[christover1]

atari4x4 wrote:

as shakes said, rotation mass is a big factor.

That becomes evident when I try to get out of bed each morning

[harvs]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_resistance

Whole discussion in wiki about tire rolling resistance. If you read through the contributing factors, these tyres would pretty much tick every box for the worst case scenario.

More to the point, are they good off road? Much better than something like BFG KM2's?

[atari4x4]

for the little use off road i have given them they make my MTR's appear like mall terrains.

for an "all rounder" type of tyre i would stay away from them & go for a KM2, Trep or similar.

[shakes]

SuziBlu wrote:

shakes wrote:

SuziBlu wrote:

I can't see the tyre weight adding to an increased fuel milage, rather, the aggressive tread pattern.

Your motor has to work ALOT harder to get that extra weight moving.

Tread pattern, not weight.

Go put a 1kg weight on a length of rope and swing it around... try slowing down and speeding up, now go stick a 5kg weight on the same length of rope.

Why do race cars/moto's/pushie's all strive for lightweight parts that rotate? rims/flywheels/shafts etc

It's not all the equation, but it plays a big part of it.

[SuziBlu]

Race cars and the likes do not go for light weight for the reason you stipulate, rather, its the unsprung weight.

Lightweight in donks mean faster rev production, hence the lightened flywheel bit.

What you are talking of is inertia, a totally different subject. Shakes, your analogy is a 500% increase in weight.

A car weighs in at 1 ton, add 40kg, 10kg per tyre, that is an increase of 0.04% in weight, I cannot see how that equates to an increase of 40% fuel consumption.

Yes it may well increase the fuel usage in stop start running, but in overall running, naaaa.

A huge aggressive tyre, beside the friction created, will be tearing itself apart in cornering, watch any very large wheeled off road machine, they drag rather than roll around corners, windage is also a very well known factor

[harvs]

Nice analogy, however it's misplaced.

Why do race cars etc strive for lightweight? They can excelerate faster and corner faster (less lateral load), and with wheels less unsprung mass means better handling, suspention setup etc.

For outright drag, which is what we are talking about crusing at a constant speed, the tires weight isn't alone the biggest factor. To consume energy in a tire something needs to absorb it. This is done either in the carcus or the tread. Because the tread is so deep, it will deform and absorb energy in the process.

Anyway, as I said, Wikipedia says it all...

[Chop]

To put it into perspective, they werent far off 100kg for the four delivered.

[SuziBlu]

Chop wrote:

To put it into perspective, they werent far off 100kg for the four delivered.

So, your saying, the tyres help lower the COG, which is a good thing.

[Chop]

Nope i'm saying theyre fucking heavy and make you use more fuel

[SSSIERA]

there dakar= cooper stc (or stt maybee)
there ranger= the old bfg at

[SuziBlu]

Chop wrote:

Nope i'm saying theyre fucking heavy and make you use more fuel

So trucks, by this, should be using huge quantities of fuel, just running the tyres they do.

Work on percentages, it does not add up.

[atari4x4]

SuziBlu wrote:

Yes it may well increase the fuel usage in stop start running, but in overall running, naaaa.

David, this was basically 100% open road, from Adelaide to Pt Wakefield at night so no real traffic getting from the Eastern Suburbs onto the highway & it used 15.8l/100Km, I topped it back up at Wakefield & went to Pt Pirie, topping it up again as i was interested in the figures & got 16.2l/100km.

[SuziBlu]

Gus, this is what I am getting at. Stop start it may, may, make a slight difference because of the weight, but, its the very aggressive pattern that is doing the fuel milage damage.

Think race sliks, no tread, think high speed road tyres, very fine tread, even dirty great big truck tyres, fine tread.

When you tow a trailer, full, do you use this sort of fuel, didn't think so, recon as a full trailer would make a far worse fuel consumption problem if it was a weight related problem.

[joe5701]

call it a combination of both and everyones happy.

[atari4x4]

I agree David, but it's only 1/2 of the story, as I said on page 1:

atari4x4 wrote:

The weight and the added rolling resistance would be it.

the fuel economy is the only downfalls I can see in running an aggressive mud tyre on the road.

[SuziBlu]

Gus, I load a barge everyday, an unload it, using 40 ton load dump trucks, 6wd, watching the tyres close, you see these things, loaded or unloaded, drag the tyres, well the tread.

I run claws as you know well, when on road type tread, I get far better fuel milage, to me, its the tread pattern.

I do not see fuel milage as a problem/issue, except for the small fuel tank on suzis.

Noise, you do not get noise without drag, and what do very aggressive tyres give, LOUD noise, because of the drag.

[SuziBlu]

atari4x4 wrote:

SuziBlu wrote:

Yes it may well increase the fuel usage in stop start running, but in overall running, naaaa.

David, this was basically 100% open road, from Adelaide to Pt Wakefield at night so no real traffic getting from the Eastern Suburbs onto the highway & it used 15.8l/100Km, I topped it back up at Wakefield & went to Pt Pirie, topping it up again as i was interested in the figures & got 16.2l/100km.

It would only be a slight change, but did that figure include the dia change, so you added the longer foot print of the tyre, so more milage than what was shown on the speedo/odometer.

[SuziBlu]

Bit more than 100kg of tyres.

[ninjamoses]

atari4x4 wrote:

David, this was basically 100% open road, from Adelaide to Pt Wakefield at night so no real traffic getting from the Eastern Suburbs onto the highway & it used 15.8l/100Km, I topped it back up at Wakefield & went to Pt Pirie, topping it up again as i was interested in the figures & got 16.2l/100km.

That is some truly shit house fuel economy right there dude lol.

[atari4x4]

claws are like mall terrains compared to these.

i understand the drag thing, but it's not just drag that has effected the fuel economy, to be able to spin them at 110km is going to use more fuel due to the weight... say if i had 2 identical tyres, on was 5kgs heaver would it make a differnce?

when fitted they are so close to being the same size as my 31's it's not funny.

[SuziBlu]

ninjamoses wrote:

atari4x4 wrote:

David, this was basically 100% open road, from Adelaide to Pt Wakefield at night so no real traffic getting from the Eastern Suburbs onto the highway & it used 15.8l/100Km, I topped it back up at Wakefield & went to Pt Pirie, topping it up again as i was interested in the figures & got 16.2l/100km.

That is some truly shit house fuel economy right there dude lol.

On claws, with gearing, I'm at around 13-14l/100 on highway, when playing, 20 or so.

Did a hard run, 80k about, topped up with a jerry, 22 liters, didnt fill it.

[atari4x4]

ninjamoses wrote:

atari4x4 wrote:

David, this was basically 100% open road, from Adelaide to Pt Wakefield at night so no real traffic getting from the Eastern Suburbs onto the highway & it used 15.8l/100Km, I topped it back up at Wakefield & went to Pt Pirie, topping it up again as i was interested in the figures & got 16.2l/100km.

That is some truly shit house fuel economy right there dude lol.

Thats what I thought, I could almost watch the gauge go down at the km's click over on the odometer.

The same drive on the MTR's a few months ago got 12l/100km & I was pushing along at a greater rate of knots.

[SSSIERA]

POPCORN..... anyone?

[SuziBlu]

atari4x4 wrote:

claws are like mall terrains compared to these.

i understand the drag thing, but it's not just drag that has effected the fuel economy, to be able to spin them at 110km is going to use more fuel due to the weight... say if i had 2 identical tyres, on was 5kgs heaver would it make a differnce?

when fitted they are so close to being the same size as my 31's it's not funny.

Gus, back to the trailer thing.

The pic you showed waaaay back, lets one believe that the tyre is bigger by far.

I don't like them as the pattern is too square, go down, and you are one a smooth sidewall. I love a round tread, not square. Ok, rocks n shit, yes, mud-sand, no.

[SuziBlu]

SSSIERA wrote:

POPCORN..... anyone?

I sort of thought this was akin to an educated discussion, two differing opinions aired with thought, not a slanging match.

[atari4x4]

SSSIERA wrote:

POPCORN..... anyone?

fuck off little boy, the adults are talking.

[SuziBlu]

atari4x4 wrote:

SSSIERA wrote:

POPCORN..... anyone?

fuck off little boy, the adults are talking.

ahhaahahaha, fuk ya, just snorted beer out me nose.

[SSSIERA]

atari4x4 wrote:

SSSIERA wrote:

POPCORN..... anyone?

fuck off little boy, the adults are talking.

[SuziBlu]

Gus, soon, not sure when, as I am only home now and then, I will be upgrading from 31 x 10.5s to 35 x 13.5s, geared to suit, hope its very soon.

Will be interesting to see the fuel diff.

May not go 35s, not sure yet, may get 33s in offroad, and 35s for onroad, 5.12s are perfect for 35s, but im thinking 35s for onroad so to speak, and 33s because of the bit lower gears for play.

If i go the latter, the 35s will be narrow as I can do within reason, if i go 33s, i will be hunting 15.5 wide, there are a few around, not many, but 13.5s may have to suffice.

[atari4x4]

the gearing will help a bit, but the extra weight & tread pattern will be the biggest factor.