[MrRocky]

Ive found all bfg 4wd tyres get to about 50% tread and then drive like unbalanced 50yo trailer tyres. Theres much better tyres for zooks for literally half the price

[Gwagensteve]

You doth protest too much David. Why are you so afraid of swapping your tyres around so you can prove me wrong?

Out of interest, Micky Thompson actually make a sand specific tyre- the Baja King.

Light, non-directional,bias ply, relatively tall and narrow- exactly what works properly in sand.

[SuziBlu]

Steve, I protest not at all.

I stand by my statement, if you knew anything at all about how these tyres work, you would understand, you don't.

I have said it twice now, in forward I use 2wd, in reverse, I have to use 4wd.

When spinning, the claw grabs the loose stuff and throws it wide, so that you are on firm ground, i reverse, that same loose stuff is pushed under the tyre, to the middle, so, you are packing under your tyre lots of loose slippery stuff.

The only reason that I could imagine for putting fronts on backwards, is if you are a hopeless driver and always backing out and need the traction for backwards.

If the grip is far superiour backwards, why are they not directional that way, why are tractor tyres on the way they are, surely they should be on backwards as well ?

Imagine in water, instead of the tyre throwing water out and away, it pushed the water in under the tyre ? Relly good idea, run them backwards.

[Gwagensteve]

I think you need to re-read my posts, because you're agreeing with me, yet coming to the opposite conclusion.

No car in 2wd has equal traction in forward and reverse. Please try and understand this, it's important, because you're using a false assumption to discredit my knowledge and experience.

Reversing your car in 2wd is the equivalent of driving your car forward in front wheel drive. I don't know if you have ever done this but a sierra has almost no traction in front wheel drive only. Please re-read this until it sinks in.

I have a rear drive disconnect and prove this every time I use it- the car has almost no traction in front wheel drive driving forwards- the same as being in 2wd reverse. I have removed my disconnect for this reason. Your experience is shared by many and not unique to your tyres tread pattern.

I know you think it's impossible for anyone to teach you anything about sand, but with an open mind you might be surprised what you can learn through experimentation and others experience. That's why forums are valuable.


As for the relative merits of pushing sand or water out the sides of a tyre to make it work, look carefully at this tyre. Where does the sand and water go? How come cars on paddles can aquaplane for long distances? Have you noticed the scoops that hold the sand/water in, under the tyre rather than ejecting it out the sides?

[vet 180]

Gwagensteve wrote:

You doth protest too much David. Why are you so afraid of swapping your tyres around so you can prove me wrong?

Out of interest, Micky Thompson actually make a sand specific tyre- the Baja King.

Light, non-directional,bias ply, relatively tall and narrow- exactly what works properly in sand.

So does Nitto, the dune grappler. What is common between the dune grappler and the mt's you posted is the sidewall. Photobucket sucks or I would post a pic.

[Gwagensteve]

Not really a fan of those, I think they're really marketed at brodozers (like most nitto product) but I'm sure they fine in a size with a tall enough sidewall.

[vet 180]

Gwagensteve wrote:

Not really a fan of those, I think they're really marketed at brodozers (like most nitto product) but I'm sure they fine in a size with a tall enough sidewall.

People who have them swear by them. But it does look like aesthetics was on the design brief. The MT's you posted look rather purpose driven. Even though I do drive a lot in sand I would personally never buy a sand tire.

[MrRocky]

The federal srl are suppose to be great in sand and a variety of conditions although perhaps not a mud/clay performer

[shep]

Landcruiser's now come from the factory with real skinny and tall tyres, won't be long and there will be cheap soft tyres easily available.

[Gwagensteve]

a 225 95 is pretty close to a 7.50 R 16 or a 235 85 16

Not sure how soft a tyre intended for a land cruiser is - it's been a problem with 7.50's and 235's for ever.

[shep]

Gwagensteve wrote:

a 225 95 is pretty close to a 7.50 R 16 or a 235 85 16

Not sure how soft a tyre intended for a land cruiser is - it's been a problem with 7.50's and 235's for ever.

They are 30mm taller then the 235/85/16 dulars on my cruiser. MTRs that I had on the cruiser were so soft that grass
could poke a hole in the sidewall. Wouldn't have been any stronger constructed then the 30" MTRs I have run on suzukis in the past.

[sideways]

Yeah they're 32.8". There's already cheap take offs popping up, they come in Road Grippers and the dual cabs have dueler d697s.

When I was looking it up a month or so ago there were no other patterns than those 2 brands in Australia. I'd expect Bridgestone to step up and make a MT for them but I don't know if this size will catch on and if other manufacturers will pick it up.

[vet 180]

MrRocky wrote:

The federal srl are suppose to be great in sand and a variety of conditions although perhaps not a mud/clay performer

I would love to try a set of treps in sand. I think they will work great


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[just_cruizin]

here you all go

[Gwagensteve]

Interesting. I'll weigh a Krawler this weeeknd.

[just_cruizin]

my 33 km2 on a steel rim was 33kg, 35 creepy on steel rim with bead protector 52kg

[tanshi]

sticky 37 trep is 35kg without a rim

[sideways]

FWIW off BFGs specs a 30x9.5r15 UTV spec KR2 is 37lb, 30x9.5r15LT K02 is 39lb and KM2 is 41lb.

[Gwagensteve]

So that 35 10.5 is only 3kg heavier than a 30x9.5 km2. (And would run on the same rim)

[just_cruizin]

Not a DOT tyre though, it's a soft compound race tyre. Not that this would concern the majority of guys on 35's but for those lucky enough to have them approved this would rule then out

[Gwagensteve]

No car approved for 35's would benefit from these tyres. They're for light cars on light axles, where the light construction and soft compound woiuld be perfect.

[just_cruizin]

a couple of sierra's on 35's

[Gwagensteve]

On Suzuki axles?

[just_cruizin]

I was, not successfully. but there are others. With these light tyres it may be possible with less breakages

[Gwagensteve]

That's my I'm finding them interesting, but it's unrelated to being approved for road use.

IMHO I'm not aware of anyone who has road legality with 35" tyres on Suzuki based axles. My point is if you've already swapped to hilux/other axles in order to achieve approval for 35" tyres, you're unlikely to be concerned about trying to find the lightest possible tyre and wheel combination for your car.

If the tyres aren't approved for size, whether they're a race tyre or not might not be relevant.

[just_cruizin]

agreed

[henno]

Which is why I am not-so-quietly interested. Who needs to chase alloy beadlocks for weight savings on 35's (like I have been) when these offer such a great improvement in weight on their own.

I haven't done the calculations yet, but I am wagering that a set of these on steel rims (perhaps with alloy locking rings) while expensive, would come in at a similar price to a set of existing 35" tyres on a set of alloy beadlocks for a similar, if not lower weight per corner.

Food for thought at least, particularly for those of us wanting to keep suzuki axles.

[just_cruizin]

Got a price of $435 a tyre and $120 delivery for 4, so for under 2K you get a comp spec LIGHT 35, ok meant for dirt rally but still have the KM2 tread and sticky compound

[Gwagensteve]

I need to stress just_cruzin these are definitely not stickies. I believe they're softer than a regular road pattern but they are definitely not anything like a comp sticky crawling tyre. Remember these are a high speed tyre for a 300hp, ~1300kg vehicle expected to run at least 1500km without significant tyre damage. I reckon on the front of a buggy they'll last a season, which is why I don't expect to see many turning up second hand.


Just weighed a Krawler unmounted. At least 80% tread depth - 34kg.


For comparison, a brand new (never been on the road) 235 85 16 Wrangler MT/R (old pattern) is 20.2kg.

So another way of looking at the weight thing is you can step up from a 235 85 16 (32") to a 35 10.5, pick up 1.5" of ground clearance, for no additional weight considering a 16" rim will be heavier than a 15.

I imagine the 32" UTV versions will be crazy light.

[just_cruizin]

Yeah sticky wasn't the correct term to use but in comparison to most grippy would be better, I'm sure the limited use my sierra in particular gets they'd last a while, probably perish before they wore out