off-road racing and large tires

[bobbywalter]

No build thread. I was thinking of getting a new cab and made a thread for 23 years of service or something like that. So I had a baseline.

I will update whenever I redo the floors and steering, or the power train. Not sure which will happen first. But it might not be a diesel

But will have 40,s. Even if I go back to ttb.

The diesel install thread was put out as a general verification for potential, but the hosting sight ate the pictures.....but that was 08 or 09 after I tested it out for a bit.

I did that because I wondered out loud a few times when this sight and others were new......why people did not use them in rbv more often because they are perfect for them...and of course all you get is why it is impossible or impractical and so on.

I ended up with 60,s because I could not keep an 8.8 or 9in together from too much power and overloading. Not because I wanted to be cool or run 42 in tires.

So 60,s are a waste without 40,s. And so the fickle whore of incrementalism has a firm grasp upon my wallet in the most unintentional circumstances.

Seems most of us agree 37 is solid...nice thing with that they can work with any typical rig.

But if I go back to ttb....it will be modified for 40,s. Time will tell.

Getting hung up on ground clearance ( pun intended ) is not clear in performance out in the real world.


In the whole span of the axle....that inch or so of distance across the pig area don't mean shit in regards to tractive propulsion from 42 inch irocks to 37 inch military tires.

 

[swynx]

No build thread. I was thinking of getting a new cab and made a thread for 23 years of service or something like that. So I had a baseline.

I will update whenever I redo the floors and steering, or the power train. Not sure which will happen first. But it might not be a diesel

But will have 40,s. Even if I go back to ttb.

The diesel install thread was put out as a general verification for potential, but the hosting sight ate the pictures.....but that was 08 or 09 after I tested it out for a bit.

I did that because I wondered out loud a few times when this sight and others were new......why people did not use them in rbv more often because they are perfect for them...and of course all you get is why it is impossible or impractical and so on.

I ended up with 60,s because I could not keep an 8.8 or 9in together from too much power and overloading. Not because I wanted to be cool or run 42 in tires.

So 60,s are a waste without 40,s. And so the fickle whore of incrementalism has a firm grasp upon my wallet in the most unintentional circumstances.

Seems most of us agree 37 is solid...nice thing with that they can work with any typical rig.

But if I go back to ttb....it will be modified for 40,s. Time will tell.

Getting hung up on ground clearance ( pun intended ) is not clear in performance out in the real world.


In the whole span of the axle....that inch or so of distance across the pig area don't mean shit in regards to tractive propulsion from 42 inch irocks to 37 inch military tires.

i myself have considered heavily, a custom ttb setup with rcv's or custom shafts for a wheeling rig on 40's. ive found that i really like going fast, and i like the "different" factor of a ttb setup that actually works, on a trail. but i dont want to build a several thousand dollar ttb setup just to go to a bigger tire and blow it up, or find that it doesnt work as well as i had intended, when i could have installed a sd60 for a few hundred bucks. i did enough research to figure out how to hopefully cobble together a ttb setup that is 35 spline all the way out, or just get 30 spline rcv's and hope they held up. that was my "hang up"

i have wheeled the same rig with nearly the same setup on both 37's and 40's, said rig only had like 8 inches of travel front/rear, rig went to moab, in moab the 40's would fill a hole that would swallow the 37's, so not nearly as much suspension travel was needed, with the upgrade in tire size.

 

[bobbywalter]

Exactly.