Lift...WHY
02-15-2009, 01:36 PM
#61
Contributing Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Los Osos, CA (we can't agree on crap!)
Posts: 2,124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
its alot of mud and washout around here where the low gearing might not help..
and i have a welder and a winch waiting to be put to use hahahaha
also an internal snorkel i think..
i almost purchased bj spacers im glad i found out about this thread because no buying them ill keep my ifs stronger and they arnt need. i just though maybe it would level out the cruiser coils... but i dont care ill just load up the rear with gear hahahahhaha
and i have a welder and a winch waiting to be put to use hahahaha
also an internal snorkel i think..
i almost purchased bj spacers im glad i found out about this thread because no buying them ill keep my ifs stronger and they arnt need. i just though maybe it would level out the cruiser coils... but i dont care ill just load up the rear with gear hahahahhaha
Actually for that type of wheeling, bj spacers would be fine. Like Ike said, for the hard rock type trails are where you will find that the extreme angle can hurt your steering components. This is usually in those big rock trails where you have to try turning with wheels wedged or up against rocks. The extra angle on the steering gear makes it more susceptible to bending with the side to side forces acted upon it. There are ways to strengthen the steering, but the problem is that it usually just makes another component the weaker link till you've spent a lot of money. There are strong idler arms out there that can handle it, but now your tie rod ends and adjusting sleeves are the weak link, there are stonger ones of those as well, but now the center link bends, you can buy stronger ones of those as well, and now I'm not sure what would be the weak link because I don't have the $$ to get all those yet. Hehe.
I am double locked now but don't have the gearing that Ike has, but I do run 33x12.5's which are heavy and can also reek havik on the steering. I don't purely run the big rock trails and so far I've been good on my steering components (other than wearing out the plastic idler bushings and I'm testing bronze ones now). I'm not easy on my rig either, it gets jumped, ran hard in the dunes (which would kill those plastic idler bushings in about a trip), ran in the desert, and rock trails. I've had good success with them for my type of wheeling.
Basically I'm saying, it doesn't mean that you are going to destroy steering parts with the spacers. You have to look at your type of wheeling and the pros and cons as most everything in this sport is gaining something and compromising on something else.
If you aren't in need of really low gearing for the type of wheeling you do then you are more than likely not going to be destroying your steering components with the spacers.
Also cruiser coils aren't going to do anything about your 32's taking out your rear bumper, it will still flex up to the same point unless you change your bumpstops. That's part of what this whole thread has been saying, a suspension lift does not make room for bigger tires.
Last edited by slosurfer; 02-15-2009 at 01:39 PM.
02-16-2009, 10:20 PM
#64
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: KC, MO
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Man this site [B]ROCKS[B] The amount of knowledge accessible from everyone here just blows me away. Lots of good points made. Thank you all so very much. I think I will put the lift on hold and first go with this. 1st... get some sliders and maybe some better bumpers. Put the aussie locker in the front, and work on getting an ARB for the rear. Put in my sway away torsion bars because right now I have stock t-bars that are cranked up (that way when I bought it) and I already have the torsion bars that I found used.. learn to drive it better then when it's time to replace my tires (31's) I will go to 33's and see how they fit. Possibly put some sway bar disconects (do they help much?) Then look at doing the lift latter if I feel that I need it. After watching some of those wheeling links I see now how important the body armour is. My 95 4r has a really clean body, no rust and no dents so the body armour will come first. Thanks everyone. feel free to keep the opinions coming. I read this every day and appreciate your help.
02-17-2009, 12:05 AM
#65
You know the formula for friction force?
Normal force * coefficient of friction
Note there is no factor for surface area or contact patch.
I will grant you that a 12.50 has more flotation than a 10.50, but IMHO, 10.50 is plenty of flotation for our lighter trucks.
Narrow tires RULE in snow and some mud conditions, and are generally superior on the road due to lower rolling and air resistance.
http://www.expeditionswest.com/resea...tion_rev1.html
Normal force * coefficient of friction
Note there is no factor for surface area or contact patch.
I will grant you that a 12.50 has more flotation than a 10.50, but IMHO, 10.50 is plenty of flotation for our lighter trucks.
Narrow tires RULE in snow and some mud conditions, and are generally superior on the road due to lower rolling and air resistance.
http://www.expeditionswest.com/resea...tion_rev1.html
TC, I have so been waiting for this to come up again, so please don't think I'm gunning for you. I've seen and read this article before and was left scratching my head. It only stands that someone can rationalize themself to beleive anything.
You state that there is no factor for contact patch or surface area. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction the friction coeffectient is just that.
The opening of the article you quote as fact opens with "I state my position" and "my aurgument" This is simply one guys feeling as to why his tire choice is superior to mine. He list quotes from others experiences an attempt to support his arguement with figures and forumulas but no actual test or experiments.
This is simply a theory there is no fact.
02-17-2009, 12:40 AM
#66
Dewise. I completely pulled my sway bar out. Still do interstate speeds but don't pretend I'm in a sports car. I'm locked fr/rr this is awesome and a very good upgrade for offroad traction. I have dual t-case with 2.28/4.7 this has been a saving grace as it so accents the other traction devices and gives the control back to me, has probably saved my butt from rolling more than once because you don't bounce all over the place when you put it in lowest or even lower. Much more capable than just low. The armor has also been a great addition and saved some damage but also helped with pivot points on tight trails. The 33/12.5 tire with mud tread and good strong sidewalls let me air way down to really get awesome traction. The longer springs and shocks in the rear give better flex that helps keep more tire on the ground thus better traction. The front winch well it makes for when the others don't cut it or the drive doesn't. Yes IFS has limited flex but may wheeling ability is more limited by my willingness to take body damage. My truck was dent free when I got it and is way far from that now.
The whole point to my egotist rambling was simply to say get out and wheel it, learn your truck, learn to pick lines and enjoy. Shoot if you wheel it you will learn what you want to mod next. And if you got the lift put it on, if you don't like it take it off. Wrenching is half the fun of wheelin.
Have you been to Tahuya near Belfair yet? Its changed since I was there last year.
The whole point to my egotist rambling was simply to say get out and wheel it, learn your truck, learn to pick lines and enjoy. Shoot if you wheel it you will learn what you want to mod next. And if you got the lift put it on, if you don't like it take it off. Wrenching is half the fun of wheelin.
Have you been to Tahuya near Belfair yet? Its changed since I was there last year.
02-17-2009, 06:54 AM
#68
Contributing Member
TC, I have so been waiting for this to come up again, so please don't think I'm gunning for you. I've seen and read this article before and was left scratching my head. It only stands that someone can rationalize themself to beleive anything.
You state that there is no factor for contact patch or surface area. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction the friction coeffectient is just that.
The opening of the article you quote as fact opens with "I state my position" and "my aurgument" This is simply one guys feeling as to why his tire choice is superior to mine. He list quotes from others experiences an attempt to support his arguement with figures and forumulas but no actual test or experiments.
This is simply a theory there is no fact.
You state that there is no factor for contact patch or surface area. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction the friction coeffectient is just that.
The opening of the article you quote as fact opens with "I state my position" and "my aurgument" This is simply one guys feeling as to why his tire choice is superior to mine. He list quotes from others experiences an attempt to support his arguement with figures and forumulas but no actual test or experiments.
This is simply a theory there is no fact.
Friction is not a fundamental force, as it is derived from electromagnetic force between charged particles, including electrons, protons, atoms, and molecules, and so cannot be calculated from first principles, but instead must be found empirically. When contacting surfaces move relative to each other, the friction between the two surfaces converts kinetic energy into thermal energy, or heat. Contrary to earlier explanations, kinetic friction is now understood not to be caused by surface roughness but by chemical bonding between the surfaces.[6] Surface roughness and contact area, however, do affect kinetic friction for micro- and nano-scale objects where surface area forces dominate inertial forces .
And from farther down,
When the surfaces are conjoined, Coulomb friction becomes a very poor approximation (for example, adhesive tape resists sliding even when there is no normal force, or a negative normal force). In this case, the frictional force may depend strongly on the area of contact. Some drag racing tires are adhesive in this way.
Surface area plays a part in SOME cases. In the case of wheeling, we are going to mostly be talking about friction in terms of friction at any point on the tire.
HOWEVER, IMO, talking about friction is somewhat irrelevant.
Yes, the frictional force lets you move. However, with regard to better traction, what people SHOULD be talking about is PRESSURE.
Pressure, or force/unit area, is where the wide vs narrow tire argument has meaning. Lets assume the same truck uses two sets of tires, one narrow, one wide, both sets are the same diameter.
A narrow tire will have a smaller contact patch, a larger tire will have a big one. The truck weighs the same. THUS, a wider tire exerts less pressure on the ground.
Think about a person on snow with snow shoes in two scenarios. One, the snow shoes are on his back, the other, on his feet. Without the snow shoes, the man sinks through the snow. With them, he floats.
Now, back to the trucks: Since you have LESS overall pressure on the ground with a wider tire, you can see that, if you look at an individual point on the tire, there will be less force. IE, the same weight of the truck is spread over a larger area, each individual point will have less weight on it.
That weight is the normal force. And, if you then go back to the frictional equation, you now have less friction at each point for a wider tire.
That loooooonnngggg and drawn out explanation is by way of saying, this needs more testing.
Simply put, a narrow tire gets better traction per point on the tire, but a wider tire has more points to get traction over all. The question is: Which is it.
And really, its a silly question at this level. My truck has gears, lockers, armor, the works. If my tires got a little better traction, I'd maybe go 1% farther than I do now. Really what holds me back is my lack of willingness to get body damage, and my suspension. Not the tires.
02-17-2009, 07:24 AM
#69
Contributing Member
Read the article again muddpigg - it only references area ONCE, and it states pretty clearly that is only for a special case, like adhesive tape or super soft compound drag racing slicks.
I never said the Expeditions West article was the end all be all definitive proof, but what they bring up IS correct. Now, how much difference it makes in the real world is up for debate. IMHO, a 10.5" wide tire is plenty for the weight of our rigs and eliminates A LOT of component wear and fitment issues.
There is only one indidputable fact:
- For a given amount of lift, you can fit a taller tire if it's narrower.
The correlary of which is:
- The only cost-effective way to gain ground clearance under the axles is with a taller tire.
I never said the Expeditions West article was the end all be all definitive proof, but what they bring up IS correct. Now, how much difference it makes in the real world is up for debate. IMHO, a 10.5" wide tire is plenty for the weight of our rigs and eliminates A LOT of component wear and fitment issues.
There is only one indidputable fact:
- For a given amount of lift, you can fit a taller tire if it's narrower.
The correlary of which is:
- The only cost-effective way to gain ground clearance under the axles is with a taller tire.
02-17-2009, 11:25 AM
#70
From the first paragraph
Friction is not a fundamental force, as it is derived from electromagnetic force between charged particles, including electrons, protons, atoms, and molecules, and so cannot be calculated from first principles, but instead must be found empirically. When contacting surfaces move relative to each other, the friction between the two surfaces converts kinetic energy into thermal energy, or heat. Contrary to earlier explanations, kinetic friction is now understood not to be caused by surface roughness but by chemical bonding between the surfaces.[6] Surface roughness and contact area, however, do affect kinetic friction for micro- and nano-scale objects where surface area forces dominate inertial forces .
And from farther down,
When the surfaces are conjoined, Coulomb friction becomes a very poor approximation (for example, adhesive tape resists sliding even when there is no normal force, or a negative normal force). In this case, the frictional force may depend strongly on the area of contact. Some drag racing tires are adhesive in this way.
Surface area plays a part in SOME cases. In the case of wheeling, we are going to mostly be talking about friction in terms of friction at any point on the tire.
HOWEVER, IMO, talking about friction is somewhat irrelevant.
Yes, the frictional force lets you move. However, with regard to better traction, what people SHOULD be talking about is PRESSURE.
Pressure, or force/unit area, is where the wide vs narrow tire argument has meaning. Lets assume the same truck uses two sets of tires, one narrow, one wide, both sets are the same diameter.
A narrow tire will have a smaller contact patch, a larger tire will have a big one. The truck weighs the same. THUS, a wider tire exerts less pressure on the ground.
Think about a person on snow with snow shoes in two scenarios. One, the snow shoes are on his back, the other, on his feet. Without the snow shoes, the man sinks through the snow. With them, he floats.
Now, back to the trucks: Since you have LESS overall pressure on the ground with a wider tire, you can see that, if you look at an individual point on the tire, there will be less force. IE, the same weight of the truck is spread over a larger area, each individual point will have less weight on it.
That weight is the normal force. And, if you then go back to the frictional equation, you now have less friction at each point for a wider tire.
That loooooonnngggg and drawn out explanation is by way of saying, this needs more testing.
Simply put, a narrow tire gets better traction per point on the tire, but a wider tire has more points to get traction over all. The question is: Which is it.
And really, its a silly question at this level. My truck has gears, lockers, armor, the works. If my tires got a little better traction, I'd maybe go 1% farther than I do now. Really what holds me back is my lack of willingness to get body damage, and my suspension. Not the tires.
Friction is not a fundamental force, as it is derived from electromagnetic force between charged particles, including electrons, protons, atoms, and molecules, and so cannot be calculated from first principles, but instead must be found empirically. When contacting surfaces move relative to each other, the friction between the two surfaces converts kinetic energy into thermal energy, or heat. Contrary to earlier explanations, kinetic friction is now understood not to be caused by surface roughness but by chemical bonding between the surfaces.[6] Surface roughness and contact area, however, do affect kinetic friction for micro- and nano-scale objects where surface area forces dominate inertial forces .
And from farther down,
When the surfaces are conjoined, Coulomb friction becomes a very poor approximation (for example, adhesive tape resists sliding even when there is no normal force, or a negative normal force). In this case, the frictional force may depend strongly on the area of contact. Some drag racing tires are adhesive in this way.
Surface area plays a part in SOME cases. In the case of wheeling, we are going to mostly be talking about friction in terms of friction at any point on the tire.
HOWEVER, IMO, talking about friction is somewhat irrelevant.
Yes, the frictional force lets you move. However, with regard to better traction, what people SHOULD be talking about is PRESSURE.
Pressure, or force/unit area, is where the wide vs narrow tire argument has meaning. Lets assume the same truck uses two sets of tires, one narrow, one wide, both sets are the same diameter.
A narrow tire will have a smaller contact patch, a larger tire will have a big one. The truck weighs the same. THUS, a wider tire exerts less pressure on the ground.
Think about a person on snow with snow shoes in two scenarios. One, the snow shoes are on his back, the other, on his feet. Without the snow shoes, the man sinks through the snow. With them, he floats.
Now, back to the trucks: Since you have LESS overall pressure on the ground with a wider tire, you can see that, if you look at an individual point on the tire, there will be less force. IE, the same weight of the truck is spread over a larger area, each individual point will have less weight on it.
That weight is the normal force. And, if you then go back to the frictional equation, you now have less friction at each point for a wider tire.
That loooooonnngggg and drawn out explanation is by way of saying, this needs more testing.
Simply put, a narrow tire gets better traction per point on the tire, but a wider tire has more points to get traction over all. The question is: Which is it.
And really, its a silly question at this level. My truck has gears, lockers, armor, the works. If my tires got a little better traction, I'd maybe go 1% farther than I do now. Really what holds me back is my lack of willingness to get body damage, and my suspension. Not the tires.
02-17-2009, 11:40 AM
#71
Read the article again muddpigg - it only references area ONCE, and it states pretty clearly that is only for a special case, like adhesive tape or super soft compound drag racing slicks.
I never said the Expeditions West article was the end all be all definitive proof, but what they bring up IS correct. Now, how much difference it makes in the real world is up for debate. IMHO, a 10.5" wide tire is plenty for the weight of our rigs and eliminates A LOT of component wear and fitment issues.
There is only one indidputable fact:
- For a given amount of lift, you can fit a taller tire if it's narrower.
The correlary of which is:
- The only cost-effective way to gain ground clearance under the axles is with a taller tire.
I never said the Expeditions West article was the end all be all definitive proof, but what they bring up IS correct. Now, how much difference it makes in the real world is up for debate. IMHO, a 10.5" wide tire is plenty for the weight of our rigs and eliminates A LOT of component wear and fitment issues.
There is only one indidputable fact:
- For a given amount of lift, you can fit a taller tire if it's narrower.
The correlary of which is:
- The only cost-effective way to gain ground clearance under the axles is with a taller tire.
I believe you misread the adhesive as it states the the adhesive resist slippage without normal force and sites some drag tires as this. But other than that the friction coefficient is when force is applied over a contact area and varies of course with different compounds.
But yes you can run a narrower tire with less lift of trimming.
But I'm pretty sure that if narrow tires gave all the wonderful benefits of increased traction as you guys state and belief then we'd not see more wide tire than narrow made by the bulk of manufactors or they'd be ran by many more people.
I have two sets of tire 33/10.5 BFG A/T and 33/12.5 firestone m/ts. I intended to save the m/t's for trail use only but I get better wet road traction with the 12.5 m/ts than with the 10.5 a/ts. I didn't read this or assume I expereinced it and the decrease in mpg is worth the stability. Especially when considering I live in a place that sunshine comes every day just mostly in the liquid form.
02-17-2009, 11:44 AM
#72
Contributing Member
Well if it works for you great but I still think your rational is a little off. So let look at rock climging. And narrow our scope farther to foot and rock contact. If per you aurgument used simply the ball of your foot and the rock would have more pressure per square inch but in reality doing this would give you an awesome opportunity to test you safety equipment. As what keeps you on the rock face is fiction ( of course this still applies to crack climb but not using crack for my example) not imperical information. Simply said you put as much possible foot surface on the rock to overcome the force of gravity. I think your a bit off also about the chemical bond and would like to see evidence the the rock and tire and resisting slippage due to the positive /negation draw from electron imbalances of atoms. I'm just not convinced and all my past chemistry courses would have been wrong so please fire away.
You simply gave argument that a larger area with less friction per point gives better OVERALL traction than a smaller area. EXACTLY what I said should be tested in the tire world. I never said one was better than the other. Simply that pressure (force per area) makes a difference.
And where did I talk about chemical bonds? I never said anything about chemical bonds.
Last edited by AxleIke; 02-17-2009 at 11:50 AM.
02-17-2009, 11:44 AM
#73
Contributing Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Los Osos, CA (we can't agree on crap!)
Posts: 2,124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the skinny vs wide tire debate should be it's own thread as there is much more to it than even what was touched on here. There may even be some already that could be revived.
A little lift that also gains you some added flex can be nice in keeping a rig stable. It won't replace what lockers and gears can do, but it does help.
A little lift that also gains you some added flex can be nice in keeping a rig stable. It won't replace what lockers and gears can do, but it does help.
02-17-2009, 11:48 AM
#74
Contributing Member
Racing applications, sure, the tires are different compounds, and what not.
Tires are made for profit. 80% of the offroad tire market is full size trucks. IE Full sized fords with 20" of lift and 44" boggers. Its for looking cool on the street. I've emailed BFG about 35x10.50 tires, which would work AWESOME on our rigs, and their response is: "No one buys that size tire."
02-17-2009, 11:52 AM
#75
TC and Ike I wasn't looking for an aurgument but I have been waiting for the article to get sited again as it gets thrown out like the holy grail of tire information. So don't take it personal but I yes I have noticed that you guys are the biggest proponates of it. If it works for you great but that is personal preference. And there is many different factor that go into this discussion besides tire width ie. driver ability, rig set up, route selection, tire composition, air pressure, ambiant temp, surface substrate and rock composition... I'm sure the list goes on and on. I hope to be in ya'lls area of the country in the next few years and maybe then I'll learn the lessons ya'll've learned on the extraordinary characteristic of narrow A/T tires over wider aggressive tread tires. Till then 
02-17-2009, 11:59 AM
#76
How is my rational off?
You simply gave argument that a larger area with less friction per point gives better OVERALL traction than a smaller area. EXACTLY what I said should be tested in the tire world. I never said one was better than the other. Simply that pressure (force per area) makes a difference.
And where did I talk about chemical bonds? I never said anything about chemical bonds.
You simply gave argument that a larger area with less friction per point gives better OVERALL traction than a smaller area. EXACTLY what I said should be tested in the tire world. I never said one was better than the other. Simply that pressure (force per area) makes a difference.
And where did I talk about chemical bonds? I never said anything about chemical bonds.
You really can't say that a wider tire has less friction potential with more surface contact area than a narrow with less contact area but more psi. If this was true we'd been in an age of pizza cutter tires on every competin rig out there. Those boys are concerned about profit the profit gained from winning not just good looks.
02-17-2009, 12:03 PM
#77
Nope. Performance has almost nothing to do with everyday average joe tires.
Racing applications, sure, the tires are different compounds, and what not.
Tires are made for profit. 80% of the offroad tire market is full size trucks. IE Full sized fords with 20" of lift and 44" boggers. Its for looking cool on the street. I've emailed BFG about 35x10.50 tires, which would work AWESOME on our rigs, and their response is: "No one buys that size tire."
Racing applications, sure, the tires are different compounds, and what not.
Tires are made for profit. 80% of the offroad tire market is full size trucks. IE Full sized fords with 20" of lift and 44" boggers. Its for looking cool on the street. I've emailed BFG about 35x10.50 tires, which would work AWESOME on our rigs, and their response is: "No one buys that size tire."
02-17-2009, 12:05 PM
#78
Contributing Member
TC and Ike I wasn't looking for an aurgument but I have been waiting for the article to get sited again as it gets thrown out like the holy grail of tire information. So don't take it personal but I yes I have noticed that you guys are the biggest proponates of it. If it works for you great but that is personal preference. And there is many different factor that go into this discussion besides tire width ie. driver ability, rig set up, route selection, tire composition, air pressure, ambiant temp, surface substrate and rock composition... I'm sure the list goes on and on. I hope to be in ya'lls area of the country in the next few years and maybe then I'll learn the lessons ya'll've learned on the extraordinary characteristic of narrow A/T tires over wider aggressive tread tires. Till then
HOWEVER, what is not in debate, and IMO, makes perfect sense, is that narrow tires fit these trucks with WAY less modification than fat tires. Tall tires give better ground clearance, which, gives you better performance offroad. Simply put, if you put a narrow tire on, versus a fat one, you can get MORE ground clearance with the same amount of modification with the narrow as you can with the fat.
For example, I installed BJ spacers and lifted my truck by 1.5".
I ran 33x12.50 tires, and, off road, I rubbed like crazy on my fenders, and ripped my steering to shreds. Then, I put on 33x9.50 tires. My steering has been fine, and I don't rub. I also relaxed all of my lift out. So now I have a better ride too.
Lastly, tires, IMO, are irrelevant at this stage of the game. If you have a tubed buggy with the best parts in the business, and are trying to gain every advantage, then tires are a HUGE consideration.
If you have IFS, no lockers, no gears, and no armor, it doesn't matter WHAT tires you have on your truck. Will an aggressive tread mudder go farther than a street AT? You bet. But a truck with street AT's, lockers, gears, and armor will leave a stock truck with mud terrains FAR behind.
And that, is what this thread is about. Lift...WHY? is a GREAT post, and something that everyone should look at.
Anyway, I'm not trying to be a dick either, nor argumentative. I think debates like this are a GREAT way for people to learn. Its fun. Plus, I think hashing it out like this allows for good ideas to be put out there.
I certainly appreciate a contrary opinion, and welcome it at any time
02-17-2009, 12:05 PM
#79
Contributing Member
"as it is derived from electromagnetic force between charged particles, including electrons, protons, atoms, and molecules, " was from you first post.
You really can't say that a wider tire has less friction potential with more surface contact area than a narrow with less contact area but more psi. If this was true we'd been in an age of pizza cutter tires on every competin rig out there. Those boys are concerned about profit the profit gained from winning not just good looks.
You really can't say that a wider tire has less friction potential with more surface contact area than a narrow with less contact area but more psi. If this was true we'd been in an age of pizza cutter tires on every competin rig out there. Those boys are concerned about profit the profit gained from winning not just good looks.
