Tow rig tires, skinny or wide? - Page 4 - 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?

USA Standard Chromoly Front Axle Shaft Kits with Dana 30 4Eliminate Hood Flutter!!!Offset Tie Rod Kit From RuffStuff!

Reply
Unread 03-11-2013, 11:26 AM   #46
wilson1010
Registered User
1999 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cincinnati Ohio
Posts: 1,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by XJNKY View Post
Ok, here's one for you. It isn't pneumatics, but it is still pressure distribution, although transmitted through a less-compressible medium. A gas piston, like in a pneumatic system, or a gun, has a surface area of 1 square inch. The chamber has a pressure of 2 PSI. At the other end of that piston, it tapers down to a geometry that has a surface area of 0.5 square inches. How much pressure is is exerted at the other end of the piston?

By your logic, 2PSI.
By people who understand physics, 4PSI.

You.have.no.idea.what.you're.talking.about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPond View Post
See guys, this is a typical thread that has been hijacked by Wilson. He will argue for days, until he gets bored.

And each time someone presents a rational, logical argument that doesn't agree with his view of the world he will simply ignore it and make some other argumentative statement.
OK, the Physics Twins, Pond and Jinky have postulated their "rational logical argument" for why the tire can put more pressure per square inch on the ground than the pressure inside the tire. There it is folks. In all of its glory. The Piston Theory. I think that it is utterly clear that neither of these dweebs has any idea how air pressure inside a tire works. They think it works like a piston in a cylinder, with a narrow out put shaft no less. Read it for yourself if you don't believe it.

I think I'll stick with Boeing Aircraft's explanation:


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

And, if you two dropouts would like to see an empirical study of the miniscule effect that a sidewall has on tire deflection (increased contact patch when weight is increased or internal pressure decreased) why not look at an actual source rather than the BS you posted above:

See:
Mechanics of Pneumatic Tires
By United States. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

http://books.google.com/books?id=zcZ...&q=249&f=false

__________________
03 Rubicon; 99 xj with too much stuff to list; Unimog 406
wilson1010 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-11-2013, 12:04 PM   #47
wolfcreek
Registered User
2004 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: , Washington
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilson1010 View Post
OK, the Physics Twins, Pond and Jinky have postulated their "rational logical argument" for why the tire can put more pressure per square inch on the ground than the pressure inside the tire.
I'm probably wasting my time, but it is not only possible, but inevitable that a tire will put (slightly) more psi on the ground than the pressure in the tire. That is because it takes force to deform an empty tire. A real tire has a semi-rigid flexible structure. The weight equivalent to the force needed to deform the tire needs to be subtracted from the load for the psi in the tire to equal psi on the ground.

The contact patch of an "ideal", infinitely pliable tire would also have sharp corners and edges, contours which a semi-rigid tire tread cannot assume, therefore the actual contact patch will always be smaller than the theoretical contact patch.

Just so I add something for the OP, I'd stay with the OEM size, also because the spare will be a better match and a larger size may not fit the spare mounting location.
wolfcreek is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-11-2013, 12:57 PM   #48
MPond
Web Wheeler
 
MPond's Avatar
2006 LJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Newbury Park, CA
Posts: 1,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfcreek View Post
I'm probably wasting my time...
You are... He's never going to listen to anything anyone else says.

Based on Wilson's theory, the contact patch can only put the same pressure on the ground as the PSI in the tire. Based on that, if I lower my tires to 0 psi, there should be no pressure on the ground... So does that mean my car would then be floating?

I drove for quite a while in my CJ without knowing that one of my BFG ATs was flat, because the casing / sidewall was so rigid that it didn't deform under the weight of my CJ, even at 0 PSI.

Truth is, his theory may work within a limited weight range for a given tire. But if I tried to explain that it would go right over his head, and he'd just start lashing out at everyone else again. Not worth the effort.

For entertainment, do a search for threads in this section (Trailers and Towing) with posts by Wilson. In all the threads he has hijacked you'll notice a pattern just like post #10 in this thread: he's always the first one to take a discussion about something else (tires, towing, hitches, etc...) and turn it into a personal attack. It really is quite entertaining if you don't take him seriously.

Back on topic: All things being equal, I prefer the wider tire option. But I think XJNKY is making the right choice here, given that the difference is not monumental, the price is better, and I think the KM2 is a better tire overall.
__________________
2006 Black Unlimited 6-speed, Rubicon Express 4.5" Long Arm Kit
MPond is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-12-2013, 06:32 AM   #49
wilson1010
Registered User
1999 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cincinnati Ohio
Posts: 1,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfcreek View Post
I'm probably wasting my time, but it is not only possible, but inevitable that a tire will put (slightly) more psi on the ground than the pressure in the tire. That is because it takes force to deform an empty tire. A real tire has a semi-rigid flexible structure. The weight equivalent to the force needed to deform the tire needs to be subtracted from the load for the psi in the tire to equal psi on the ground.

The contact patch of an "ideal", infinitely pliable tire would also have sharp corners and edges, contours which a semi-rigid tire tread cannot assume, therefore the actual contact patch will always be smaller than the theoretical contact patch.

Just so I add something for the OP, I'd stay with the OEM size, also because the spare will be a better match and a larger size may not fit the spare mounting location.
Let's test your theory. I assume that you would accept that if correct this theory is "scalable." That is, that what you postulate for a tire would also be true (albeit to a lesser extent) to a smaller tire with thinner side walls?

And, conversely, the theory would be true for a bigger tire with thicker sidewalls?

A balloon is on a linear scale with a tire. Just at the low end of your example.

At 10 mil rubber thickness, it deforms significantly with one pound or less of pressure. Get out your microscope and you might see that on a magnification of 1000 times, there is considerable curvature where the balloon meets the ground.

Multiply the balloon characteristics by 1000 times. Weight needed to deform it? 1000 times the pound or so it takes. Thickness? 1000 times the thickness. 10mil x 1000 = 10 inches thick.

So, the principle you offer is true, and scalable, a tire is just like a balloon. Exactly the opposite of what was said by others above.
__________________
03 Rubicon; 99 xj with too much stuff to list; Unimog 406
wilson1010 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-12-2013, 07:15 AM   #50
wolfcreek
Registered User
2004 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: , Washington
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilson1010 View Post
Let's test your theory. I assume that you would accept that if correct this theory is "scalable." That is, that what you postulate for a tire would also be true (albeit to a lesser extent) to a smaller tire with thinner side walls?

And, conversely, the theory would be true for a bigger tire with thicker sidewalls?

A balloon is on a linear scale with a tire. Just at the low end of your example.

At 10 mil rubber thickness, it deforms significantly with one pound or less of pressure. Get out your microscope and you might see that on a magnification of 1000 times, there is considerable curvature where the balloon meets the ground.

Multiply the balloon characteristics by 1000 times. Weight needed to deform it? 1000 times the pound or so it takes. Thickness? 1000 times the thickness. 10mil x 1000 = 10 inches thick.

So, the principle you offer is true, and scalable, a tire is just like a balloon. Exactly the opposite of what was said by others above.
You didn't write anything there that I disagree with. A balloon is as close to ideally pliable as you're going to get and will obey the relationship between internal psi and contact patch psi as closely as you're going to see. The more structure and stiffness a tire has, the further away it will get from this theoretical relationship... I have a mower with small front caster wheels that often lose all pressure. I hardly notice, and the contact patch certainly does not spread out over an infinite area as the formula would dicate.
I don't think anyone is denying the basic relationship between tire pressure, contact patch area and load (or if they did I missed it), but it's a theoretical relationship that gives approximate results depending on the structure and geometry of a real world tire.

Therefore, saying that tire width has no effect on contact patch area and has no effect on traction is an oversimplification (to attempt to return to the original question).
wolfcreek is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-12-2013, 07:43 AM   #51
wilson1010
Registered User
1999 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cincinnati Ohio
Posts: 1,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfcreek View Post
You didn't write anything there that I disagree with. A balloon is as close to ideally pliable as you're going to get and will obey the relationship between internal psi and contact patch psi as closely as you're going to see. The more structure and stiffness a tire has, the further away it will get from this theoretical relationship... I have a mower with small front caster wheels that often lose all pressure. I hardly notice, and the contact patch certainly does not spread out over an infinite area as the formula would dicate.
I don't think anyone is denying the basic relationship between tire pressure, contact patch area and load (or if they did I missed it), but it's a theoretical relationship that gives approximate results depending on the structure and geometry of a real world tire.

Therefore, saying that tire width has no effect on contact patch area and has no effect on traction is an oversimplification (to attempt to return to the original question).
I think that tire width is very important on a rolling tire. There is bounce, lateral deflection, speed of deflection, all kinds of things to consider. Completely different conversation. I got into this conversation when someone posted that an increase in width of a tire increased the contact patch. I rolled eyes and was called a troll for it. The Physics Twins doubled down on a losing hand. Then the fun started.

A tire at rest acts just like a balloon and when it has 1/4 of the weight of a rig, or 1/2 of the weight of the trailer on it, it responds just like a balloon does. If a balloon is empty and untied, it has its own rigid structure. It is not as flat as paper. And, a tire without even a rim in it will stand up on its own. But when the weight of the rig or trailer is considered and scaled, a tire responds just like a balloon. That is why I posted the photo of the earth mover several pages back with its tire as flat as a pancake even though the tire is probably 3 inches thick.

The DOT book I referenced above shows experimental data on tire contact patches at different pressures. There is some deviation from what one would expect by making a purely arithmetic projection, but it ain't much. Tiny really. It is quite safe to say that the contact area of a tire is the weight of the rig, divided by the PSI of the tire, divided by the number of tires. Just like I said 5 pages ago.
__________________
03 Rubicon; 99 xj with too much stuff to list; Unimog 406
wilson1010 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-12-2013, 07:50 AM   #52
Ripper3494
Registered User
1994 YJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Warrenville, Illinois
Posts: 5,635
what the ****? lol
__________________
build thread:
[url]http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f22/94-yj-6-0-build-spud-1218315/[/url]
1994 yj stretched, locked and loaded - 6.0l vortec lq4, 4l60e, np231, Dana 44s 37" interco trxus m/t, 3.5" bds front leafs, double triangulated 4 link rear on xj front coils.
1997 ZJ limited - BONE stock
2003 tj - 4in skyjacker, 33" mickey thompsons
my on board alternator/welder write up
[url]http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f12/alternator-welder-write-up-1301614/[/url]
my tj 1/2 doors on a yj write up
[url]http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f12/tj-uppers-yj-half-doors-hard-top-installation-1417686/[/url]
RC vs BDS
[url]http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f12/rough-country-vs-bds-1461555/[/url]
Ripper3494 is online now   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-12-2013, 08:28 AM   #53
XJNKY
Registered User
1998 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: , Central KY
Posts: 464
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPond View Post
You are... He's never going to listen to anything anyone else says.

Based on Wilson's theory, the contact patch can only put the same pressure on the ground as the PSI in the tire. Based on that, if I lower my tires to 0 psi, there should be no pressure on the ground... So does that mean my car would then be floating?

...

Truth is, his theory may work within a limited weight range for a given tire. But if I tried to explain that it would go right over his head, and he'd just start lashing out at everyone else again. Not worth the effort.
...

Back on topic: All things being equal, I prefer the wider tire option. But I think XJNKY is making the right choice here, given that the difference is not monumental, the price is better, and I think the KM2 is a better tire overall.
^This. I was actually getting ready to get on and post this^. Which tire has more contact at 0 PSI. But again, Wilson's goal has nothing to do with arguing a scientific principle, it's pretty much just textbook trolling. If you notice, he actually was really cryptic in the beginning about what his point was, and waited to find an opening to set up an argument point. Then his best "evidence" is a scenario where you have a 800,000lb aircraft on balloon tires as his example. Once you get into a surface area that large, and a weight range that heavy, any sidewall stiffness is pretty much factored out as a result of rounding. At the end of the day, a tire isn't a balloon, it has a semi-rigid structure. That structure is what turns this from a theoretical discussion into a real world application. Wilson doesn't know any of this stuff, he just read something on the internet. He doesn't know squat about physics. Spell check is probably the only reason he managed to even spell it correctly. If he'd ever had a physics class or lesson in his life, that didn't involve oscillatory motion coupled with an experiment in using a skin-to-lotion-covered-skin coefficient of friction, he'd quit embarrassing himself. I gave him evidence, he didn't refute it, he just tried to make fun of the way I did it. He didn't refute it because he can't. If he tried it, he'd get the same results. You can do the same thing, with any of the common ways of checking contact patch, and you'll get the same results. You can search other threads here on the forum and see it. If he was right, every engineer that works on sports cars, race cars, pulling trucks, tractors, any farm equipment is an idiot. I ask you, what are the chances that all these people with engineering degrees are wrong, and this internet genius is right? Also, if he was right, a bicycle tire would have the same amount of rubber touching the ground as a 35x14.50, on ANY given vehicle, presuming they were at the same pressure. Think about that one. The PSI in the tire only acts on the inside wall of the tire. While that obviously affects the contact area with the ground, it's far from being a 1:1 correlation like Wilson here thinks.

Slightly off topic, Wilson's profile says he's 65. Anyone want to call BS on that? My vote is more like some 13 year old d-bag posting pictures of Jeeps he found on the internet, copying someone's upgrade wishlist into his profile. I don't know anyone who has made it to 65 being this stupid...

Also, factory tire size is not on the table, I need something taller for a number of reasons. I'd say the best compromise is the 255, as it is closer to the factory width, and I don't have to worry about all the trimming/rubbing issues that I'm seeing guys have with the 285's.
XJNKY is online now   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-12-2013, 09:04 AM   #54
wilson1010
Registered User
1999 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cincinnati Ohio
Posts: 1,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by XJNKY View Post
^This. I was actually getting ready to get on and post this^. Which tire has more contact at 0 PSI. But again, Wilson's goal has nothing to do with arguing a scientific principle, it's pretty much just textbook trolling. If you notice, he actually was really cryptic in the beginning about what his point was, and waited to find an opening to set up an argument point. Then his best "evidence" is a scenario where you have a 800,000lb aircraft on balloon tires as his example. Once you get into a surface area that large, and a weight range that heavy, any sidewall stiffness is pretty much factored out as a result of rounding. At the end of the day, a tire isn't a balloon, it has a semi-rigid structure. That structure is what turns this from a theoretical discussion into a real world application. Wilson doesn't know any of this stuff, he just read something on the internet. He doesn't know squat about physics. Spell check is probably the only reason he managed to even spell it correctly. If he'd ever had a physics class or lesson in his life, that didn't involve oscillatory motion coupled with an experiment in using a skin-to-lotion-covered-skin coefficient of friction, he'd quit embarrassing himself. I gave him evidence, he didn't refute it, he just tried to make fun of the way I did it. He didn't refute it because he can't. If he tried it, he'd get the same results. You can do the same thing, with any of the common ways of checking contact patch, and you'll get the same results. You can search other threads here on the forum and see it. If he was right, every engineer that works on sports cars, race cars, pulling trucks, tractors, any farm equipment is an idiot. I ask you, what are the chances that all these people with engineering degrees are wrong, and this internet genius is right? Also, if he was right, a bicycle tire would have the same amount of rubber touching the ground as a 35x14.50, on ANY given vehicle, presuming they were at the same pressure. Think about that one. The PSI in the tire only acts on the inside wall of the tire. While that obviously affects the contact area with the ground, it's far from being a 1:1 correlation like Wilson here thinks.

Slightly off topic, Wilson's profile says he's 65. Anyone want to call BS on that? My vote is more like some 13 year old d-bag posting pictures of Jeeps he found on the internet, copying someone's upgrade wishlist into his profile. I don't know anyone who has made it to 65 being this stupid...

Also, factory tire size is not on the table, I need something taller for a number of reasons. I'd say the best compromise is the 255, as it is closer to the factory width, and I don't have to worry about all the trimming/rubbing issues that I'm seeing guys have with the 285's.
You're still a moron. You posted stuff that is utterly incorrect and refused to take responsibility for it. Instead personally attacking me for calling you on it. The only "smart guy" who has been cited above by you two trolls turns out to be a video gamer selling a program based on statistics who has nothing to do with racing or off roading. I have referred you to the Boeing Aircraft site and the DOT definitive manual on tire deflection. This discussion has repeated itself on endless websites and it always comes out the same. There are good reasons for wanting wider tires. Contact patch area is not one of them.

I am actually 66 and have built more racing and off road vehicles than you have ridden in. You made fools of yourselves and if you hadn't insulted me, I would have been nicer to you. And, if I had gone to The Berea College of Basketweaving and Upholstery, I sure wouldn't be bragging about it.
__________________
03 Rubicon; 99 xj with too much stuff to list; Unimog 406
wilson1010 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-12-2013, 10:12 AM   #55
XJNKY
Registered User
1998 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: , Central KY
Posts: 464



With your "understanding" of "physics", I don't think I'd want to ride in anything you've built.

And slamming Berea doesn't hurt me a bit, it just shows your ignorance of anything academic. I guess add that to the looooong list of things you apparently know nothing about.

The only thing I've posted that was incorrect was the 12%, and that was just a general off-the-top of my head number from the general dimensions. You didn't question the contact patch theory, you just said the math was wrong (which, it wasn't). It's been clear for a while that you have no idea what you're actually talking about, just looking for some opportunity to troll. Apparently it's just what you do here. If you look back, there's been 4 or 5 people try to tell you you're wrong, not just MPond and myself. But, hey, if you don't mind being the one idiot in a room screaming at the top of their lungs that the sky is green while everyone else looks at them like they're crazy, then have at it. Once I figured out you had no idea what you were talking about, somewhere early in page 3, this has all been amusement.
...

Still think you should calm down by taking a nice long stroll in over the rhine. Not trying to beat a dead horse, I just think it would solve a lot of your problems.
XJNKY is online now   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-12-2013, 10:57 AM   #56
wilson1010
Registered User
1999 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cincinnati Ohio
Posts: 1,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by XJNKY View Post



With your "understanding" of "physics", I don't think I'd want to ride in anything you've built.

And slamming Berea doesn't hurt me a bit, it just shows your ignorance of anything academic. I guess add that to the looooong list of things you apparently know nothing about.

The only thing I've posted that was incorrect was the 12%, and that was just a general off-the-top of my head number from the general dimensions. You didn't question the contact patch theory, you just said the math was wrong (which, it wasn't). It's been clear for a while that you have no idea what you're actually talking about, just looking for some opportunity to troll. Apparently it's just what you do here. If you look back, there's been 4 or 5 people try to tell you you're wrong, not just MPond and myself. But, hey, if you don't mind being the one idiot in a room screaming at the top of their lungs that the sky is green while everyone else looks at them like they're crazy, then have at it. Once I figured out you had no idea what you were talking about, somewhere early in page 3, this has all been amusement.
...

Still think you should calm down by taking a nice long stroll in over the rhine. Not trying to beat a dead horse, I just think it would solve a lot of your problems.
I work in OTR, am there every day, own 20,000 square feet of property there and it is the hottest developing area in the Midwest. So, what's your point?
__________________
03 Rubicon; 99 xj with too much stuff to list; Unimog 406
wilson1010 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-12-2013, 11:04 AM   #57
XJNKY
Registered User
1998 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: , Central KY
Posts: 464
Jeebus... 20K square feet. That would be an impressive sized meth lab sir. You can scrub all the crackheads you want out of there but it's still a ****hole, regardless of how much tax money they pump into it.
...
Although, breathing those fumes all day might explain a lot of your views...

Last edited by XJNKY; 04-04-2013 at 01:17 PM..
XJNKY is online now   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-12-2013, 11:34 AM   #58
wilson1010
Registered User
1999 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cincinnati Ohio
Posts: 1,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by XJNKY View Post
Jeebus... 20K square feet. That is one impressive sized meth lab sir. You can scrub all the crackheads you want out of there but it's still a ****hole, regardless of how much tax money they pump into it.
...
Although, breathing those fumes all day might explain a lot of your views...
Gee. You're a moron about everything, then aren't you? Eddie Ledbetter. Watch the movie. You are him. Figures. But, did you know that your drug use remark above is a defamation for which you might end up buying me a new Lexus? Or, you could just get kicked off of JeepForum. Also, did you know that if I file a little suit down here in Cincinnati (which I can do in about 30 minutes and $115 in filing fees), Jeep forum will give me every detail of your personal information with about a 7 day turnaround? then you can get a lawyer and spend some money. Oh, don't want to dance with me? Then shut your pie hole, moron and climb back under your rock. I'm a little bored this afternoon and I'm itching for a fight. So, when I get back from getting my haircut, and I have nothing to do the rest of the afternoon, don't be too surprised if I don't just sue your sorry self just to improve my mood. I'll PM you a copy of the complaint and my subpoena to Jeepforum if I do. You can just wait and see.
__________________
03 Rubicon; 99 xj with too much stuff to list; Unimog 406
wilson1010 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-12-2013, 11:35 AM   #59
Ripper3494
Registered User
1994 YJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Warrenville, Illinois
Posts: 5,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilson1010 View Post
Gee. You're a moron about everything, then aren't you? Figures. But, did you know that your drug use remark above is a defamation for which you might end up buying me a new Lexus? Or, you could just get kicked off of JeepForum. Also, did you know that if I file a little suit down here in Cincinnati (which I can do in about 30 minutes and $115 in filing fees), Jeep forum will give me every detail of your personal information with about a 7 day turnaround? then you can get a lawyer and spend some money. Oh, don't want to dance with me? Then shut your pie hole, moron and climb back under your rock.
lol what?
__________________
build thread:
[url]http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f22/94-yj-6-0-build-spud-1218315/[/url]
1994 yj stretched, locked and loaded - 6.0l vortec lq4, 4l60e, np231, Dana 44s 37" interco trxus m/t, 3.5" bds front leafs, double triangulated 4 link rear on xj front coils.
1997 ZJ limited - BONE stock
2003 tj - 4in skyjacker, 33" mickey thompsons
my on board alternator/welder write up
[url]http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f12/alternator-welder-write-up-1301614/[/url]
my tj 1/2 doors on a yj write up
[url]http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f12/tj-uppers-yj-half-doors-hard-top-installation-1417686/[/url]
RC vs BDS
[url]http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f12/rough-country-vs-bds-1461555/[/url]
Ripper3494 is online now   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-12-2013, 11:46 AM   #60
MPond
Web Wheeler
 
MPond's Avatar
2006 LJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Newbury Park, CA
Posts: 1,245
That's the thing Wilson - you are the troll here. It could be an interesting discussion if you could control contribute your ideas and quit the name-calling, but we both know that's not going to happen.

All of of your noise is entertaining, but it really is just that - noise. Like "No high school", "McDonalds", "Brokeback Mountain", "Physics Twins", and all of your bluster. Entertaining, but irrelevant.

My two favorites are:

1. Where you call me a Novice Internet User. If you only knew how little you actually know.

2. Your claim that you've built more racing and off road vehicles than XJNKY has ever ridden in. That one sounds just like your claim from last September when you said to me "I have probably towed with more vehicles of any kind than you and your father have owned combined, son". You have no idea what experience XJNKY has.

You don't have a clue, and your credibility is down to 0.
__________________
2006 Black Unlimited 6-speed, Rubicon Express 4.5" Long Arm Kit
MPond is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
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.