The SKINNY on skinny tires

It's just the premise of the argument skinny versus wide. There is no real benefit to a "skinny" tire but I agree there are marginal benefits of a "taller" tire such as increasing your your tire surface area when deflated. A wider tire will provide better performance than a skinny in almost ALL conditions.

imho the only real benefit to a skinny tire is that they fit better under a Tacoma because of the limitations with the cab mount. Again no issues with the reasoning of that, just when people try to argue thats its better than their wider counterpart.

 

Not to sound rude but it's honestly just physics. A vehicle's performance is directly translated to how much traction it has which is ultimately dictated by both material and surface area in which its applied. If we compare skinny versus wide then we need to look at things like a 255/85r16 vs a 33x12.5r16

Real world examples include the tire development in literally EVERY type of motorsports. Formula 1, Endurance, Motocross, MotoGP, Drag Racing etc. You see the concept applied in extreme real word situations such as arctic exploration vehicles, look up the Artic Hylux. The same applies to heavier things like tanks where germany added Ostketten to widen tracks in order to traverse terrain.

If we look at hard surfaces such as rock, pavement, gravel etc the same concept applies as mentioned with motorsports. More rubber on the road or rock = more traction period, it's really THAT simple. A 33 wide has a larger contact patch than the skinny and when deflated same holds true still.

When we look at soft surfaces such as sand, mud and snow, the greatest danger is sinking and beaching yourself. To combat this you either need to reduce weight or reduce ground pressure, wider tires have a larger surface area than skinny tires and thus reduce ground pressure as it's more distributed providing greater "float" characteristics. Same concept for wearing snow shoes, larger surface area prevents you from post holing your foot into the snow.

A lot of people argue that a skinny tire allows you to sink to the bottom of the mud or snow to bite the hard ground underneath to provide traction which couldn't be further from the truth. Sure, driving through a small puddle on a dirt road i don't want my tire to magically hyrdroplane across the top but mud doesnt displace like water does, neither does sand or now.

Speaking of snow, snow traction depends really depends on the tires ability to hold and pack snow, more snow you pack the better snow traction. A wider tire provides both float characteristics so you stay on top and increases your surface area for more siping and snow pack for great traction.

As far as personal experience, I mean I get through things that others cant.

Worst one was this summer while driving down to a lake as the water line had receded, we stayed about 20 feet from the waters edge to be safe and all of a sudden the top crust broke and the truck literally fell through into a bog which was basically the lake bed. While I do have treps, a skinny tire would not have made it out, the skinny would have just dug in further.

 

Besides the slight benefit of slightly better traction off-road, the skinnier tires provide more benefits in overall driving that a wider tire. If you're truck is built solely for rock crawling or sand driving, a wider tire is slightly better. I've ran 255, 265, 285. Overall the 255 has been the best medium between off-road and on-road performance. 265 was a bit too short, 285 ended up being too heavy and wide.

When you compare snow shoes and tank tracks, the ratio of width compared to regular shoes and regular tracks is much larger than the few wider millimeters you're getting with wider tires. The weight and rotational mass savings is more beneficial in 255 vs 285 in my opinion.

I think most people on this site, save for a few hardcore off-roaders I know, and even most "overland built" tacomas will do well to go with a 255 for the forest roads I see mostly driven.

 

Why do you even post in this thread, if not to troll?

 

In what way? Ignoring the fact that it's inferior in every offroad situation, it's technically inferior when it comes to onroad traction as well when we include cornering, braking, and acceleration.

the difference between say a 255/85 and a 33x12.5 is 2.5 inches...not mm. Combine that across 4 tires and the overall surface area, youre looking at about 20% increase in surface area or tire contact.

Sure, dont disagree, they are easy to fit, will they outperform a stock size tire on those same roads, probably but negligible, doesnt change the fact that a wider tire would still do it better

 

The on-road racing scenarios you listed are not typical road driving settings for a Tacoma driver. Braking and accelerating have been much better in the lighter tire of the same height, and I've had no issues cornering.

 

I'm not here to compare a 255 to a 12.5 in wide tire, and if I did, the weight savings would benefit the skinnier much more in typical Tacoma road conditions

 

Then why are you here at all, comparing mm's is completely moot.

Well we arent here to discuss your feelings, the reality is that more rubber is more traction. period.

 

Most people in this thread are looking for a typical 285 that's nearly 33" tall and realizing a 255/80 is a better option

 

285 has 10% or so more surface area thus more traction in every driving situation.

People look to the 255 because they dont want to risk rubbing with a 285, they dont want a CMC, they dont want to deal with Backspacing, or alignment changes etc.

 

Ok. Period.

 

Looks good. I may go 255/75 next time around depending on market availability. 255/80 seems to be sold out a lot. But I have plenty of life left on my tires for now.

 

Speaking of anecdotes, here is the aftermath of that lake visit I mentioned. Quick sand is real lol

 

Just going back to the first post:

1. Less rolling resistance - better fuel economy
2. Can cut easier through mud, sand, and snow
3. Typically lighter which can improve acceleration and stopping performance
4. Will almost always fit better in the wheel well and require less trimming than a wider tire
5. For airing down, a taller and skinnier tire allows for longer contact patch which can increase traction while off-roading
6. Taller tires have more sidewall and when aired down can result in a softer ride

I don't really see where the misinformation is? All are solid points except for maybe 2. Joe Cova has a good point on digging deep can be bad in many cases. The other are very obvious benefits to having 255 over 285, especially if you're a usual tacomaworld driver and don't wheel difficult trails.

That being said, can anyone here verify 1 and 3? Did sizing down give you better driving performance?

 

1. Agreed - though its probably moot, I would say this has more to do with tread design and type (e.g. MT vs AT) than pure skinny vs wide. Probably not even 1mpg
2. Disagree as discussed above
3. Overall vehicle weight will impact acceleration and braking but the typically not associated to tire weight. That being said the average weight of the 255/85r16s in the first post average 56lbs per tire. A General Grabber ATX 285/75 R16 weighs 58 lbs. Their 33x12.5 weighs 59.8 lbs. So again the difference is negligible as we are talking a weight difference of maybe 10-20lbs max for all 4 tires. I used general because thats what I drive but point is that weight is negligble.
4. 100% Agree
5. This was never debated as the post is skinny vs wide NOT tall vs. short but agree. But as mentioned a skinny tire ha less contact patch than wider.
6. See above, the argument was never about tall vs short. a 255/85r16 has same amount of sidewall as a 33x12.5r16



As far as 1 and 3. Downsizing as in switching from a 12.5" wide tire to say a 10" wont provide much other than maybe slight mpg gain if you even see it. Will you run burn less energy running with 4 toes instead of 5?

 

I think the two general tires you compared have different load ratings and different wheel sizes.

 

One of my big issues with the "255 vs 285" argument is that, since tire sizing is bullshit*, it's really an argument of two theoretical tires with identical heights, loads, and tread patterns, with one being slightly narrower and lighter.

*For example, Cooper advertises the 255/80R17 STT Maxx as being 32.8" in diameter, but I want to say that my spare measures in at something like 32.2" sitting fully inflated on the back of my truck. Maybe even less.

 

Doesn't matter, not a big enough difference to invalidate the point. the 285/75 r16 is a 10ply load E tire. The 33x12.5 is load C but I used it as a reference because they dont make a 33x12.5 in E. However if I use there metric 305/70r16 10 ply load E its still only 60.1 lbs.

255/85r16 average - 56
285/75r16 - 58
305/70r16 - 60

I mean its 4 lbs difference per tire

 

I think for some people, if you find a tire size and a weight that you're comfortable with, stick with that. I found a 255/80/17 e load all terrain at 50lbs so I'm running that and I'm happy. Compared to the 285 @ 58lbs I drove, the performance on 255s on-road was better, and I've yet to have issues off-road (fire roads). Also for many, point number 4 is a big one when factored in with the other positives, it becomes a good option.

 

Ya 255/85 is a reasonable upgrade over stock size tires and that's really what this thread should be comparing, would definitely have more merit.