Best visual tire size on LJ?

[JMT]

Are those off of the companies website?

Do you have a photo of them mounted on a Jeep with a tape measure on the side? That’s the measurements everyone is always bad mouthing BFG about.

It’s just a pet peeve because I have not personally seen a advertised 35 when measured that way that is not 34ish inches. I just always hear that BFG’s are tiny look at this. MTR’s are a TRUE 35 but as seen in this thread they are both 34ish inches.

BFG MT/R's advertise 34.5", not as a true 35". The 34.5" measurement would be the mounted tire up to pressure without being mounted on a vehicle under load. Also, BFG's advertised overall diameter do typically run lower than other manufacturers advertised overall diameter.

 

[JMT]

While all this is helpful in ways, the only way to make a real comparison of mounted tire size under load is to measure them brand new. But I think under the specs of each manufacturer, you can find the true diameter at the given PSI they list under Max Load. The variance on 33's is about 0.6" on the tires I've looked at.

 

[freedom_in_4low]

I've been putting this together detailing section width, OD, weight, etc for a number of 35" tire options.

BFG's tend to be smaller at full load pressure and not supporting a vehicle, sure, but how that translates to actual rolling diameter is going to bring sidewall stiffness into play and it's better found through revs per mile. Unfortunately some tire manufacturers don't publish that, but among the ones that do, the difference isn't big enough for me to worry about. Take Goodyear MTRs at 598 and BFG KM3s at 602, you're talking about all of 1/8" of a difference in hub height. The Grabber X3, supposedly a true 35 manages to sneak another 1/4" in there, is probably a fine tire but no one is claiming it as the best 35" tire in the universe because it gets your pumpkin 1/8" farther from the ground at 35psi.

The Falken is a bit of an oddball at 617 which does actually lose a half an inch despite having the same inflated, unloaded diameter as the KM3.

And this still doesn't address the actual rolling radius that we get at 10psi. I would bet there's significantly more variability there and there's not a good way to tell without buying a dozen different tires to mount on the same rig and measure.

 

[jjvw]

I chose my tires based on performance, not how close they may or may not be to the sidewall measurement.

 

[JMT]

I chose my tires based on performance, not how close they may or may not be to the sidewall measurement.

To each his own, matters little to me, but information is information. No need to slight that.

 

[jjvw]

To each his own, matters little to me, but information is information. No need to slight that.

I'm imagining a world where Patagonias are a mythical "true 35".

 

[Irun]

I've been putting this together detailing section width, OD, weight, etc for a number of 35" tire options.

View attachment 194825

A very useful spreadsheet! One of the things I find interesting is that some C rated 15" tires weigh more than some D rated 17" tires. In the case of the MT/R, the C rated 15" weighs a couple a couple pounds more than the C rated 17". Not every tire is like that, but I've seen enough to make me curious why. My guess is that it has something to do with the much larger 15" sidewall. However, it's not universal in nature.

 

[Apparition]

A very useful spreadsheet! One of the things I find interesting is that some C rated 15" tires weigh more than some D rated 17" tires. In the case of the MT/R, the C rated 15" weighs a couple a couple pounds more than the C rated 17". Not every tire is like that, but I've seen enough to make me curious why. My guess is that it has something to do with the much larger 15" sidewall. However, it's not universal in nature.

Your 17” wheel will weigh more though.

 

[mrblaine]

Yep. 35/12.5/15 BFG KM3's, right after mounting them.

View attachment 194804

That is stupid.

 

[mrblaine]

Nothing taken personally on this side at all. My point of showing the measurement was simply to show the actual mounted height of the 35" KM3's. If anything, just a basis as which to compare other similar size tires.

More stupid.

 

[freedom_in_4low]

To each his own, matters little to me, but information is information. No need to slight that.

just like the 2x4s at the lumber store, it only matters to someone buying them for the first time that doesn't know the sizes are nominal.

Just like 12V batteries aren't really 12V.
Wall outlets rarely provide exactly 120V.
A half ton truck doesn't carry a half ton payload.

No reasonable and informed person gets upset about any of those, so I don't know why there's so much handwringing over an irrelevant property of tires that are all within 1.5% of each other.

 

[Irun]

Your 17” wheel will weigh more though.

Good point! I knew there would be a weight difference between the two, but didn't have numbers. So, I just checked one wheel, Pro Comp 1069, and found the 15x8 was advertised at 16 lbs. The best 17" match I could find was 17x9, which is advertised at 24 lbs. Recognizing the 1" difference, that's still a 33% increase in wheel weight. Even if the 1" was subtracted, it's still going to be in the area of a 25% difference. That's definitely more than I expected.

 

[mrblaine]

just like the 2x4s at the lumber store, it only matters to someone buying them for the first time that doesn't know the sizes are nominal.

Sortof. A 2x4 is available in its natural rough cut form. It is only when they turn it into a 2/4 S4S that the size is reduced to the nominal 1 1/2" x 3 1/2" which was also done to standardize dimensional lumber sizes to allow lumber to be milled and shipped nationwide. To be wholly relevant to these idiotic tire measuring discussions, a 92 1/4" stud would be less than 92" when it was loaded and compressed some amount depending on the weight on it.

Just like 12V batteries aren't really 12V.

Closer since a 12V battery varies a fair bit depending on state of charge.

Wall outlets rarely provide exactly 120V.
A half ton truck doesn't carry a half ton payload.

No reasonable and informed person gets upset about any of those, so I don't know why there's so much handwringing over an irrelevant property of tires that are all within 1.5% of each other.

I do get your point and others should as well with more focus needed on the fact that the loaded height is a bullshit number if you measure to the top of the tire.

 

[mrblaine]

so I don't know why there's so much handwringing over an irrelevant property of tires that are all within 1.5% of each other.

For the exact same fucking reason all the idiots got together and sued Home Depot for ripping them off on lumber since a 2 x 4 did not actually measure 2" x 4" in S4S condition. Now if you look at the labels it gives the actual size to keep the ignorant folks happy.

 

[JMT]

just like the 2x4s at the lumber store, it only matters to someone buying them for the first time that doesn't know the sizes are nominal.

Just like 12V batteries aren't really 12V.
Wall outlets rarely provide exactly 120V.
A half ton truck doesn't carry a half ton payload.

No reasonable and informed person gets upset about any of those, so I don't know why there's so much handwringing over an irrelevant property of tires that are all within 1.5% of each other.

I only entered the discussion to show that measuring a tire under load was a bogus measurement. This is a stupid discussion to me.

 

[TheBoogieman]

Mrblaine.com? All else is irrelevant. If I had a question that only an expert could answer, I would ask someone who Never BS's anyone. if you don't agree with his answer, GOOGLE IT!

 

[freedom_in_4low]

For the exact same fucking reason all the idiots got together and sued Home Depot for ripping them off on lumber since a 2 x 4 did not actually measure 2" x 4" in S4S condition. Now if you look at the labels it gives the actual size to keep the ignorant folks happy.

lol I didn't know that happened. It's hilarious but the stupidity of people is also concerning.

 

[DuncLJ]

That is stupid.

More stupid.

Ouch, LOL. What'd I say?

 

[JMT]

lol I didn't know that happened. It's hilarious but the stupidity of people is also concerning.

You didn't have to look that far to see the stupidity. It's much more apparent. Just go anywhere public and you will be astonished. You could have a daily talk show about it.

 

[suicideking]

So what I've learned from this thread is that BFG MT are smaller because of the weak side wall.