Tow rig tires, skinny or wide? - Page 2 - JeepForum.com
Search  
Sign Up   Today's Posts
User: Pass: Remember?
Advertise Here
Jeep Home Jeep Forum Jeep Classifieds Jeep Registry JeepSpace Jeep Reviews Jeep Gallery Jeep Clubs Jeep Groups Jeep Videos Jeep Events Jeep Articles
Go Back JeepForum.com > General > Trailers & Towing > Tow rig tires, skinny or wide?

Engo LED Flush Mount Lights *PAIR* Flood or Spot 1,600 LumYukon Ultimate 35 axle kit for c/clip axles with Yukon ZipRockridge 4WD IS Taking Zone Offroad Suspension Lift Kits

Reply
Unread 03-09-2013, 04:48 PM   #16
wilson1010
Registered User
1999 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cincinnati Ohio
Posts: 1,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by XJNKY View Post
I'm sorry, are you 12, or just retarded? I'm talking about at the same pressure. Of course I can adjust the pressure. And I understand what psi means. And I guess I could get the same contact area with a 165... if I ran it flat. Load E tires give you a pretty wide range to run pressure, so just go ahead and write that one off. I'm glad you googled contact patch and did some light reading, but you're so far away from understanding the conversation here it's embarrassing. Of course i could get the same contact area with both tires, but I'd have to run the skinnier tire at a lower pressure to do it, giving up some sidewall stiffness


What is it with this forum these days where every single thread is infested with these 20 year old GED holding mouth breathers scanning for threads to troll. If you're going to get on here and talk **** at least have some idea of what you're talking about.
I started to make an amends to you, for being mean about your ignorance. But, then I saw you got your diploma (8th grade I assume) in Kentucky which explains a lot. They don't teach physics even in high school there so you wouldn't have known that a wider tire at the same tire pressure gives exactly the same contact area as a narrow tire at that same pressure. Your idiotic comments to the contrary above, notwithstanding. Google it, you can still learn this.

__________________
03 Rubicon; 99 xj with too much stuff to list; Unimog 406
wilson1010 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 03-09-2013, 05:12 PM   #17
XJNKY
Registered User
1998 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: , Central KY
Posts: 471
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilson1010 View Post
I started to make an amends to you, for being mean about your ignorance. But, then I saw you got your diploma (8th grade I assume) in Kentucky which explains a lot. They don't teach physics even in high school there so you wouldn't have known that a wider tire at the same tire pressure gives exactly the same contact area as a narrow tire at that same pressure. Your idiotic comments to the contrary above, notwithstanding. Google it, you can still learn this.
Graduated with a 3.5GPA from the #1 college in the South (not KY, the entire south, that includes Texas (or maybe not, idk), and guess what... I did 2.5 years as a physics major. Switched because it was no fun and not, not too hard.)

I could have guess without looking where you were from. There's only two areas where people are that arrogant about being wrong: Jersey and Cincinnati... Northern Kentucky's anus...

So, now that all the **** measuring is out of the way, if you had just stated this opinion from the get go instead of your all-so-precious troll-arific "no high school huh?", we could have had an intelligent discussion about it. Because, in theory, you're right... if we were talking about a balloon (where X pressure+ X force= Y contact area), but we're not. Now, in that respect, the 12% doesn't actually transfer over either, I'll give you that. Tires are not balloons however, a wider tire is going to have more rubber touching at the same pressure. Their construction doesn't let them be that flexible, especially when we're talking about load range E. Yes, with them over inflated, the other lugs get light, blah blah blah. There are entire threads where devoted to this, if you want to argue about it, go find one of them. The bottom line is that regardless of the dynamics of pressure in a flexible container and the theoreticals of transferring those dynamics to a semi-flexible container, a wider tire is going to have more rubber touching the road at the same pressure, even if it isn't at the same ratio as the difference in width. It also give better traction by increasing the width to cover a larger variety of surfaces. There's a reason Corvettes don't have 195's on them. This is also the reason there are threads here about floatation tires vs pizza cutters.

So, again, if you want to go argue contact patch, go find one of the many threads about it and do that. If you have any relevant experience with the width of the tires on your tow rig, please share. Otherwise, leave.
XJNKY is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 03-09-2013, 05:40 PM   #18
wilson1010
Registered User
1999 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cincinnati Ohio
Posts: 1,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by XJNKY View Post
a wider tire is going to have more rubber touching at the same pressure. T
You are just as dumb as a box of rocks, aren't you? All that BS you have posted is just nonsense.

You said that a 12% wider tire put 12% more tire patch on the ground.

Hopefully, by now you have Googled the issue (or gotten out your 8th grade science book) and you now know that is not true. So stop posting BS to cover up your mistake. Its tedious.
__________________
03 Rubicon; 99 xj with too much stuff to list; Unimog 406
wilson1010 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 03-09-2013, 06:06 PM   #19
XJNKY
Registered User
1998 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: , Central KY
Posts: 471
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilson1010 View Post
You are just as dumb as a box of rocks, aren't you? All that BS you have posted is just nonsense.

You said that a 12% wider tire put 12% more tire patch on the ground.

Hopefully, by now you have Googled the issue (or gotten out your 8th grade science book) and you now know that is not true. So stop posting BS to cover up your mistake. Its tedious.
If I'm dumber than a box of rocks, I'd hate to think of the analogy that makes you...

I'm not making excuses, you're honestly just wrong. I already gave you the point in your column that it wouldn't actually be 12%. All I did was sling some quick numbers off the top of my head. You're right, it wouldn't be 12%, but the concept is the same, a wider tire does give more contact area, regardless of theoretical pressure distribution. Again, you don't see 195's on Corvette's, or formula 1 cars. Please, go tell them they're doing it wrong. I think we even covered contact patch and pressure in one of those ASE textbooks I have laying around here somewhere. We even did an experiment where we guessed the weight of a car by setting all the tire pressure the same and measuring contact patch in college. I didn't go google anything just now, I already knew it. Judging by the amount of time in between posts, you might have... Again, if you'd come in here with something helpful we wouldn't be having this conversation, but you didn't did you? You could have started with "same pressure on same weight vehicle will have same contact patch", and we could have skipped all those parts where you showed your simultaneous arrogance and ignorance. Now I've conceded that you're correct in principle, but wrong in practice, and I think you're embarrassed. As you should be.

You're just bored, at home, nothing to do on a Saturday night, so needed to go troll. I get it.

So again, unless you've had tires on a truck you tow with to make some sort of real world comparison, go away. No, seriously, go away. It's a nice night, maybe go take a stroll in over the rhine.
XJNKY is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 03-09-2013, 07:24 PM   #20
MPond
Web Wheeler
 
MPond's Avatar
2006 LJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Newbury Park, CA
Posts: 1,385
XJNKY - I'm so glad I'm not the only one who engages Wilson in these debates. It's fun to watch someone else play with him every once in a while.
__________________
2006 Black Unlimited 6-speed, Rubicon Express 5.5" Long Arm Kit
MPond is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 03-10-2013, 07:22 AM   #21
wilson1010
Registered User
1999 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cincinnati Ohio
Posts: 1,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by XJNKY View Post
1"=25.4mm. 30mm=1.18". 255/30= 0.117, or about 12%. Your contact patch is roughly the shape of a rectangle, who's area is calculated by multiplying the length X width. Stop me if I'm going too fast for you... now, the commutitive property tells us that the increase in one dimension will have similar effect on area, so, yes 30 mm wider gives roughly a 12% increase in contact patch. Now, whether or not that increases traction requires more information, such as forces applied ( mass x accelerating due to g), coefficient of friction, tire pressure, surface pressure, load distribution, and a whole host of other trivial factors such as temperature, number of contact edges, blah blah blah.
OK, you gave your best explanation in the first place. See moronic computation above. I reallly like that "commutitive property" reference. I almost couldn't type I was laughing so hard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by XJNKY View Post
maybe go take a stroll in over the rhine.
OH, I have a stalker. Great. Try watching Brokeback Mountain again. It will relieve the stress you are experiencing.
__________________
03 Rubicon; 99 xj with too much stuff to list; Unimog 406
wilson1010 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 03-10-2013, 10:33 AM   #22
Ross
Registered User
2001 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: BUM****, MO
Posts: 10,404
Look at semis, the tires aren't much wider than the rim, dual rims where the weight is. You can also see how big the rims versus the tire side wall. Heavy duty pickupsí or trucks have dual rims in the rear. Rims will support more weight than a side wall. Tire are thinner and side walls arenít as tall.
__________________
Schitzangiggles: We used to teach our children to fight evil, now we teach them that fighting is evil.

2001 TJ, 33 trxus MTs , W, locked, belly up, some armor.

"If you aim at nothing, you will hit it every time." Zig Ziglar
Ross is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 03-10-2013, 01:59 PM   #23
wilson1010
Registered User
1999 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cincinnati Ohio
Posts: 1,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ross View Post
Look at semis, the tires aren't much wider than the rim, dual rims where the weight is. You can also see how big the rims versus the tire side wall. Heavy duty pickups’ or trucks have dual rims in the rear. Rims will support more weight than a side wall. Tire are thinner and side walls aren’t as tall.
If the theory is that the weight of the vehicle is transmitted down to the rim, then onto the sidewall, then to the ground, making a differential force applied at the edge of the tire when compared with the middle of the tread of the tire, I would have to disagree. If that were true then every skid mark, braking or acceleration, would consist of two parallel strips. Pneumatic forces are really simple and really dependable. Every square inch of tread on the ground, at rest, bears the same weight. And, the weight it bears is the weight of the rig, divided by the average pressure inside the tire, divided by the number of tires. Remember that the air pressure inside the tire places the exact same force against the sidewall, pushing out as it does supporting the tread below. The strength of the sidewall matters when the tire is being deformed by force applied laterally when cornering. When there is no pressure in a semi tire, it is flat as a pancake. And, hopefully, it will wear evenly across the tread. All tending to prove, empirically, that the force is equal on all parts of the tread and derives from the equalization of pneumatic pressure inside the tire. Not from the rim or the location or strength of the sidewall.
__________________
03 Rubicon; 99 xj with too much stuff to list; Unimog 406
wilson1010 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 03-10-2013, 05:28 PM   #24
Ross
Registered User
2001 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: BUM****, MO
Posts: 10,404
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilson1010 View Post
If the theory is that the weight of the vehicle is transmitted down to the rim, then onto the sidewall, then to the ground, making a differential force applied at the edge of the tire when compared with the middle of the tread of the tire, I would have to disagree. If that were true then every skid mark, braking or acceleration, would consist of two parallel strips. Pneumatic forces are really simple and really dependable. Every square inch of tread on the ground, at rest, bears the same weight. And, the weight it bears is the weight of the rig, divided by the average pressure inside the tire, divided by the number of tires. Remember that the air pressure inside the tire places the exact same force against the sidewall, pushing out as it does supporting the tread below. The strength of the sidewall matters when the tire is being deformed by force applied laterally when cornering. When there is no pressure in a semi tire, it is flat as a pancake. And, hopefully, it will wear evenly across the tread. All tending to prove, empirically, that the force is equal on all parts of the tread and derives from the equalization of pneumatic pressure inside the tire. Not from the rim or the location or strength of the sidewall.
Are you saying there is no reason for dualies? Is it just a marketing scam?
__________________
Schitzangiggles: We used to teach our children to fight evil, now we teach them that fighting is evil.

2001 TJ, 33 trxus MTs , W, locked, belly up, some armor.

"If you aim at nothing, you will hit it every time." Zig Ziglar
Ross is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 03-10-2013, 07:26 PM   #25
wilson1010
Registered User
1999 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cincinnati Ohio
Posts: 1,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ross View Post
Are you saying there is no reason for dualies? Is it just a marketing scam?
Oh, no I wasn't saying that. I had a dually Chevy PU and loved it. My Volve FE is a dually. There are so many things a dually adds: lateral stability, total tire weight capacity, smaller tire diameter supporting the same weight (improved ride height and better brake performance), increased tongue weight capacity, comfort of knowing that a flat tire is not a fatal problem. But the laws of physics are not changed by the number of wheels on the ground. a 4500 pound rig running tires with 45 psi is going to have 100 square inches of rubber on the ground whether it is running 4 tires or 6 and regardless of their profile or height.
__________________
03 Rubicon; 99 xj with too much stuff to list; Unimog 406
wilson1010 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 03-11-2013, 02:58 AM   #26
MPond
Web Wheeler
 
MPond's Avatar
2006 LJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Newbury Park, CA
Posts: 1,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilson1010 View Post
...But the laws of physics are not changed by the number of wheels on the ground. a 4500 pound rig running tires with 45 psi is going to have 100 square inches of rubber on the ground whether it is running 4 tires or 6 and regardless of their profile or height.
While thatís an interesting argument, itís incorrect. Your theory treats the tire like a balloon, and ignores the fact that tires are rigid and have a structure of their own. While the load on the tire and the inflation pressure do play opposing roles in how large the contact patch is, neither of those properties is linearly proportional to the size of the contact patch, or to each other. A 10% increase in load or a 10% decrease in tire pressure does not equate to a 10% increase in the contact patch. And comparable changes will not offset each other. While the load and PSI can be changed at will, the contact patch will always be limited by the tire geometry.

If you want to see some examples of this, take a look at this article: http://www.performancesimulations.co...on-tires-1.htm

It explores this specific argument, and analyzes the formula that Wilson is proposing: Contact_patch_area = Weight / Tire_pressure

Though not conclusive, it does provide some interesting evidence that there are many other forces as work dictating contact patch, and the wider tires tended to have the larger contact patch, everything else being equal.
__________________
2006 Black Unlimited 6-speed, Rubicon Express 5.5" Long Arm Kit
MPond is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 03-11-2013, 04:23 AM   #27
xrunndonex
Registered User
1994 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: coffeyville, Kansas
Posts: 1,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilson1010 View Post

If the theory is that the weight of the vehicle is transmitted down to the rim, then onto the sidewall, then to the ground, making a differential force applied at the edge of the tire when compared with the middle of the tread of the tire, I would have to disagree. If that were true then every skid mark, braking or acceleration, would consist of two parallel strips. Pneumatic forces are really simple and really dependable. Every square inch of tread on the ground, at rest, bears the same weight. And, the weight it bears is the weight of the rig, divided by the average pressure inside the tire, divided by the number of tires. Remember that the air pressure inside the tire places the exact same force against the sidewall, pushing out as it does supporting the tread below. The strength of the sidewall matters when the tire is being deformed by force applied laterally when cornering. When there is no pressure in a semi tire, it is flat as a pancake. And, hopefully, it will wear evenly across the tread. All tending to prove, empirically, that the force is equal on all parts of the tread and derives from the equalization of pneumatic pressure inside the tire. Not from the rim or the location or strength of the sidewall.
I like how he takes something simple then trys to stretch it out into a damn book. Lol
xrunndonex is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 03-11-2013, 04:46 AM   #28
Ross
Registered User
2001 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: BUM****, MO
Posts: 10,404
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilson1010 View Post
Oh, no I wasn't saying that. I had a dually Chevy PU and loved it. My Volve FE is a dually. There are so many things a dually adds: lateral stability, total tire weight capacity, smaller tire diameter supporting the same weight (improved ride height and better brake performance), increased tongue weight capacity, comfort of knowing that a flat tire is not a fatal problem. But the laws of physics are not changed by the number of wheels on the ground. a 4500 pound rig running tires with 45 psi is going to have 100 square inches of rubber on the ground whether it is running 4 tires or 6 and regardless of their profile or height.
lets make it easy. look on the side wall and see what the tire can handle.
__________________
Schitzangiggles: We used to teach our children to fight evil, now we teach them that fighting is evil.

2001 TJ, 33 trxus MTs , W, locked, belly up, some armor.

"If you aim at nothing, you will hit it every time." Zig Ziglar
Ross is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 03-11-2013, 05:08 AM   #29
wilson1010
Registered User
1999 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cincinnati Ohio
Posts: 1,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ross View Post
lets make it easy. look on the side wall and see what the tire can handle.
And this is the reason that one cannot handle any increased amount of weight simply by increasing tire pressure.
__________________
03 Rubicon; 99 xj with too much stuff to list; Unimog 406
wilson1010 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 03-11-2013, 05:16 AM   #30
wilson1010
Registered User
1999 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cincinnati Ohio
Posts: 1,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPond View Post
While that’s an interesting argument, it’s incorrect. Your theory treats the tire like a balloon, and ignores the fact that tires are rigid and have a structure of their own. While the load on the tire and the inflation pressure do play opposing roles in how large the contact patch is, neither of those properties is linearly proportional to the size of the contact patch, or to each other. A 10% increase in load or a 10% decrease in tire pressure does not equate to a 10% increase in the contact patch. And comparable changes will not offset each other. While the load and PSI can be changed at will, the contact patch will always be limited by the tire geometry.

If you want to see some examples of this, take a look at this article: http://www.performancesimulations.co...on-tires-1.htm

It explores this specific argument, and analyzes the formula that Wilson is proposing: Contact_patch_area = Weight / Tire_pressure

Though not conclusive, it does provide some interesting evidence that there are many other forces as work dictating contact patch, and the wider tires tended to have the larger contact patch, everything else being equal.
What is interesting is that Pond, has done the classic mistake of novice Internet users.

He has assumed something to be true because he saw it on the Internet.

Just what reliable think-tank is "Performance Simulations.com", Pond's trusted source?

Well, all I can say is that there is a guy with a computer and an interest in cars and video games living and located in St. Paul Mn. named Todd Wasson who agrees with Pond. He sells a piece of software and the quote from Pond is part of his puffery to get one to buy the software. He has sold 10 copies ($39.95 in e-format). Pond probably could be number 11. Performance Simulations.com is nothing more than that.

Live and learn, Pond.

-------------------------------------------------

For my part, I'd rather believe Boeing Aircraft which has a slightly bigger stake in calculating tire contact patch area:

Quote:
The tire contact area for any tire is calculated by dividing the single wheel load by the tire inflation pressure. If the load is expressed in pounds, and the tire pressure in pounds per square inch, then the area is in inches squared.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/air...ontactarea.pdf
__________________
03 Rubicon; 99 xj with too much stuff to list; Unimog 406
wilson1010 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the JeepForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid e-mail address for yourself.
Note: All free e-mails have been banned due to mis-use. (Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail, etc.)
Don't have a non-free e-mail address? Click here for a solution: Manual Account Creation
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


Thread Tools






Jeep, Wrangler, Cherokee, Grand Cherokee, and other models are copyrighted and trademarked to Jeep/Chrysler Corporation. JeepForum.com is not in any way associated with Jeep or the Chrysler Corp.