| LOST JEEPS http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/ |
|
| Load C or D rated tires? http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=33891 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | dieselenthusiast [ Sat Jul 05, 2008 10:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Load C or D rated tires? |
Just so I can clarify, we don’t want anything more than a LOAD C and maybe a LOAD D rated off-road tire, right? My purpose to to reduce as much weight as possible and still have a good off-road tire. Any input would be great. |
|
| Author: | InCommando [ Sat Jul 05, 2008 11:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yeah, just stick with a passenger car tire. You'll be fine. Most of the more popular off-road tires here are "e" rated. 245/75/r16 MT/R's or any 235/85/r16, for example. Most of your true off-road tires will be "e." Compromise on one or the other, just remember that the extra mileage you save by using a passenger car tire off-road isn't much good when you have sliced your sidewall open or busted your sidewall against the rim. What happened to your Ron Paul plug? |
|
| Author: | Dave08 [ Sun Jul 06, 2008 12:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
C's ride very well, my dads E's were ok IMO but to him he said they were WAY to stiff... even at 30psi. |
|
| Author: | daspes [ Sun Jul 06, 2008 12:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I say depends on Where and How you wheel. If you off road in areas with sharp rocks or jagged and broken trees/limbs, I'd go with the D or preferably E tire for the side wall protection. If you are mainly in mud, worn stone, or dirt, P-rated or C should be fine. |
|
| Author: | Inc [ Sun Jul 06, 2008 12:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
My Trxus are C and they ride great. Great off road too! Nice new sig by the way Daspes |
|
| Author: | daspes [ Sun Jul 06, 2008 12:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
incubusmike wrote: Nice new sig by the way Daspes Thanks! I get bored sometimes. Back to the topic. Personally I think if you can find a C like Inc's Interco's above, that is the perfect compromise between weight and sidewall protection. |
|
| Author: | jason thompson [ Sun Jul 06, 2008 12:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
InCommando wrote: Most of the more popular off-road tires here are "e" rated. um ,yeah, ok then I guess that super swampers and the like are not "popular off road tires" and not good for off roading? Because my LTB's are only load range C rated and the guys on here running Trxus MT's are C or D rated These are not off road tires because most of them are only 6 ply or C load rated http://www.intercotire.com/site28.php neither are these http://www.intercotire.com/site36.php or these http://www.intercotire.com/site33.php and we all know that these are not "popular off road tires" http://www.intercotire.com/site25.php The reason that most of the tires that people end up with on a 16" rim are a 10 ply or E rated is because that is a popular size for 3/4 and 1 ton trucks ,GM trucks come stock with that size, and the fords come stock with 265/75 16's and way back a 16" rim was the heavy duty standard so 10 ply tires were made for 16" rims and tire companies just never changed I have run CHEEP C rated tires all over the place and yes I have lost a few to side wall cuts but at $65 a tire it was no big deal ,I ran Hot Springs, Gilmer, Tellico and every local trail I could, lost 2 local to roots and 1 in Gilmer Now with the same C rated tire but in a stronger bias ply I have yet to loose a tire but I have seen some D rated tire get cut on stuff I just brushed off You can run any thing you want and only notice a slight difference in ride quality ,we had some 225/75 GY ATS's on the KJ with a C rating and went to a 245/75 MTR E rated and the ride was not much worse if any ,when properly inflated as far as a loss in mpg 90% of the loss comes from bigger OD and not weight even 15# per tire is a drop in a bucket when you think about it ,75# that is what a 10 year old kid I mean come one does riding a 10 year old around in the KJ cost you that much more fuel? |
|
| Author: | InCommando [ Sun Jul 06, 2008 12:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Most of the more popular off-road tires here are "e" rated. The guy was asking about tires for a KJ, not anything else. The majority of the tires HERE ( I know reading comprehension isn't everyone's strong suit) that are put on lifted KJ's HERE are "e" rated 245/75/r16's & 235/85/r16's. My Trxus M/T's are e-rated. But, like yours, they are not on a KJ so my tires or yours really do not matter, huh? No one gives a crap (again) what you run on your TJ or what you do with it. Interco's are a bit different then most in that the sidewall is very strong yet supple for their weight rating. That is one reason they are a great off-road tire that are usually crappy on the road. You give a little, you get a little. Going more mainstream ( as only a very small percentage of people are running Interco's on a KJ here), let us look at a huge company called Tire Rack. Now let us search their "off-road" tires in size 245/75/r16, http://www.tirerack.com/tires/Compare1. ... &x=50&y=12 What do we see? They offer 8 options. SEVEN of them are "e" rated and only one is "c" rated. Would we call this a majority? Yes we would. Now pull up 235/85/r16. WHAT??????? They are ALL "e" rated? How could this be? So let us dissect what you chose to qoute: "Most of the more popular off-road tires here are "e" rated." 1-----------------2------------------------------3-------------4 1. Most, not all. Do you understand the diffference? 2. More popular. Few people are running Interco's on a KJ. I'd guess that it would be less than 5%. 3. HERE. Meaning for KJ's. I know you do little but down KJ's, but that is the subject at hand. 4. E-rated. Put it all together..c'mon... you can do it.... Good boy. Now, as to your tire weight nonsense: Please learn the difference in "sprung" & "unsprung" weight. These are difficult terms and I know not everyone can grasp them. The simplified rule is that unsprung weight ( weight not supported by springs) is up to 10x more harmful to mileage & accelaration performance than sprung weight. This means that a 50# increase in unsprung weight can equal a 500# increase in sprung weight. Get in touch with some racer boards or anyone who races or goes for hyper-mileage, and they can help you with this concept. So, unless you are strapping 10-yr old's to the axle, your analogy is wrong. However, many believe that an increase in unsprung ( there's that word again) weight can increase traction and is a good trade off for accleration & mileage in an off-road vehicle. |
|
| Author: | daspes [ Sun Jul 06, 2008 1:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
jason thompson wrote: You can run any thing you want and only notice a slight difference in ride quality ,we had some 225/75 GY ATS's on the KJ with a C rating and went to a 245/75 MTR E rated and the ride was not much worse if any ,when properly inflated as far as a loss in mpg 90% of the loss comes from bigger OD and not weight even 15# per tire is a drop in a bucket when you think about it ,75# that is what a 10 year old kid I mean come one does riding a 10 year old around in the KJ cost you that much more fuel? To clear up a misconception. There is a huge difference between sprung and unsprung weight. To the engine it takes 4x the energy to move driveline components (heavier flywheel, driveshaft, rims, tires, etc...) than anything that is riding above the suspension. in you example of 15# per tire it is equivalent of cary around a 375 pound child (4x15=90x4=360=15 for the spare=375). It will not be huge hit on MPG but if you are trying to conserve where you can it will be there. |
|
| Author: | Inc [ Sun Jul 06, 2008 1:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Man, things turned ugly real quick here. Having a bad day InCommando? |
|
| Author: | InCommando [ Sun Jul 06, 2008 1:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
jason thompson wrote: InCommando wrote: Most of the more popular off-road tires here are "e" rated. um ,yeah, ok You can run any thing you want and only notice a slight difference in ride quality ,we had some 225/75 GY ATS's on the KJ with a C rating and went to a 245/75 MTR E rated and the ride was not much worse if any ,when properly inflated as far as a loss in mpg 90% of the loss comes from bigger OD and not weight Umm, Jason, did you just say that you run an "e" rated 245/75/r16 MT/R on your KJ exactly like I stated in my original post? Aww, the irony..... |
|
| Author: | Cobalt-60 [ Sun Jul 06, 2008 3:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I know that 245/75R16s, the most "common" size tire here, are available in the following models in C-Load rating: Bridgestone Dueler A/T D693s Bridgestone Dueler A/T Revos Firestone Destination A/Ts Goodyear Wrangler SilentArmors Firestone Destination M/Ts I don't know of any D-Load rated tires in this size, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. When my P-rated 245/70s are ready to be replaced, I am probably going to go with one of the above in 245/75R16 C-Load. |
|
| Author: | jason thompson [ Sun Jul 06, 2008 3:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
daspes wrote: jason thompson wrote: You can run any thing you want and only notice a slight difference in ride quality ,we had some 225/75 GY ATS's on the KJ with a C rating and went to a 245/75 MTR E rated and the ride was not much worse if any ,when properly inflated as far as a loss in mpg 90% of the loss comes from bigger OD and not weight even 15# per tire is a drop in a bucket when you think about it ,75# that is what a 10 year old kid I mean come one does riding a 10 year old around in the KJ cost you that much more fuel? To clear up a misconception. There is a huge difference between sprung and unsprung weight. To the engine it takes 4x the energy to move driveline components (heavier flywheel, driveshaft, rims, tires, etc...) than anything that is riding above the suspension. in you example of 15# per tire it is equivalent of cary around a 375 pound child (4x15=90x4=360=15 for the spare=375). It will not be huge hit on MPG but if you are trying to conserve where you can it will be there. check your calculator 4 X 15 = 60 not 90 and I have never seen such rubbish I can tell you this I can roll a 200+ # tire from the front of a truck with a 20K # rated front axle just as easy as I can roll a 50# tire from a KJ It is the tire OD if it were not then you would see NO drop in mpg between a 33" tall tire and a 30" tall tire if they weighed the same and well that is not true YES the weight makes a VERY SLIGHT difference but miniscule compared to the OD I dont know why this is so hard for people to grasp |
|
| Author: | jason thompson [ Sun Jul 06, 2008 3:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
InCommando wrote: Most of your true off-road tires will be "e."
you know what you are 100% correct about the here thing this is the quote I should have used what was I thinking you know every thing there is to know all must bow in your presence because you are the all mighty knower of all that is tire |
|
| Author: | jason thompson [ Sun Jul 06, 2008 4:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
InCommando wrote: My Trxus M/T's are e-rated. But, like yours, they are not on a KJ so my tires or yours really do not matter, huh? No one gives a crap (again) what you run on your TJ or what you do with it. these are the same tire you were telling me about in a past PM ,to bad I empty my box, right? because I checked Interco for them and the 33 12.5 15's are a 6 not a 10 ply |
|
| Author: | daspes [ Sun Jul 06, 2008 4:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
jason thompson wrote: daspes wrote: jason thompson wrote: You can run any thing you want and only notice a slight difference in ride quality ,we had some 225/75 GY ATS's on the KJ with a C rating and went to a 245/75 MTR E rated and the ride was not much worse if any ,when properly inflated as far as a loss in mpg 90% of the loss comes from bigger OD and not weight even 15# per tire is a drop in a bucket when you think about it ,75# that is what a 10 year old kid I mean come one does riding a 10 year old around in the KJ cost you that much more fuel? To clear up a misconception. There is a huge difference between sprung and unsprung weight. To the engine it takes 4x the energy to move driveline components (heavier flywheel, driveshaft, rims, tires, etc...) than anything that is riding above the suspension. in you example of 15# per tire it is equivalent of cary around a 375 pound child (4x15=90x4=360=15 for the spare=375). It will not be huge hit on MPG but if you are trying to conserve where you can it will be there. check your calculator 4 X 15 = 60 not 90 and I have never seen such rubbish I can tell you this I can roll a 200+ # tire from the front of a truck with a 20K # rated front axle just as easy as I can roll a 50# tire from a KJ It is the tire OD if it were not then you would see NO drop in mpg between a 33" tall tire and a 30" tall tire if they weighed the same and well that is not true Ok I went to public school... my math was off, total effect should have been equal to a 255 lb child. You are correct the OD of the tire effects MPG also, but as far as the effect of unsprung weight it is true, if you haven't heard of it the you are misinformed. If you can roll a 50 lb tire as easily as a 200 lb tire then your He-Man. The 50 lber will take less force to move and keep in motion. It will also require less force to stop. Maybe a few sources can explain it better than I... From tirereview.com Quote: If you install a heavy tire and wheel assembly, expect to see the miles per gallon of any vehicle plummet. The last thing you want is to have a customer in your face because you didn’t explain about the potential loss in performance and fuel mileage before you installed the new plus-sized parts. The easiest way to explain this is to think of the tire and wheel as a gyroscope. It takes a great deal of energy to spin it and stop it. Also, the more mass that it has, the harder it is to change its direction, like making a sudden lane change to avoid an accident. Until now, we associated this issue primarily with performance vehicles. However, hybrids are sensitive to these same types of changes. Wheel Tech Quote: Every pound of rotating weight is equal to 4-9 pounds of in car weight. For example, if you have a wheel that weighs 2 lbs. more then your competitors x 4 wheels, your car believes it has an extra 70+ pounds in the seat. It also critically affects your unsprung weight. SUPERHonda.com Quote: With less weight acting upon the suspension [unsprung weight] your suspension can do its job more efficiently. Its quicker to react so thing will not only get more comfortable , but it will also handle better. It does matter sometimes where the weight is being lost on the car as this can change the balance of the car. Look into a few things when trying to better your suspension through weight. The final factor of this, everything is being used less....even the engine. So you get more reliability , better gas mileage , more performance & less wear and tear. It all equals pluses and remember most vehicle manufacturers now adays are always playing the weight battle. Essortment.com's "ways to improve gas milage" Quote: First let's look at the weight factor. Without taking a cutting torch to your vehicle, or drilling lightening holes in the body and chassis, you can reduce the weight. There are two types of weight to consider - sprung and un-sprung weight. Sprung weight is exactly what it sounds like - the weight born by the vehicle's suspension. That includes the body, chassis, motor, interior, and trunk (or bed in a pickup). Reductions in this type of weight are not easy to come by; but if you are the "pack rat" type that carries everything you might possibly ever need in your vehicle, then taking a close look at all of that dead weight you are carrying around and taking steps to reduce it will help some. Also, the old adage that a clean car runs better has some basis in truth - not from any gains in aerodynamics of a clean body, but in less weight of the junk you are hauling around. Cleaning the chassis, motor and undercarriage with a pressure washer periodically will also help. Built up mud, tar and road grime on the undercarriage, motor and chassis add much more weight to the car than the little bit of dirt you wash off the body. However, even relatively large weight reductions in sprung weight will not give you the gas savings that a small reduction in un-sprung weight will.
Un-sprung weight includes the weight of the axles, wheels and tires. There isn't much you can do about the axle weights, but the wheels and tires are a different matter. If you are using oversized, extra-wide tires and wheels, then you are paying a price for them in reduced gas mileage. In this area, a relatively small weight reduction can produce significant gains in gas mileage. After market custom wheels are not necessarily bad. Many of them are made of lighter materials than factory wheels and adding a set of custom wheels can be an advantage as long as they are lighter and not much wider than factory stock wheels. Tires, too, should be of the same size as factory stock, or at most one size larger, and no wider than 70 series. Not only will reductions in un-sprung weight give you increased gas mileage, but you should notice a performance improvement as well. There are hundreds of references on the web from Wiki to Yahoo Answers that say the same thing. |
|
| Author: | tjkj2002 [ Sun Jul 06, 2008 4:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Load range "C","D",or "E" has zero effect on the tires strength,the load range is only reffering to the load capacity of the tire.A 265/75R16 MT/R is load rated "D" but a 35x12.50x15 MT/R has the exact same # of tread/sidewall plies and is a load range "C" tire.The amount of sidewall(height wise) also effects the load range,the shorter the sidewall the more load capacity.You generally don't see any load range "D"+ tires for any tire for a 15" rim that is over 31" tall,but most tires around 31" to 33" for a 16" rim are load range "D" or "E". Stay away from "P" rated tires,they are designed and engineered for passenger cars,not Jeeps.Get a good LT tires and be done with it,load range "C","D",or "E" does not matter. |
|
| Author: | jason thompson [ Sun Jul 06, 2008 5:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
OK guys I did some searching and could not find it but a good while back on a "not so KJ friendly" board they had a similar topic only they were asking about unsprung weight or tire weight and it's effect on axle shafts snapping Some one took the time to talk with an engineer ,who knew very little about jeeps just that you could lift them and put bigger tires on them He said that the unsprung weight would only affect the axle if it were truly on sprung how ever a tire on any thing is not fully unsprung. He said that because it is supported by the ground then the effect of the weight would matter very little as long as it could support its own weight ,proper PSI, how ever he did say that the rotation mass would kill any thing when you combine the OD with the weight and factor in how much weight is on the outer most area of the tire ,the tread He compared it to a wrecking ball a 50# wrecking ball ,they dont make them that small, could in theory do the same damage as a 500# ball if the 50# ball was moved far enough and fast enough and the 500# was moved 10' and only gravity was moving it Now we know that if you spin up a 40" tall tire and drop it on to the concrete then some thing has to give but how hard is it to spin that tire? That would depend on the gearing more so than the weight. The concept is hard to grasp because the math is hard to do because the tire is neither sprung nor unsprung It is simply rolling resistance then you have to look at things like tread and width along with OD or reves per mile You really have to back up and look at it from the real world not the math world I did and on both my Jeeps it was not an issue on the KJ I loose about 1.5 average MPG's with a tire that is much heavier but 2" taller than stock and then there is the TJ which the funny thing is I lost the same average 1.5 MPG's but the tires on the TJ are close to 25% heavier and 2"+ Taller than stock now you can sit there and talk about the loose of MPG's due to unsprung weight and try to sound smart I have 2 rigs with the same gears ,3.73's, both with taller tire over stock and both the same OD over stock but 1 with a near 25% increase in weight but both lost the same MPG how? I can not see weight causing the problem I can not even see wind drag causing the problem ,1 has 2" of lift the other 3"+, Lockers did not do it 1 has a Detroit in the rear 1 is open Tire tread may have done it to a point as one had AT's from as long as I can remember and the other has always had MT's Just think about it |
|
| Author: | daspes [ Sun Jul 06, 2008 5:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
So if weight doesn't matter and only OD does, why did I gain nearly 2 MPG when going from a heavier 245/75 to a lighter 265/75? I stick with my real world knowledge learned from the track that unsprung weight matters, my real world experience with my KJ and what R&D has proven. |
|
| Author: | jason thompson [ Sun Jul 06, 2008 10:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
daspes wrote: So if weight doesn't matter and only OD does, why did I gain nearly 2 MPG when going from a heavier 245/75 to a lighter 265/75? I stick with my real world knowledge learned from the track that unsprung weight matters, my real world experience with my KJ and what R&D has proven.
because you are A - in denial B - a liar EVERY ONE I know who has gone to a bigger tire has lost MPG EVERY ONE not some ALL I too will stick to what I know 2 rigs same gears same increase in tire OD same average loose in MPG one tire is only a few pounds more than the OE tire the other close to 25% more weight |
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|