Tweet
So I know I got into an arguement with someone on here about this 
I had my point and they had there point, but of course, both of us are never wrong
Then I found an even better explanation.
Quoted from the guys that owns Expeditions West
"Less rotating mass- Easier to start and stop
Less reciprocating mass- Easier to dampen
Less wind resistance- Better economy and range
Less rolling resistance- Better economy and range
Easier to fit a taller/narrower tire with less lift
Lighter spare
Lighter tire
Lighter wheel
Less unsprung weight
Less weight and leverage on steering components, bearings, etc.
In terrain:
1. Less frontal resistance in mud and sand. Where is most of the increased contact patch (for flotation) gained? In the length, not the width. Tall and narrow allows for more length and greater deformation with less resistance.
It is as simple as understanding the coefficient of friction (COF), which is (Ff = Cf x Fv).
Ff= Friction Force
Cf= Coefficient of Friction
Fv= Force Vertical
As you make a tire wider, you reduce the Fv over a larger area, but gain Cf. As you make a tire narrower, you increase the Fv, but reduce the area of contact, which lowers the Cf. It is proportional, though there are times when the material interaction (lets say a drag tire on concrete) favors Cf, but those conditions rarely exist on the trail, on a perfectly flat surface. So, if a wide and narrow tires benefits with relationship to Cf and Fv are proportional, than the decision must be made on other factors, like weight, resistance, etc., as listed above.
Now of course, there are limits at both ends of the spectrum. Too narrow of a tire, and the torque applied to the surface, even with extremely high Fv (which a super narrow tire would have), would exceed the rubbers ability to resist tearing. Literally, burning rubber.
It is all a balance, with tires for most of the trucks we drive being ideal in the 9-11" wide range.
Big, fat tires are only for show trucks and tundra buggies."
I had my point and they had there point, but of course, both of us are never wrong Then I found an even better explanation.
Quoted from the guys that owns Expeditions West
"Less rotating mass- Easier to start and stop
Less reciprocating mass- Easier to dampen
Less wind resistance- Better economy and range
Less rolling resistance- Better economy and range
Easier to fit a taller/narrower tire with less lift
Lighter spare
Lighter tire
Lighter wheel
Less unsprung weight
Less weight and leverage on steering components, bearings, etc.
In terrain:
1. Less frontal resistance in mud and sand. Where is most of the increased contact patch (for flotation) gained? In the length, not the width. Tall and narrow allows for more length and greater deformation with less resistance.
It is as simple as understanding the coefficient of friction (COF), which is (Ff = Cf x Fv).
Ff= Friction Force
Cf= Coefficient of Friction
Fv= Force Vertical
As you make a tire wider, you reduce the Fv over a larger area, but gain Cf. As you make a tire narrower, you increase the Fv, but reduce the area of contact, which lowers the Cf. It is proportional, though there are times when the material interaction (lets say a drag tire on concrete) favors Cf, but those conditions rarely exist on the trail, on a perfectly flat surface. So, if a wide and narrow tires benefits with relationship to Cf and Fv are proportional, than the decision must be made on other factors, like weight, resistance, etc., as listed above.
Now of course, there are limits at both ends of the spectrum. Too narrow of a tire, and the torque applied to the surface, even with extremely high Fv (which a super narrow tire would have), would exceed the rubbers ability to resist tearing. Literally, burning rubber.
It is all a balance, with tires for most of the trucks we drive being ideal in the 9-11" wide range.
Big, fat tires are only for show trucks and tundra buggies."
Fight Team
Comment