Dana 35 33x10.5 vs 32x11.5

[Capt Jay]

Great..........wrong but great. That's why all the guys who are professional rock crawlers used really skinny tires.........wait..........they don't. They go with wide tires. Why? MORE TRACTION......duh.
I don't want to go into the physics of it but it's wrong. I tire doesn't deform do to it's surface area, but because of the strength of the sidewall..........period.
Second, in sand and mud a wider tire will add flotation.

If you don't agree go right ahead and get your self a set of 36" wagon wheel, ghetto rims and I'll be out in the mud. If you need me to pull you out............just ask, I'll still help.

 

[legoms013]

Great..........wrong but great. Explain. stating why something is wrong doesn't prove that it is.

That's why all the guys who are professional rock crawlers used really skinny tires.........wait..........they don't. They go with wide tires. Why? MORE TRACTION......duh.

Cool story bro, wanna tell it again? Again, saying duh, doesn't prove your point. Duh isn't a reason for more traction.

I don't want to go into the physics of it but it's wrong. I tire doesn't deform do to it's surface area, but because of the strength of the sidewall..........period.

There is nothing I can't fathom. I am a mechanical engineer. Physics is my native language. Please go into the physics actually.

Second, in sand and mud a wider tire will add flotation.

No where did I say anything about skinny tires in the mud or sand. I don't disagree with you either on this point. Wide tires for flotation, narrower ones for more traction on slippery surfaces (icy roads, rocks, dirt ect...basically dry stuff). Please, don't assume I am so broadly ignorant. Every tire has its application. I don't mud bog my truck exactly for the reason above (among other reasons). Narrow tires and mud don't mix well (when there isn't a bottom, that exceeds about 110% of a vehicle's ground clearance).

If you don't agree go right ahead and get your self a set of 36" wagon wheel, ghetto rims and I'll be out in the mud. If you need me to pull you out............just ask, I'll still help.

Again, you are posing reasons and hypotheticals that have no direct correlation to my original statement. I never advocated skinny tires for the mud.

This is what I said:

"Smaller footprint, means higher psi, equals better traction by a marginal amount in most wheeling situations."

Notice I said "marginal" and "most". Those are key words.

Its harder to slide a four legged oak table across your carpet than if that same table was now flipped upside down, riding on its large top surface. Which has more traction? Sitting on its legs, or sitting on its face? Whats the difference? The weight of the table is the same...all that changed was the way the weight was distributed. Friction depends on the normal force and how the surface area is related (small or big in nature). There is less friction in the second case because the weight of the table is distributed over a very large area. Less friction makes it easier for a person to slide the table meaning less traction. Same with hiking boots versus slick bottomed Vans. Same with tank tracks and train wheels.

If you want to continue this, PM me or hit up my build thread. I am always interesting in "friendly" bantering with a fellow member. The OP probably is getting tired of it though.

 

[brinker88]

 

[Hahnsb2]

For the most part I've found my 10.50s walk all over similar rigs with 12.50s, even other Super Swampers. YMMV.

 

[maclgallant]

wow guy's thanks for all the response ... this is exactly what i was looking for // i was on the jeep forum the other and those guy's seem to break d35 like toothpicks running 31s & 33s ... I don't know if their running locking hubs or not but it just got me worried a little bit lo////l

Now it's more of a 10.5 vs 12.5
terrain over here is mostly mud/trail .. some sands don't see a lot of rocks, but i do see a lot of roots // State of Main has similar terrain than over here /// so would you guy's recommend 33x10.5 over 33x12.5 for these applications? mud/trail light sand

 

[pillen140]

Jeeps have rear dana 35s. Same carrier, but everything else is way weaker.

 

[brinker88]

Jeeps have rear dana 35s. Same carrier, but everything else is way weaker.

Yea for sure! I've seen em break with 31's and an open carrier!!!

 

[pillen140]

you dont even have to take them offroad for them to break.

 

[legoms013]

wow guy's thanks for all the response ... this is exactly what i was looking for // i was on the jeep forum the other and those guy's seem to break d35 like toothpicks running 31s & 33s ... I don't know if their running locking hubs or not but it just got me worried a little bit lo////l

Now it's more of a 10.5 vs 12.5
terrain over here is mostly mud/trail .. some sands don't see a lot of rocks, but i do see a lot of roots // State of Main has similar terrain than over here /// so would you guy's recommend 33x10.5 over 33x12.5 for these applications? mud/trail light sand

I'm gonna say the 33's, not because of their width, but because of the extra clearance you'll get from them. And us Ranger owners with the D35 bulldozer need all the clearance we can get in the mud. Once the beam hangs up, your done. With the extra clearance of the 33, you could potentially be stuck less than with the 32's.

What about 33x12.5's? They actually would be better if you see a fair amount of mud/sand like you describe since you'd have more clearance and more flotation.

 

[maclgallant]

hmm i would of though skinner tires would of done better in mud, certainly does for my bike lol i run skinny rear and fat up front lol

but good advise guys

I appreciate any imput