[outback97]

Great article, thanks for posting.

I would guess the reason skinnier tires are not that popular is right in the article under the Benefits of a wide tire:

The smoother and wider a tire is, the better it will perform in sand, as the width creates flotation and the smoother tread displaces less sand under (horizontal) acceleration (shearing force). The same influences apply with snow and mud. If the snow and mud are deeper than 110% of the vehicles minimum ground clearance, than it is better to run a wide tire, aired down and have the vehicle “float” on the surface.

So, wide tires are better in sand, deep snow and deep mud, which is where the vast majority of people who actually care about tires drive.

So while it may not be what you need, tires are produced in volume for the masses. The number of people that can benefit from skinny tires, and are knowledgeable to know that, are probably a fairly small number. So unfortunately our skinny options are limited.

I think the lengthening of the contact patch from lowering PSI makes more of a difference than going to a slightly wider tire, but yeah at a given PSI the wider tire will have a bit more surface area. Also, "safety and handling" (read lower liability) as also described in the article benefits is a compelling reason for tire companies to promote the wider tires.

And yes companies make what people will buy, which leads us to:

I would say wide popularity is mostly for looks. And the wider ones do look good. I get a little jealous when someone else shows up with a 285 km2s or god forbid km2s in any 35 size. I want them!

I do think on sand I would rather have wide tire but everywhere else I have driven (mud, rocks, snow, dirt) it really doesn't make a difference. You could quote all this "scientific" evidence one way or the other but the reality is my truck plods along no mater which set it has on. The only thing that really affects performance is how well it cleans out mud. Once those ATs fill up with mud, they are like racing slicks. Otherwise, drive what you like.

The wider tires do look good. I still think that's most of the answer to the original question.

Good point on the AT's and mud. The mud here in Utah is pretty bad stuff, I try to avoid it when I can!

 

[outback97]

Not ATs but I run KM2 255/80r17 on the trails and they do just fine. They drive ok the street for an mt.... but yeah, not too many options for 255s. Sad because they work fine, are taller, and weigh less then 285s.

Those are three reasons I'm looking at that size. Realistically most of the miles will be on pavement getting to the dirt, so I am wanting to get an AT although it's a compromise.

Does it even make sense to ask you how the two different sizes compare? Probably not since it's apples and oranges.

 

[outback97]

Back in the late '80's- early 90's, Chevy came out with the S-10 pick up with a Baja trim. I'm remembering that having tall skinny tires. I wonder if those were 255's?

http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/2665/dealerrpo1pt9.jpg

Looks like they were 235/75R-15.

 

[outback97]

It's a shame for sure, but there are only two choices, Mud-Terrains and Commercial Traction tires (M-55 and Cooper S/T). Nobody stocks them either, so you have to have them shipped regardless. That being said, I really want to move to 255/85R16 tires when I replace my current ones. I like that they belong on a 7" wide wheel versus the 285's and are often a little taller as well.

I had found this thread earlier which lists some of the options. It's a little out of date but some of it still applies.

You won't like the Maxxis MT-762 Bighorn then, either.

I wasn't seeing the Toyo's for less than $300 per tire, but that Maxxis is available for <$200, so it's not that bad. But I'm not really wanting an MT tire, more like an AT.

I really wanted to run 255/85's but decided not to due to the lack of availability and choices. I don't ever want to be in a situation where I have to wait weeks for a replacement

After having 285's, I don't regret it at all and wouldn't even consider 255's except for a dedicated snow/winter tire. Can't beat tall and skinny for that.

It sounds like there is demand for this size, but lack of availability has pushed almost everyone to the 285 size. I'm still curious why there are so few option in the 255.

One thing I was thinking about was vehicle weight. In the old Expeditions West article I posted originally, he's using these tires on a 2004 Tacoma. That weighs around 15% less than an Xterra. On the other hand there are full size trucks that weigh much more than ours that use the 255/85's, so there goes that theory.

Maybe it's just everyone buying into bigger = better? Usually the simplest explanation is the right one.

 

[outback97]

Toyo M-55 also comes is 255/85

Thanks, those look really nice, except for the price!

 

[outback97]

Cooper S/T Maxx now comes in 255/85, thats about the closest thing to A/T you'll find from a big name company.

But yes, there needs to be more A/T options... I was going to go this size on my truck but have decided to go 285 as even the Maxx is a bit aggressive for an 80%-20% rig. Going with 285 AT3 as my next tire...

Thanks for the reply... the Cooper Discoverer S/T was the only one I was finding. The S/T Maxx looks similar but slightly more aggressive. The S/T are a load range D so not as heavy as the S/T Maxx. The N speed rating on the S/T is a little worrying though!