Tire size (rolling diameter and width), weight and tread design. My truck lost almost 2MPG going from 34" tall highway tires at 80psi to 35" tall AT's at 65psi.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
Printable View
Tire size (rolling diameter and width), weight and tread design. My truck lost almost 2MPG going from 34" tall highway tires at 80psi to 35" tall AT's at 65psi.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
Danno just to clarify, what is
mpg bfg
mpg blizzak
?
Well the Christmas Tree Hunters owned the ditch on the way to Meadow Creek. In the name of science and TGR, I stopped and gave every the number of the 24/7 tow truck company and did a tire audit. Exactly zero of the +/- 10 stuck vehicles had snow tires studded or otherwise. Lots of Jeeps, Forerunners and Tacos with Cosplay Winterwheeling set ups acting betrayed by YouTube needing to know how differentials work and learning that traction boards ain't get out of jail free cards. Also, many a rental with baloney skins.
Still in a morning blurr, I thought you were asking him to define mpg. And BFG. And Blizzak.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rideski
Laffed at myself shortly after.
baloney.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foggy_Goggles
Bannana Peels!
Generally speaking it is people going outside and doing shit with their friends and family so I give them a pass and be helpful when I can. But I was pulling a snowmobile trailer so I was a bit limited.
But I laugh a bit because they are fully "influenced". Its as if they've got the Shackleton music playing. Full of selfie sticks and documentation. Almost as if they drove in the ditch on purpose for the 'gram.
And littered all over the road. And we've got these tree cutting permits and they plow a couple of routes which makes it worse. They all have the propane fire pits and camp chef going in the parking lot with a mega curated lunch.
We were out riding dirt bikes in this canyon in UT last fall. This guy in a fully kitted out OVERLAND Tacoma decided the he couldn't make the squeeze between two boulders (I thought he could have made it). So he was pulled over with a fire pit and a grill cooking pork belly tacos and gave us some. It was all documented on multiple cameras. Funny shit. Good tacos.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foggy_Goggles
Never forget the first time I saw LA Asians w 19" rims low slung ricer on 395 s of mammoth in a 4-6' Storm trying to deal w snow socks while getting shaved by 18 wheelers.
Hard to say an exact MPG because it changes from tank to tank, but I'd guess on a tank I'd get 14mpg on the BFG I am getting 16mpg on the Blizzak. The BFGs are at my new place so when I am over there I will get the exact sizing and post both.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rideski
And yeah, the Christmas Tree Mafia was out in full force in Grand County this weekend.
Full force in Teton Co, Idaho too. I think the bros from Idaho Falls may be a little more rugged than the front rangers though cause I didn't see them having any problems in their 15 yo 2500's and blaze orange.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
The way it was phrased wasn't sure which you meant got better mpg. If you're saying better mpg from Blizzak, I'd have to guess the tires or the wheels or both are heavier with the BFG'sQuote:
Originally Posted by Danno
I don’t really buy the weight argument. How much additional weight is it actually, relative to total vehicle weight? And the energy is basically stored in the bigger ‘flywheels’, it’s not lost until braking turns it into heat, so shouldn’t affect highway mileage basically at all.
I’d guess it has much more to do with rolling resistance (tread pattern, rubber compound, carcass construction), aero drag (Different width? Different wheel diameter or design? Tread pattern), and maybe different diameter (if the winter tire is smaller diameter then the same odometer distance is less actual miles travelled compared to the BFG, which would give an artificially high mileage calculated for the winter tire).
I prefer to think of it as a guess to his query, not an argument. From what I understand, rotational weight means a lot more than static weight. Have to get those spinning after every stop. But I haven't been to a Holiday Inn for a while.
Ok, I think his guess is likely incorrect, for the reasons stated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rideski
The general guideline is that rotational weight counts 3x non-rotating weight (takes 3x the energy to get it up to speed, since it’s needs to both move forward and spin up like a flywheel), but it would depend on where the additional weight is situated relative to axis of rotation.
So, for example, if one set of wheels/tires was 50lb heavier than the other, it would be similar to having the lighter wheels/tires on the vehicle and having a 150lb passenger in the car at all times.
How much do you notice your fuel economy changing with a passenger vs. without?
Increased wheel weight and diameter will definitely reduce gas efficiency. The cost of accelerating that extra rotational weight isn’t going to be made up once you’re moving. One of the reasons bicyclists are willing to pay such a premium for carbon rims.easiest way to make a car more efficient is to put smaller and lighter tires (and wheels) on it.
If you want an experiment add 5lb of fishing weights to your bike wheels and see how you feel after a standard ride.
The only reason to get larger diameter wheels is to be able to put bigger diameter brake rotors
Sent from my moto g 5G using Tapatalk
Or because that’s what you find used that works on your truck.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
On rolling time trials some teams have experimented with adding weights to their wheels. The added weight keeps the bike moving faster on the rollers due to the flywheel effect, then takes a bit more time to accelerate back up to speed on the downhills. The net effect is a more consistent speed, and a more consistent speed leads to less aero losses over the length of the course.Quote:
Originally Posted by XavierD
The benefits of lightweight wheels on bikes is oversold.
Again, the cost of the extra wheel weight on a car only comes when it gets turned into heat under braking. And the weight differences we’re talking about are likely small relative to total vehicle weight in most cases.
Might not be as bad as you think, your Speedo (and odometer) are probably reading low fwiwQuote:
Originally Posted by SnowMachine
Nerds!
Who buys a truck for the MPG or knows what their wheels and tires weigh?
You can wank about when your Cute UTE running all seasons is in the ditch.
We've got about 7 other tire threads. This is the one for burning dinos, running over hippies getting up to early, driving too fast, turning up the puck rock with no fucks given.
Acceleration/deceleration the effect is far more noticeable vs a flywheel effect at steady speeds. Losing unsprung weight (wheel/tire) is hugely effective for race cars.Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
I drive a 8k lb truck with 1k ft/lbs of torque regularly. Sometimes loaded, sometimes not. A few extra lbs of wheel weight isn't much of a concern. Losing MPG's was just an observation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foggy_Goggles
Yeah, I’m aware. My previous career was race car engineering.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnowMachine
Ok, so the two tire sizes are:
BFG 275/60/20
Blizzak 275/55/20
So the BFG is slightly larger, would that make such a noticeable difference? Or is that just one contributing factor, along with weight and tread and whatever.
It's just one factor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
Are you basing your observed MPG on a dashboard readout of MPG? Or based on hand calculated driven miles + actual fuel consumed?
Depends are you trying to eek out fractions of a second from aero losses on a time trial course on a bike? Or are you trying to have a better bike ride with less unsprung weight and more responsive pedalling?Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
That generalizes poorly to a motor vehicle, except Unsprung weight is totally a thing for suspension performance.
That being said, lots of stop and go will definitely affect your mpg with a heavy wheel more than highway driving which probably doesn't care about wheel wheight but does care about the other factors you listed in your other post.
My studs saved me from sliding into an intersection on an unexpected non-obvious ice patch today. This disproves the argument that "you only need studs for ice road truck driving." No, my tires need to have the maximum safety factor and the most dangerous moment that I can expect to certainly encounter, even if irregular!
Assuming both tires are equally worn, and that the actual tire size matches the dimension, which they often don't, the size difference accounts for a 3.4% mpg difference in favor of the Blizzak because of differences in the indicated mile traveled vs true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
The BFGs are 5# heavier per tire than the Blizzaks (assuming a DMV2). That would have minimal effect I think. Wheels can easily 10# different between alloy wheels... and steel vs a lightweight alloy even bigger difference.
You gave 14 vs 16 mpg, a 13% difference... now I think probably you need to re-measure that and calculate to 3 significant digits. Because 14.4 vs 15.5 (largely explained by size and weight) is way different than 13.5 vs 16.4 (explained by the factors Jong listed)!
I hand calculate almost every tank.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Chupacabra
Thanks for the info. I think the wheels are the same, the BFGs came with the car and I believe were just OEM wheels, and the second set was purchased from a guy with a similar Sequoia, so also OEM.Quote:
Originally Posted by summit
The BFGs are more worn, about 50% tread while the Blizzaks are close to new. But that difference would make the MPG difference less not more (ie the BFGs are now closer in size to the Blizzaks).
It's not easy to more precisely calculate for a couple of reasons. One, every tank is different, with a different mix of miles and driving conditions. And two, I didn't notice this until I put the Blizzaks on, so I did not have the opportunity to try and create a "control tank". There is no question a noticeable difference, way more than 3%, but beyond that it is hard to be precise. Maybe in April, before I switch back, I will try to drive a specific route that I repeat often with fillups on both ends, and then do the same after I switch.
In any event, if the MPG difference is real or partially real, I may be looking at a non-AT tire for my next summer choice.
BFGs (33") half worn (~32.8") vs new Blizzaks (31.9"), the 3.4% difference falls to 2.8-2.9%Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
19.95 for a tire rotation in Taos. All 4 for 20$. Was blown away. I've been in the Bozeman bubble.
My cooper snowclaws are lightly studded. Yrs ago I had heavily studded nokiens. Horrible resonance..
It's probably worth paying that extra $0.05 so they rotate all four tires, and not just one tire.Quote:
Originally Posted by byates1
I figured you folks down there had figured out how to somehow miss the driving on ice part of winterQuote:
Originally Posted by summit
around here even a silly girl in a 20 yr sold sunfire will have studded snows
I didn't think 18 wheelers ran studs but they definalty carry chains and have to chain up
I feel like one tire at a time is more cost effectiveQuote:
Originally Posted by El Chupacabra
Cool! I was merely a driver.Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
Twenty-One’ Tundra Trail Edition tire time….Here’s my wishlist for an All Terrain that is rated for snow?
-Cooper Discoverer Rugged Trek
-BFG All Terrain T/A KO Three
-BFG All Terrain T/A KO Two
Am I missing any obvious contenders? Ordering ASAP……
(The number emoji thing going on….is ridiculous)
I'd check these out: https://na.nokiantyres.com/all-terra...s-outpost-nat/
Not the KO2Quote:
Originally Posted by BC.
Also look at Nokian Outpost nAT, that's what is going on my Tundra for a 3 season tire
Sweet/ thx guys…will adjust my search. The Nokian has a nice look/ also sounds like what I am searching for.
Not a lot of real world on the K03 yet. They're on my truck, but only for the last 500 miles. They've seen a few slick spots and so far, so good.Quote:
Originally Posted by BC.
I'm curious about those Nokians. I've just recently been opened up to sell Nokian. I'll get them on a few vehicles.
I liked the K02 in LT applications except that they didn't hold balance well or last long (25k tops). If you put a LT on a light truck like a Tundra I was regularly seeing 50k out of them. From all personal accounts they were good in snow/ice. The tire is no longer supported which makes me leary of installing them these days.
I'm curious about the Cooper Endeavor, but they're currently only in LT sizes.
Ko3 is interesting
https://youtu.be/-BtKIFXlyIA