Skinnies vs Wide(315/70R17 vs 255/85R17)

Didn't see this posted here. I won't lie, I absolutely love my skinnies and fully plan on 255/85's early next year. But a pretty good video and he does a good job explaining all the "experiments" he does.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/6wAJAOxh8LE

 

Ah the epic debate!!!! Then to ruin everything.... Snow! I would love skinnys but I have never seen them dominate in snow. I'm not saying they don't work, I'm just saying that there's a reason dedicated snow rigs are running huge fat tires. Ideally, I think that two sets of tires are needed, one for dirt and rock, noe for snow and some mud. I have been REALLY happy with the 275 width as an "all around". It performs well in snow and well everywhere else. It could do better but I like it's average performance. I am trying to find a 275 width with a 34" height. Not quite a skinny not quite a fatty. Ive been eyeballing some 34x10.5's. I think they are a good mix of performance, weight and fit (for me personally and what I do) definitely not for everyone.

 

I think it depends on the snow depth. When I go snow wheeling here in Colorado, generally the snow isn't super deep and I haven't had an issue. If you are talking about deep deep snow, I agree that wider is probably the best choice. I thought his test of the tires "wrapping" around a "rock"(or bar) was pretty cool to see. The surface area between the skinny and wide was pretty interesting to see.

Edit to add: When snow wheeling, I will definitely drop down from my normal 20psi offroad down to 12-15. Not sure if it helps or not.

 

If the snow is very deep a large contact patch on the tire is necessary for floatation. But if you're driving on snowy roads, the last thing you want to do is float on the snow. Narrow tires, like the ones on the rally car below, provide more grip, digging into the snow and hopefully down to the hard surface below.

 

I have found, In deep snow in the backcountry, the biggest widest thing aired down you can run is best. You want to float on it, but yes, that is not great on a highway haha.

I just inherited a family 51 Willys CJ3A. My plan is to rotate my summer and winter tires between the 4Runner and the Jeep. Any tires I put on the Jeep will go bad with age before I run them out of miles. Therefore as tires wear on the 4Runner I will just swap them onto the Jeep.

 

That is a good plan. At this rate, I am barely putting milage on my 4Runner and my new tires will probably dry rot before I get the milage out of them.

 

Sell them after a few seasons and get new ones.

 

Hahah that a solid plan! I am just not looking forward to buying 10 tires in the next 6 months or so. Discount Tire is going to love me.

 

His videos are usually pretty good, I’m surprised he only covered contact patch and tire deflection/wrap.

 

Yeah. I'm on team skinny, but I wonder about the difference on soft terrain.

 

Backed up my gut instinct but gut instincts are often wrong. Glad I went with 255/80/17s instead of going 285/70/17s.

 

This is why 285/70/17's are perfect in my book.

They handle a wide variety of conditions and they are technically a skinny 33.........but not too skinny.

 

I think his graph on contact patch would be a good indicator for soft terrain. If I recall correctly, on solid ground the contact patch was pretty similar. I would have to re-watch the video to make sure that is what I remember.

 

This definitely has me considering a skinny for my next set. I just hate the way they look. Then again, a 285/ 75 /17 is kind of a skinny.

I'd like to see a video comparing wide versus skinny MT's as well. Or, it would be nice to see a video using more typical sizes, like a 285/70/17 versus a 255/ 80/17.

I was a little curious so I did my own little test with two 2x4's stacked. This is significantly taller and wider than his 2.5 inch tube. I didn't take any actual measurements though. Just took some pictures.

At 32 PSI, which I am running on the street:



15 PSI, which is where I usually start out off-road.



12 PSI, which I typically run if I know I'm going to be doing technical stuff.



10 PSI, which I generally don't run, but might drop to if I was stuck, or trying to get extra traction for an obstacle.



8 PSI, which it was as low as I felt comfortable going. I don't think I would ever run this low without beadlocks, but I have heard of people running 8 psi.



I don't know if it is due to the smaller tire, or the fact that this is MT, but, even without measuring, It's obvious that my 295/70/17 deformed much more than the 315 AT he was testing. Even at 15 PSI, my tire began to wrap around the 2x4.

The video did convince me that a skinny tire is probably a better option if you're mostly on hard surfaces. I still think a wider tire might be better for situations where you want more flotation, but I could still be wrong.

 

I think the idea was that contact patch might be different on a surface that flexes as you drive on it. That's not to say it would be better for one or the other, just that it might be different.

 

yoko g003s have been the worst all around tire ive ever run. They look great, but the wet traction especially was absolute trash, I currently am back to wildpeaks only bc they didnt have duratracs in the 275 i wanted.

 

Fantastic test sir. I should try that too. An eye opener one more time that not take decision based on one video.

I too thinking between 285/75R17 Load C vs also 34x10.5R17 Load D( that's about 266mm, not too skinny).
Toyo 34x10.5 AT3 at 55lbs vs 285/75 is 60lbs. 55lbs is tempting but not sure. Also my bad experience with Load E scares me to try Load D.

 

Lol. I'm not having any problems with mine. What other true MT's have you run?

 

My Yokohamas are load range E, and they ride nicer than my load range C Toyo AT3's (aside from road noise). I think it comes down to brand and model to an extent.

 

this exactly. no doubt those arctic trucks want to float on the snow surface - hard ground is 4 feet below! for anything that isn't going to sink me up to the frame, i'd want to dig all the way down and take advantage of high ground pressure on a small contact patch.

two of the issues with skinnies which prevented me from running them myself (stuck with 265's) is that i felt the narrow tread and huge sidewall would make the handling precarious in emergency maneuvers on pavement, and the ride as a result of the E rating (which unfortunately go hand in hand IMO - you want the E rating to keep them from flopping over on the sidewall too much if you have to take a turn hard). we spend a lot of time on the highway and for those purposes i like the relatively lower sidewall height for the given tire width. splitting hairs i know, its a body on frame SUV after all.

other than that, i think they're a totally functional AND practical choice for the 4runner in almost any terrain aside from sand or really extreme rock crawling. admittedly i'm not big on the look of skinnies if its not an old Range Rover, but i try to keep a function over form mindset. if i spent more time on dirt, i'd absolutely pick them.

 

Another great video. Glad to see that my 265’s are superior to my former 285’s.

 

In regards to your comment about handling in emergency situations, the Limited comes stock with 255 wide tires. So the 4Runner will definitely handle the tires.

 

True, but they're low profile tires, comparatively. I think it's the combination of a narrow tire and a tall sidewall that makes it worse. The Limited has ~5.5" of sidewall, while a 255/80/17 has ~8" of sidewall.

I've never driven on tall skinnies, so I'm just going by what I read and what makes sense to me.

 

I thought I remembered the limiteds coming with 245s, but either way the taller sidewall will be somewhat offset by the stiffer sidewall of a high load rating.

 

At the time I bought my Toyo AT3s 285/70s in C load (Apr ‘23), I was unable to get 255/80s. I wish I had held out longer to get them, especially after wheeling with someone that had them. Yes his tires looked skinnier, but was mainly noticeable when we were side my side, otherwise it didn’t look all that bad. In offroading with our similar vehicles, he did get a bit better traction in some of the sandy moguls, and after about 8 kms of a slow trail section he got better mpg than me. We both were aired down to 20 psi.

 

You are correct, they come with 245s.

 

Oops I remembered wrong on that one. But they do come with a skinner contact patch than the 265 of the non-Limiteds. Yes I did not think of the sidewall.

 

he is sure getting a ton of exposure for this video. it's pretty good. but, he's using load range E tires. the sidewalls on E are going to be much stiffer which contributes to the lack of deformation.

 

Posted this last Thursday in the Wheels and Tires section. "Didn't see this posted here" is code for, I can't be bothered to look.

https://www.4runners.com/threads/adding-fuel-to-the-fire-of-35”-tires-wide-or-skinny.33042/

 

To be fair, I pretty much never go into any section of this forum except this one.