Tire size and trail damage--my prospective.

[crash2]

This is not to be another argument over which tire/motor/rig does more damage--but simply in your prospective what do you feel does more damage(it goes beyond tire size).

If you do not want to think about your answer then please do not post.


My toyota has 38.5's powered with a 4.3. I have the power and potential to do allot of damage to the trails.DO I? No. I know a number of guys who run in the 40" flavor and have wheeled with them more than a number of times. Do they tear the trail up also? No.

From my prospective tire size has no bearing on the damage we have been seening the last number of years. Do larger tires have the potential for damage? Yes they do. Do smaller tires have the potential for damage? Sure they do.

Its my opinion that there are a few reasons the "larger" tires are being blamed for what we have been fighting against but its not the tire size thats the issue. Larger tires are becoming more of a "common" thing these days so they are out there more and more visable and more of a target. With a larger tire you are also seeing larger motors powering them which is just another factor in the mess. The last factor is the number of users and there are alot of "uneducated users" these days.

Its my opinion that tire size does not do the damage to the trails--its the guy who has the tools (tires/motor/suspension)that doesn't understand how to use them or the consequences of using them improperly.

"Large tires do not do damage to our trails----users do"

Again this thread is here to hear your prospective and I am not interested in any stupid drama BULLSHIT.

 

[Damnyankee]

In my opinioin, you hit the nail on the head.

I have a similar build rig to yours, power wise and tire size. but to get any power out of mine (nissan 3.0) i have to get them squirls really pissed off. so i normally don't.
most people i wheel with if they can't make a "muddy" obstacle the 2nd or 3rd try, they pull cable. and i encourage them to do so as well.
But yet i've seen "little" guy sit there for 30 min. while i'm telling them.. just pull cable.. and they refuse to get out and do it.

Hell, pulling cable is alot easier than changing a clutch, or busted suspension bushings or D44 shafts.

 

[PHILLBILLY1]

It's always the operators fault for how much damage is done.

 

[Eric]

"Large tires do not do damage to our trails----users do"

:awesomework:

The issue that I have is when I can no longer even drive on a trail because the rutts are so deep that my tires are several inches off the ground and I belive this is where the big tire idea comes from. I run 36s with toy axles and have been off the ground on my diffs way to many times recently.

Also the Tires are easily visible, motors and suspension is a little harder to see.

 

[JAWS]

This is not to be another argument over which tire/motor/rig does more damage--but simply in your prospective what do you feel does more damage(it goes beyond tire size).

If you do not want to think about your answer then please do not post.


My toyota has 38.5's powered with a 4.3. I have the power and potential to do allot of damage to the trails.DO I? No. I know a number of guys who run in the 40" flavor and have wheeled with them more than a number of times. Do they tear the trail up also? No.

From my prospective tire size has no bearing on the damage we have been seening the last number of years. Do larger tires have the potential for damage? Yes they do. Do smaller tires have the potential for damage? Sure they do.

Its my opinion that there are a few reasons the "larger" tires are being blamed for what we have been fighting against but its not the tire size thats the issue. Larger tires are becoming more of a "common" thing these days so they are out there more and more visable and more of a target. With a larger tire you are also seeing larger motors powering them which is just another factor in the mess. The last factor is the number of users and there are alot of "uneducated users" these days.

Its my opinion that tire size does not do the damage to the trails--its the guy who has the tools (tires/motor/suspension)that doesn't understand how to use them or the consequences of using them improperly.

"Large tires do not do damage to our trails----users do"

Again this thread is here to hear your prospective and I am not interested in any stupid drama BULLSHIT.

I agree. And would like to add that trails are here for useage. So as long as you stay on the trail and dont rip it up on purpose for no reason. It shouldnt be such a big issue stay on the trails & pick up your trash. Go to the cleanups and help maintain/repair and have fun..

O and it sounds like Crash is refuring to his 38s as "BIG TIRES" :haha::haha:

 

[Boonie Buster]

Ya, i agree with crash. It's the same as guns, i've never heard of a gun leaping off the table and killing a room full of karate instructors. It's all about who is behind it and how they use it. :awesomework:

 

[Darby1]

Size plays in but so does the tread, in my opinion. Lets take Boggers for instance, they DO dig down quicker than say an MTR. Also the width of tires like boggers leave a much larger foot print, which i would think would equate to more damage. I don't think jeeps of the past on 33" goodyears tore up the ground like rigs are today with jumbo tires. But playing devils advocate, maybe with those big tires we don't need to hammer down on the throttle to make it over most obsticles anymore. But thats "most" obsticles. We all need to hammer down at some point during the day, and then I think thats when big tires DO make a difference. I like big tires too, I own lots of em, but I feel like we are doing more damage with stronger axles and big meats than rigs of the past. The Busywild comes to mind, during the wet season a rig on 33s is going to have some problems because 44 boggers have come thru and tore the ground up.

That being said, 44 swampers are WAY more fun than 35" goodyears, IMO

 

[WHITE TRASH1]

You are spot on Mike. People use large tires as a scape goat because they are easy to lay the blame on when talking to uneducated people.

 

[billulsund]

I gotta agree with Darby. People with big swampers are not necessarily the ones doing all the damage, but it is those rigs that have the potential to do the most damage. If 2 identical rigs with enough power to get the tires spinning hammer down through the same muddy obstacle and one has 35" goodyears, and the other has 35" TSLs I would bet the guy with the swampers is gonna displace more mud and dig a bigger hole. Of course as many people here have pointed out, it is not the tires it is the driver. That same guy with the swampers will get better traction in the mud and could probably make it through the obstacle easier than the guy with the goodyears and tear up the mud less if he just takes it easy on the skinny pedal.

 

[bigdog165511]

Bigger tires = more tread depth more to fill in a hole
wider = more traction less need to spin fast to get whare
your going we should all have 53" tires and save the trails:awesomework:

plus it would be easier to clean gernola cruncher remnance
out of your tread with bigger tread blocks :awesomework:

 

[luggs]

:awesomework:

Big tires hook up better faster drag less diff and spin less than smaller tires their for big tires do less damage...Im assuming ofcourse that the rigs are simulare on the same terrain.

this is the right answer......but dig deeper ruts in the mud......so get bigger tires or stay away from big holes and deep mud

 

[TreeClimber]

The larger tire / more damage arguement has been around for a long time.

But add into the equation the axles. If you run a 39 inch tall tire on a STOCK width YJ, CJ, TJ, Sami, etc.... then you have an situation (other than breaking axles) whereby the rig simply cannot turn. The larger circumference of the tire will hit the vehicle as a much earlier degree of steering, simply causing it to have a body / tire interference. So how do wheelers solve the problem? By going wider.

So now you end up with much wider axles AND larger tires. The average wheeler today is probably a FOOT wider than the trails were originally engineered to fit. YES, they do fit, but most of the trails I was running 15 and 20 years ago are now much different than they were. IS that damage? Or evolution?

If I had to blame any one group, it'd be the tire manufactures. If the only tires available to us were in the 33 inch flavor, then there would be no need for full widths, there would be no need for Dana 60s (or Rockwells, Mogs). There would be no need for 4:1 transfer cases, or double stacked t-cases.... So much of the evolution of the industry is to be able to keep up with the advances in tire technology.

I wheeled every area in Washington (except Reiter) with a stock width CJ on 33s, with a T18 gearbox and locked Dana 44s. Had a ton of fun. I know a few guys that never evolved from that combo, and are still wheeling and having fun.

To address Crash's concern, Yes, it's all driver whether there is damage or not. However, technology has evolved to allow us to question other factors.

 

[boardbysled]

I'm gonna bring Pokey's post over from the other thread that I assumed started this thread. Plus, it has pictures, we all love pictures!:redneck:

Sorry but I am not the one that dug out the 20" deep ruts on the Kaner. In all reality though anyone that "needs" 40" tall tires to run the trails around here really needs some driving lessons before wheeling. The simple fact is that several people with 40" plus tires tore the living **** out of the Kaner around memorial day. This caused other people to go around and create bypasses which also got tore to ****. These people are the ones you can thank for getting trails closed down and for the seasonal clouser that you will most likely see next year for the Naches area. Just one more nail in our perverbial coffin. see for yourself what oversize tires do to a wet trail when driven by someone that just dosent care. And BTW it really dosent matter what you or I think. What really matters here is what the FS thinks. Try asking a forest service ranger as to what should be done about this and things like this.:eeek:

You folks can blame me and people like me all you want but the hard and cold truth is its the idiots that do things like this that are the ones to blame for all of our problem with the trails.

IMHO, this situation looks like too much use, on too wet of a trail. With say 100 rigs a day traveling over this section, it was easy for it to become a mudhole.

IMHO, it is most likely that this section started getting rutted out by people with small tires. They most likely had a hard time making it up this wet section of trail. Then, as it became more rutted, the people with larger tires had to spin to make it up it. And it all just went downhill from there. Less equipped rigs made a bypass, and more equipped rigs took the more challenging route, because guess what, It was a challenge.

In a perfect world, this section of trail would have been Identified as a trouble area before it was damaged. (I refuse to use the word destroyed, as the only time a trail is destroyed is when mother nature destroys a trail, or a trail being closed is destroyed.) In a perfect world, this section of trail would have been shut down when it was identified. In a perfect world....

We don't live in a perfect world, this is a folley that we have to work around. We can sit here and point fingers, or we could work on fixing this issue.

 

[Money Mark]

The only set of tires I can use on the buggy are worn 39" BFG Krawlers. These tires are not good in solid mud. And when I sling mud, it gets ON me. Sucks.

The only set of tires I own for my Toyoda are used 36" SX's. These tires are not considered "oversized" in the ORV community.


I'm in the clear......and folks like me, are as well. This is my perspective.

 

[ChopTop84]

my "perspective" is there sounds like a lot of "big tire" guys trying to justify their existence by blaming everything on the "small tire" guys.

When I first started riding along in a jeep with my dad, a 35" tire was considered a "big tire" and everyone pissed and moaned about how they were making the ruts too deep.

Back to my original point earlier in the thread. Its just as much about the terrain as it is the tire. 29s or 42s, it doesnt matter, your going to sink and dig.

Since you arent going to fix the tire, then fix the trail. Harden it. Dump in some big rock into the bad places. Dont make a freeway out of it, but at least make it so no one can make the hole any worse. Its what the quad and dirtbike guys do. We get a bad spot in the trail, we just put down brick and rock and its fixed. No blaming anyone about how aggressive their bike tire is.

 

[crash2]

I went thru and cleaned the bullshit. Am having a bad day and in a bad mood--yes I am so just please follow the simple things I asked in the begging of this thread.

"your perspective". Since I am in such a jim dandy mood I am going out to the shop to kill something....

 

[pokey]

I went thru and cleaned the bullshit. Am having a bad day and in a bad mood--yes I am so just please follow the simple things I asked in the begging of this thread.

"your perspective". Since I am in such a jim dandy mood I am going out to the shop to kill something....

Damn I was just on page 4 and poof its gone:booo: I actualy agree with your first post Mike. The bigger issue to consider though is the forest services perspective when they see damage like what happened to the Kaner. In all reality thats the only opinion or perspective that really matters in the end.

 

[Rix]

Perspective......
Bigger mud tires have the capability to dig faster.
But they may not need to.
Smaller a/t type tires plug up faster, and displace less mud.

So I gotta say the bigger tires have the capability, but may not NEED to.
All in all, a toss up.

 

[Rix]

Damn I was just on page 4 and poof its gone:booo: I actualy agree with your first post Mike. The bigger issue to consider though is the forest services perspective when they see damage like what happened to the Kaner. In all reality thats the only opinion or perspective that really matters in the end.

Damn true, that.

 

[Money Mark]

I actually agree with your first post Mike.

Does this mean your perspective has changed and you apologize for the finger pointing? and won't do it again?

We'd love to hear a public apology.:awesomework: Because you are the center of attention here (in this thread) Jim.