have each tire at exactly 40 psi, that's 40 pounds per square inch of air pressure and that's what's supporting that 1000 lbs. So 1000/40=25, so there's 25 square inches of contact area. Doesn't matter about the size of the tire, the width or the diameter, you must have 25 square inches of contact area given the 1000 lbs and 40 psi; but, the shape of the contact patch *will* differ depending on tire size/width. For example, if the contact patch is 10 inches wide, the length of the contact patch will be 2.5 inches. So, the wider the tire, the less the length of the contact patch. If you want a larger contact patch, you only have 2 options, either add weight to the vehicle or air down the tires.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,538 Posts
squatch said:
Split the difference and go with a 32x11.50. I've run them since the late '80s on my troopers. It's the perfect mix of size. 33s are getting pretty dang big to push with a 2.6 1st gen especially in heavy snow.
unless you regear with 4.77s :p im running 33x10.5 on my spacecab trail rig but 4.77s and aussies front and rear....not liking the street too much.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,560 Posts
lowzone said:
squatch said:
Split the difference and go with a 32x11.50. I've run them since the late '80s on my troopers. It's the perfect mix of size. 33s are getting pretty dang big to push with a 2.6 1st gen especially in heavy snow.
unless you regear with 4.77s :p im running 33x10.5 on my spacecab trail rig but 4.77s and aussies front and rear....not liking the street too much.
I'm running 4.77s with my 32's. No lockers though. Pretty much the same as stock 4.56 with 235s. My speedo is right on the money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61 Posts
Why not run around with Mattraxx??? I know its expensive, but its a lot better and easier to get around with no fear of getting stuck. Here is the link : http://www.mattracks.com/ , hell, better yet, here is an image of an Isuzu Rodeo with them on :
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,073 Posts
thrashercharged said:
A wider tire of a given diameter will have more area contacting the road (or mud, snow etc) Airing down also increases the the area somewhat. A larger diameter will also have more contact area.
This isn't true. For the same vehicle weight and the same air pressure in the tire(s), the contact patch will be the same regardless of the tire size. Really - it's the physics. We can all agree that the entire vehicle weight is supported by the 4 tires. Let's say your vehicle weights 4000 lbs and you're parked on level pavement, and there's perfect 50/50 weight distribution spread equally left to right so each tire is supporting 1000 lbs. Let's say you have each tire at exactly 40 psi, that's 40 pounds per square inch of air pressure and that's what's supporting that 1000 lbs. So 1000/40=25, so there's 25 square inches of contact area. Doesn't matter about the size of the tire, the width or the diameter, you must have 25 square inches of contact area given the 1000 lbs and 40 psi; but, the shape of the contact patch *will* differ depending on tire size/width. For example, if the contact patch is 10 inches wide, the length of the contact patch will be 2.5 inches. So, the wider the tire, the less the length of the contact patch. If you want a larger contact patch, you only have 2 options, either add weight to the vehicle or air down the tires.
LOL, this reminds me of the argument that you can effectively increase your gear ratio by airing down your tires and (allegedly) effectively decreasing the radius of the tire...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
877 Posts
:angry7: What the $hit is that ridiculousness about?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,925 Posts
This whole "Skinny vs. Wide" thing will NEVER EVER go away!!!! :lol:

Kinda like the whole 30'06 vs. .270 debate

Or Chevy 350 vs. Ford 351

And it's not just here on PI. It is on almost EVRY off road forum! :lol:

Lets put it in a "No reply needed, vote only POLL!" :lol:
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top