From:                 Self 
To:               LandCruisers@tlca.org
Subject:          16" & tall/skinny ramblings
Send reply to:    w.j.markerink@a1.nl
Date sent:        Thu, 22 Jan 1998 01:07:38

Here a collection of 16" related messages from my archive:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date sent:        Wed, 03 Dec 1997 01:09:27 -0800
To:               80_series@palladium.corp.sgi.com
From:             Rob Mullen 
Subject:          Re: [80] Cooper Pooper Scoopers.
Send reply to:    80_series@palladium.corp.sgi.com

At 01:21 PM 12/3/97 +1000, mathew.klein@dfat.gov.au wrote:
>     With so many yanks on the line what is the general feeling about 
>     Cooper Tires?

I don't know about Yanks, but up here they're considered to be TOTAL crap.
Soft sidewalls, poor wear characteristics, and their sizes are "optimistic"
to say the least.  Their 31x10.5s are actually a whole lot closer to
30x10.5s...

Mind you, we feel the same way about the BFGs that everyone else seems to
love :O  Heresy!

Top tires around here? (in no particular order)

Hankook T24s 
INSANELY good wear--a compound so soft has no business wearing that well
Second best in non-Icelandic depth snow, even without the optional studs
Biggest drawback (probably making them useless to 80 owners) is lack of
sizes--everyone I know who's got them (including myself :) is running the
235/85R16s.  Wish they made 255/85R16s...

General Grabber MTs 
Most commonly bought when someone gets tired of staking BFGs
wear far better and have better sidewalls (despite being 2-ply)
I had a set of Grabber ATs with 75% tread despite a TON(ne) of miles on
them before I foolishly jumped on the BFG band-wagon two sets of tires ago..

Continental Radial 8.25R16s 
14 ply, ~3950lbs@100psi rated
BEST in nId snow after a date with a grooving iron
My next set of tires, unless I get my hands on some cheap Can-mil-surplus
Michelin Xs (also 14ply)
Every Canadian logger worth his salt that owns a pickup runs these, and
they claim unbelievable wear.  I can't comment because I've never actually
seen a worn-out set (!)  They're also re-treadable like big-rig tires.

Super Swampers
Practically melt if driven on warm pavement, handle horribly, and louder
than doG
BUT closest thing you'll find to a funicular off-road

____________________________________________________________________
Rob Mullen RAMullen@wimsey.com       Vancouver, B.C. Canada         |    
Editor of the TLC FAQ                TLCA #3036, Coastal Cruisers   |
'80 Toyota BJ40 Diesel Land Cruiser  Why walk?...When you can CRAWL!|
'83 Toyota BJ60 Land Cruiser Wagon   TLC Offroad (604)299-5600      |

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
To:            Offroad@off-road.com
Date:          Fri, 14 Nov 1997 22:11:54 -0500 (EST)
From:          Randy & Kathy Peterson 
Subject:       265/85x16?
Reply-to:      Offroad@off-road.com

"Willem-Jan Markerink"  writes:
Subject: 265/85x16?

>Dear gang, 

>While visiting a site about snow chains

>http://www.teleport.com/~sumprod/tire_cat.htm

>I noticed a tire size I've never seen before: 265/85x16.
>I knew about the BFG 255/85x16 and 285/75x16, but this one is new to 
>me.

>Can anyone enlighten me about brand and type?

Heres some more tall skinny mud tires:

275/85R15  33" 10.2" 8.4" Buckshot mudder or Coyote Radial
265/85R16  33"  9.6" 8.6" Buckshot mudder or   "      "
315/85R15  36" 11.4" 9.1"  "        "     or   "      "
305/85R16  36" 10.9" 9.1" Buckshot mudder or Coyote Radial

265/80R16 Super swamper Radial TSL

Randy Peterson

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

From:             "Willem-Jan Markerink" 
To:               80_series@palladium.corp.sgi.com
Date sent:        Wed, 12 Nov 1997 11:08:40 +0000
Subject:          Re: [80] Tyre Sizes
Priority:         normal
Send reply to:    80_series@palladium.corp.sgi.com

On 12 Nov 97 at 8:30, Mark Callaghan wrote:

> Mark,
> I think its 93 and later that have rear brakes (discs) too big for 15" rims.
> I run 265/75R16 on 16x8 rims (second hand Toyota steel). I don't have
> flares. They do stick out a bit. I haven't done a lot of gravel miles yet,
> to see if I suffer too much paint chipping.

Btw, for those wanting tall instead of wide, BFG is apparently 
launching a 265/85x16, about 2cm taller than the 255/85x16 (and that 
one was already a tad taller than the 285/75x16). Not sure about AT 
vs MT (the 255 can only be had in MT).
The are also prototyping a 35x12.5x16 or 17 I believe. 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

From:                 Self 
To:               80_series@palladium.corp.sgi.com
Subject:          Re: [80_Series] Sand Tyres (was Overfender flares)
Send reply to:    w.j.markerink@a1.nl
Date sent:        Wed, 4 Jun 1997 10:05:01

On  4 Jun 97 at 13:28, George Couyant wrote:

> On Jun 4, 13:02, Mark Gordon wrote:
> > Subject: Re: [80_Series] Overfender flares
> > A question to the group, if you do not wish to
> > fit flares to your RV/STD, then what size rim/tyre
> 
> What works well on STD vans is something like a BFG All TA in a
> 255/85x16. It's quite a tall tyre which will give you a long footprint
> which is better than a wide footprint.

AFAIK, that size BFG only comes in MT, not AT.
Please correct me if I am wrong!
A complete list of 255/85x16 for Europe (please add for other 
continents/countries!), with circumference in mm:

BFG MT 2576
Cooper Discoverer LT 2558
Cooper Discoverer LT-STT 2562
General Tire Grabber MT 2577
Gilette Force 4 All Terrain 2567
Gilette Widetrack Baja A/T 2567
Mastercraft Courser Radial OTD 2562

Other recommended sizes for taller but not (much) wider:
7.50 R16 (most around 2450mm, two Michelins at 2510mm)
8.25 R16 (Michelin only, "4x4 O/R" & "XZL", 2625mm)
9.00 R16 (" ", 2708mm)

To get diameter, divide by pi (3.14), to get inches divide again by 
25,4. 

No S-rated tires (180km/h) in all of the above, 255's mostly Q-rated 
(160km/h), Cooper & Mastercraft N-rated (140km/h).
The R16 trio is N, L, K respectively (140, 120, 100 (110?) km/h).

> As a rough guide, the height is comparable to the 285/75x16.
> 
> 255 x 2 x 0.85 / 25.4 + 16 = 33.1 inches
> 285 x 2 x 0.75 / 25.4 + 16 = 32.8 inches
> 
> You don't need to go to 8" rims, so they should fit nicely in the

I am wandering between 6" and 8" for those tall 255's....our current 
winter tires are 255/75x15 on 7" steel, and an additional inch might 
suit them well. 8" is still within the reasonable limit of 255's, 
right?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

From:                 Self 
To:               LandCruisers@tlca.org
Subject:          235/85x16 Michelin LTX M+S
Copies to:        80_series@palladium.corp.sgi.com
Send reply to:    w.j.markerink@a1.nl
Date sent:        Wed, 21 Jan 1998 22:32:44

For those interested in tall & skinny, yet not willing to sacrifice
packed snow/ice performance, I spotted a size/type combo I haven't
seen before:

P235/85R16 Michelin LTX M+S 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Date sent:        Fri, 08 May 1998 08:39:29 -0700
To:               80_series@palladium.corp.sgi.com
From:             Rob Mullen 
Subject:          Re: [80] OME lift
Send reply to:    80_series@palladium.corp.sgi.com

At 06:46 AM 5/8/98 PDT, Mark Denison wrote:
>Since we're on the tire subject again,   according to the BF goodrich 
>spec sheet 15 inch BFG ATs are load range "C" while the 16 inch tires 
>are load range "D".  Why the difference are the 16 inch tougher?

For the same diameter, they've got an inch less sidewall for starters.
Because the 16" tires are usually used on things like pickups where weight
capacity is more important, they also tend to have beefier sidewalls.

>From what I have gathered regarding traction, narrow tires are better in 
>snow and mud while wider tires are better in sand and have poorer fuel 
>economy on road.  Seems like a 33 X 10.5 or 11.5 would be better (except 
>in sand) overall But the narrowest I found is  33 X 16 X12.5.     They 
>do make a 33 X 15 X 9.5 !  but that is really narrow.

The 33x9.5s are okay on Wranglers, marginal on 40s, horrible on 60s, and I
think they would be a death sentence on an 80.  Because of their
height-width ratio, they do really weird "floppy" things.  If you air them
down and go on any sort of a side-hill, they'll "fold under" so you're
running more on the downhill sidewall than on the tread.

>I am on the stock 15" rims now (91 3FE)   Is there any adavantage to 
>switching to 16" rims other than cosmetic?

16s allow you to run much taller, skinnier tires with thicker sidewalls.
Sounds like a win-win to me.  The 16s will also give marginally better
handling on-road for the same wheel diameter and marginally less flex off-road.

____________________________________________________________________
Rob Mullen RAMullen@wimsey.com       Vancouver, B.C. Canada         |    
Editor of the TLC FAQ                TLCA #3036, Coastal Cruisers   |
'80 Toyota BJ40/2 Land Cruiser       Why walk?...When you can CRAWL!|

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx











Date sent:        Thu, 06 Jul 2000 17:59:50 +0200
From:             Denis 
To:               dtlc@helios.net
Subject:          [DTLC] gears , 255/100R16 ; was opportunity to buy a 86'BJ75
Send reply to:    dtlc@helios.net

> To my knowledge there is no dual TC set up for any LC.  Marlin Czajkowski in
> Fresno, CA can swap in a low range gear set (4.70 or so) in a 74-80 four speed
> case but I don't know about the later split cases.  I'll be talking to him
> soon and I'll pose the question.

 Of course it would be the smartest solution, plus an axle gear
reduction like 4.56 or 4.88, but what would it cost? Where can we find
these axle gears in Europa (read : in which cars were or are they
originally ?)

What would you think of 255/100R16 Michelin XZLs on a 75?
That would be great tall but not wide serious OffRoad tires, wouldn't
it,
I'll try to find where they can be bought and for which cost, just for
interest.

bye, Denis







From:             "Willem-Jan Markerink" 
To:               80_series@sgiblab.sgi.com
Date sent:        Fri, 14 Jul 2000 22:42:32 +0100
Subject:          [80] [CHAT] New/larger Hakkapeliitta's
Copies to:        dtlc@helios.net
Send reply to:    80_series@sgiblab.sgi.com

For those planning new winter tires this season, Nokia added the 
following models/sizes:

Hakkapeliitta 10 (old type, low speed)
235/85x16
265/70x16
265/75x16

Hakkapeliitta 1 (new type, high speed)
265/70x17

Also interesting is that they finally list the circumference spec for 
the Cooper Weathermaster 265/75x16, 2515mm; close to all other 
Cooper's in this size, but larger than for example a BFG AT or MT 
(2463/2457mm)....
This even makes me question my tentative MT choice (BFG), 255/85x16....with
2576mm, it's not that much larger....one more point for the Michelin 8.25x16
(2623)....;-))

Anyone know whether this rumoured 255/100x16 Michelin has a higher 
speed-index, like the 235/85x16? (double set of center blocks, unlike 
the inch-sizes)....gotta pester the Michelin distributor soon....;-))

Btw, saw a BFG MT 35x10.50x15 being mentioned in an article, but
can't find it in my tire overview....does it exist?

--                 
Bye,

Willem-Jan Markerink

      The desire to understand 
is sometimes far less intelligent than
     the inability to understand


[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]










From:             "Heidi Mark" 
To:               dtlc@helios.net
Subject:          Re: [DTLC] [CHAT] New/larger Hakkapeliitta's
Date sent:        Sat, 15 Jul 2000 18:35:42 PDT
Send reply to:    dtlc@helios.net

>From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" 
>
>Also interesting is that they finally list the circumference spec for
>the Cooper Weathermaster 265/75x16, 2515mm; close to all other
>Cooper's in this size, but larger than for example a BFG AT or MT
>(2463/2457mm)....
>This even makes me question my tentative MT choice (BFG), 255/85x16....with
>2576mm, it's not that much larger....one more point for the Michelin 8.25x16
>(2623)....;-))
>
>Anyone know whether this rumoured 255/100x16 Michelin has a higher
>speed-index, like the 235/85x16? (double set of center blocks, unlike
>the inch-sizes)....gotta pester the Michelin distributor soon....;-))

I've checked my Parts dealer for the Michelins 255/100/16.
auw - 400USD a piece...

Check : www.michelin.fr









From:             "Willem-Jan Markerink" 
To:               dtlc@helios.net
Date sent:        Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:29:45 +0100
Subject:          [DTLC] Re: [CHAT] Michelin 255/100x16 (was: New/larger Hakkapel
Copies to:        80_series@sgiblab.sgi.com
Send reply to:    dtlc@helios.net

On 15 Jul 00 at 18:35, Heidi Mark wrote:

> I've checked my Parts dealer for the Michelins 255/100/16.
> auw - 400USD a piece...

Mmm....seems right....I was quoted HFL 998 for this size, 969 for the 
9.00, and 772 for the 8.25 (official list price, before discount).
Sadly the technical spec's are not very impressive either, load index 126, but
speed index only 'K', 110km/h, same as the 9.00x16....and unlike the 235/85x16
(Q, 160km/h). Btw Charlie, they couldn't find 11.00x16 in their system....is it
still available in Canada? What did you pay back then?....;-)) And what load &
speed index? 

> Check : www.michelin.fr

Pretty much useless site....I could get no further than a page that
showed both single center-row and dual center row versions of
OR/XZL....no sizes, no spec's. Either that, or the site is too
browser-dependant (Netscape Gold 3.0). 

www.michelin.nl even forbids access alltogether....nice attitude....8-))

--                 
Bye,

Willem-Jan Markerink

      The desire to understand 
is sometimes far less intelligent than
     the inability to understand


[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]









From:             "Charles Aarons" <52m37@alaska.net>
To:               
Subject:          Re: [DTLC] Re: [CHAT] Michelin 255/100x16 (was: New/larger Hakkapel
Date sent:        Mon, 17 Jul 2000 10:21:00 -0700
Send reply to:    dtlc@helios.net

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Willem-Jan Markerink 

> Btw Charlie, they couldn't find 11.00x16 in their system....is it
> still available in Canada? What did you pay back then?....;-))
> And what load & speed index?

11.00R16 XZL is on an inflation/spec table I have but I don't know of any
existing for real.  My 9.00R16 XZLs are really, dimensionally, 255/100R16s. They
are 10.3" wide and 36.9" tall so they fit that spec.  They have two load ratings
on the sidewall: 126K and 134J.  My 11.00r16 XLs are marked only 135J. 
Charlie








FROM: "Pieter" 
SUBJECT: Yet another tire
DATE: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 08:39:04 +0100
NEWSGROUPS: uk.rec.cars.4x4,rec.autos.4x4,alt.fan.landrover

Here's yet another tire mfg. Go see the Kombat, comes in nice high 'n
skinny, 7.50R16 and 9.00R16, specially for those who want a military / retro
look combined with decent (dry) road and mud performance.

http://www.simenet.com/simetyres/index.html

Cheers, Pieter
HDJ100, Minsk, BY
HZJ74, Holland (on order)









Date sent:        Thu, 29 Mar 2001 16:56:07 -0700
From:             Peter Straub 
Subject:          Re: [DTLC] 16" Wheels - rims width?
To:               dtlc@helios.net
Send reply to:    dtlc@helios.net

----- Original Message -----
From: "Norm Fisher" 

> You could just get the Michelin XZLs and be done with it! (cost about the same
> as both sets of "regular" tires + rims)

I just ordered my tires for when the SO on EMU's is done on my Truck.  I
ordered 11.00R16 Michelin XCL's.  I am getting them used, X-mil.  $270 each,
with about 3/32 wear on each tire.  New, they are over $500.  They stand about
38". They have an 8 ply steel mesh side wall, with a load capacity of 5,000 lbs.
 I hope to avoid blowing beads with these suckers.

9.00R16's are about $200 each, and are about 36" tall.

If you go to the 7.50R16, then you have the choice of the XCL (Directional), or
the XZL (non-directional).  They are about 31", perfect for a stocker.

Peter Straub
Manager, Application Hosting Services
Xerox Professional Services
403-519-1534
403-260-8990 fax
peter.straub@xbs-amoco.com









From:           "Norm Fisher" 
To:             "Peter Straub" , 
Subject: 	Re: [DTLC] 16" Wheels - rims width?
Date: 		Thu, 29 Mar 2001 16:47:56 -0800
Reply-To: 	dtlc@helios.net

> I just ordered my tires for when the SO on EMU's is done on my Truck.  I
> ordered 11.00R16 Michelin XCL's.  I am getting them used, X-mil.  $270 each,
> with about 3/32 wear on each tire.  New, they are over $500.  They stand
> about 38". They have an 8 ply steel mesh side wall, with a load capacity of
> 5,000 lbs.  I hope to avoid blowing beads with these suckers.
>
> 9.00R16's are about $200 each, and are about 36" tall.
>
> If you go to the 7.50R16, then you have the choice of the XCL (Directional),
> or the XZL (non-directional).  They are about 31", perfect for a stocker.

I was thinking of the 8.25R16s (34") XZLs, which don't seem to be as easy to
find, and certainly not for $200 Canadian dollars. I can't wait to see some pics
of your truck when it's all done, it's going to be a monster!

--
Norm Fisher (nfisher@telus.net)
'85 BJ70
 North Vancouver, BC, Canada
Coastal Cruisers & TLCA #6257









To:               <80scool@yahoogroups.com>
Organization:     Zeffinc-co
From:             "Zeffer" 
Date sent:        Wed, 10 Oct 2001 12:10:49 +0100
Send reply to:    80scool@yahoogroups.com
Subject:          Re: [80] What tire size is 7.50R16?


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian B"
> Steve,
>
> The 7.50 is the height of the tyre. Therefore, 7.50 + 16 (rim) +7.5
= 31"
> overall height.
>
> The aspect ratio is something like 90 or higher.
>
> So I guess converting it would look something like 31x8.00x16.
>
> Where the aspect ratio is very high, most tyres seem to be labelled like the
> 7.50R16. eg. 8.00R16, 9.50R16 etc. Unfortunately, this tells you nothing
> about the width of the tyre.
>
> hth,
>
> Ian B

Sorry to contradict you Ian but 7.50 is the width of the tyre in
inches, not the height, in the same way that 10.50x15 is 10.5 inches
wide on 15 inch diameter rims or a 205R/16 is 205mm wide on 16" rims.
The 'R' just means it is a radial tyre as opposed to a cross [bias]
ply.
The aspect ratio of a 7.50/16 is indeed very high at about 90% so the
height is around 7"*2=14+the 16" rim=30"approx.
Some could well exceed 31"

Huw










To:               <80scool@yahoogroups.com>
From: "Zeffer" 
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 23:29:17 +0100 
Reply-To: 80scool@yahoogroups.com 
Subject: Re: [80] What tire size is 7.50R16? 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Darren McRae" >
> "none are as blind as those who wont see""
>
> Huw,  & Bozza,
> you are both trying to use the metric system to measure imperial tyres,
> now stop making fools of yourselves and go do some homework, before
> you continue to add your "opinion" to this thread.

Dear Darren,

I live in part of the country which invented the Imperial system and
have explained that I run tyres from small garden tyres to 20.8/38
which is 20.8 inches wide and is an 80 profile tyre which is certainly
and obviously not 20.8 inches from the rim to the tread.  I have
posted the reference to a tyre calculator which is metric but the
principle is exactly the same.

>
> To assist you in this, try measuring a 6.50 a 7.00 a 7.50 a 8.25 and a 9.00
> they all fit the same size rim [width] but get taller as the number increases
> but they dont get any wider as they go.

Total rubbish. I have 6.50 7.50 and 10.00 and 11.00X16 and they
certainly do get wider as the numbers increase. They also get taller
of course [in the same ratio because their aspect ratio remains around
100%] but they very obviously get wider. As for fitting the same rim,

6.50-16 goes with 4.50Ex16, 5.00Ex16 and 5.50Fx16
7.50-16 needs 5.50Fx16 and  no smaller and is 8 inches wide overall
10.00-16 needs 8.00x16 rims and is 10.8 inches wide overall
11.00-16 needs 10.00 rims and is 12.4 inches wide to the outside of
the bulge at the mid point between rim and tread end on the vertical
axis.

It goes without saying that the first figure of the rim measurement is
also the measurement of width. [it would be silly if it were height
because the height is obviously 16"]

Most tyres have a small range of rim widths with which they are more
or less compatible

>
> These are all IMPERIAL sizes by the way, and you could even try measuring
> them in inches!

I don't believe either Bozza or myself have any problem with feet and
inches or in my case with pounds, stones and imperial tons, metric
tonnes or short tons.

> So go prove me wrong, I will be interested to read your results......

The case is proven as I have the tyres I mention above within 25 yards
of where I am sitting and the sizes *you* mention do certainly get
wider as the numbers rise. I admit to not having a 9.00x16 to hand but
assure you that its width lies between the 7.50 and the 10.00x16

Huw







To:               80scool@yahoogroups.com
From:             bozza4president@yahoo.com
Date sent:        Fri, 12 Oct 2001 03:46:31 -0000
Send reply to:    80scool@yahoogroups.com
Subject:          Re: [80] What tire size is 7.50R16?

--- In 80scool@y..., "Darren McRae"  wrote:
>> Huw,  & Bozza,
> you are both trying to use the metric system to measure imperial tyres,
> now stop making fools of yourselves and go do some homework, before
> you continue to add your "opinion" to this thread.

Now, Darren, you are being unnecessarily belligerent. If you are, 
indeed, one of the 'List Police', then I think you need to do a 
raincheck on your tone. Telling users to 'Check their opinions at the 
door', so to speak, when yours is so way off, is offensive.

> 
> To assist you in this, try measuring a 6.50 a 7.00 a 7.50 a 8.25 and a 9.00
> they all fit the same size rim [width] but get taller as the number
> increases
> but they dont get any wider as they go.

You can play with your tape measure all you like. The fact that you 
have no understanding of the Industry Classifications does not excuse 
your belligerence.

Now, LISTEN. If you continue to use the NUMERIC system of 
specification, ie. 6.50, 7.00, 9.00R16, then you need to understand 
that specification. The first size is width. Aspect Ratio in NUMERICS 
is PREDETERMINED to 92% in all sizes ending in ZERO (ie. the last 
ZERO in 7.50), and 80% in sizes not ending in ZERO, ie. 8.25R16. (the 
last FIVE in 8.25 not being ZERO).

You misunderstand this because (in the sizes you quote) SECTION 
HEIGHT (aspect ratio) is close enough to 100% to make the 
measurements LOOK square. 7.50R16 will we 92% aspect ratio, AND 
THEREFORE so close to that spec. in SECTION HEIGHT also, that you are 
fooled into thinking that the spec refers to SECTION HEIGHT.

Either way, it doesn't matter. SO long as YOU understand what you are 
meaning, AND you are only buying to fit to your OWN vehicle(s), this 
is not a problem.

As advice to people around the world, however, on what the 
specification STANDS FOR, you are simply being misleading. Contact 
your National Association of Tire Manufacturers for a histoy of 
NUMERIC classification. You will find that my 'opinion' stands.  

> 
> These are all IMPERIAL sizes by the way, and you could even try 
> measuring them in inches!

No, that is incorrect. Before you start on Imperial/Metric conversion 
you need to understand what TIRE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM you are 
corrupting.

> So go prove me wrong, I will be interested to read your results......

No, I am not motivated in life to 'proving people wrong', although 
your use of this terminolgy suggests, perhaps, that you are. That 
would explain the belligerence.


Bozza










To:               80scool@yahoogroups.com
From:             bozza4president@yahoo.com
Date sent:        Fri, 12 Oct 2001 04:41:32 -0000
Send reply to:    80scool@yahoogroups.com
Subject:          Re: [80] What tire size is 7.50R16? - how much longer can this go on 4 !!

--- In 80scool@y..., "Northwest.Physio"  wrote:

 SNIP 

> ps - has anyone with 7.50R16 tyres looked on the website of the said tyre's
> manufacturer. they all tend to display their tyre's spec's in great detail,
> and perhaps we might get an answer....
> pps - my 80 ran 7.50R16's (Dunlop road gripper) - they were bigger than
> 31's, but just a tad less diameter than the 285/75 BFG AT/KO's 
> 

I agree. 

Please here. Its a start. But, I've finished on this topic.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/80scool/files/Clear%20Lenses%20%26%20Stuff%20%21/Flotation%20v%20Metric%20v%20Numeric%20graphic.gif

I apologize for my more-than-liberal-use of everyone's bandwidth.

Bozza








From: "Peter Straub" 
To: 
Subject: RE: [LCML] Michelin XL 1100x16
Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 07:37:50 -0600

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:landcruisers-admin@birfield.com]On Behalf Of Andrew Farmer
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 11:37 PM

> Has anyone got one of these they can measure the actual tread width and
> actual diameter?
> Thanks,
> Andrew Farmer
> 1975 FJ40
> Wellington, New Zealand

38.4" Actual diameter when new.
9.5" wide tread from outside lug to outsdide lug.  The 11.00 is the section
width (wides part of the tire to widest part of the tire.

Peter Straub










From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" 
To: landcruisers@birfield.com
Subject: RE: [LCML] Michelin XL 1100x16
Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 17:42:04 +0200

On 22 Sep 2003 at 7:37, Peter Straub wrote:

> 38.4" Actual diameter when new.
> 9.5" wide tread from outside lug to outsdide lug.  The 11.00 is the
> section width (wides part of the tire to widest part of the tire.

Interesting alternative, providing you can find the rims for it:
Michelin 275/80x20 XZL, 95cm tall (2.5cm less than the 11x16).

That's what they put on the Swiss Duro 4x4 and 6x6....the latter up
to 12000kg....2000kg pro tire....:))
--
Bye,

Willem-Jan Markerink

      The desire to understand
is sometimes far less intelligent than
     the inability to understand


[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]










Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 22:58:23 +0300 (EEST)
From: Thomas Ulich 
Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net
To: dtlc@helios.net
Subject: [DTLC] General info: tyre sizes


Hi,

since the question just popped up: I came across a UN document 
regulating these kind of things.  Have a look at

 	http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs.html

There are all kinds of rules about vehicles, it's a nightmare...

The document about tyres is Regulation 54, 2nd revision.  Here are 
the direct links:

New version of 2004-04-16 in English:

 	http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs/54rv2e.pdf

...in French:

 	http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs/54rv2f.pdf

Older version of 1997-03-21 in English:

 	http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs/r054r1e.pdf

...in French:

 	http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs/r054r1f.pdf

Check out Annex 5 (pp. 29+ in old, pp. 32+ in new), there are all 
tyres listed with their nominal sizes etc.  Lots of other interesting 
stuff, too.

A printout of this document in your pocket should impress any 
inspection engineer if you want to get special tyres into your 
registration papers.  :-)

All the best from Finland,

Thomas
1988 HJ-61LG


Thomas Ulich    e-mail: thomas.ulich@sgo.fi    www: http://cc.oulu.fi/~thu/

       Inuit say:  He who looks long upon the aurora soon goes mad.

If you have any question, remark, comment, want to share some philosophy or just want to express your opinion about these pages, feel free to send email to: w.j.markerink @ a1.nl