[Jaggu]

Originally Posted by ex670c

So if a tyre is 50yrs old in design and is being made with the latest technology/Manufacturing Tech, it is not modern.

I would say old design modern manufacturing, it still has plus's not denying that. But Arka i really dont understand what you are going on about. You want to call NDMS modern? is that it? For me they just plain suck! On road i dont want to even comment about them, especially if the road is wet. The amount of torque a stock hurricane engine makes is too much for the poor thing to handle even in a simple reversing inside city. Many of my friends have seen what used to happen in my humble CJ3B.

One can air down a bit (NDMS) to extract much more performance in an offroad situation, but for all practical reasons i would like to survive without airing down to the least psi, call me lazy. On the other hand a more modern option like Trepador works well on and offroad with little fuzz.

Now the WW design looks interesting, but i think there is lot more to a modern tyre than just the shape or cut of the thread. Isn't it? I know you would want me to explain further right?

[headers]

^^^: to me Maxxis Trepadors suck compared to Michelin LTX-AT "on road" PERIOD.

[Jaggu]

Originally Posted by headers

^^^: to me Maxxis Trepadors suck compared to Michelin LTX-AT "on road" PERIOD.

Yup i agree, LTX are way better off on road, with better thread area and soft supple rubber compared to Trep's. They are supposed to be pretty good for sand also according to the arab boys when aired down.

[Frankenstein]

Arka , one small doubt , i have thought over and over again about Jaggu mentioning NDMS not performing , but on the deverabetta Trail which was done by me recently i took my 3b and there was another 3B with the same specs ( engine , tranny, etc) which had trepadors by Maxxis in the size 235/75, r15 , what i did in 1 attempt , the trepador jeep struggled .

I personally feel they are inferior in out right grip , reduce the ground clearance , strain the steering system . I guess they may be on par with the 6.00x16 but cannot match the superb performance of the 7.00 or 7.50x16.

I may be wrong about my observation , but speaking to a lot of non TBHP folks who are into offroading from the past 40 years , (hunting back then when it was legal in India) estates , Farms and people who have tried M/T s still say nothing to beat NDMS . Today onroad i braked from 80km /hr in my 3A with the om616 engine which develops way more momentum than the Hurricane , there was no problem in braking as being projected here. People here are paying 9K a tyre for that 7.00 16 NDMS and i dont think every one are going wrong in their decision and these are people who even offroad with trailers .

Took out the MB and CJ6 with lokey brakes and 7.0016 NDMS did some hard braking , the tyres kept up well .

Tomorrow i will test the Wrangler YJ with M/Ts , my Prado with A/Ts and a couple of 550s and 3bS again .

When the tyre locks up easily , i guess the brake s work is not done properly and hence they are not linear , that may be one of the reason.

I am confused , as the online world seems totally different from the real world , could you explain?

[ex670c]

Originally Posted by Jaggu

Now you are talking about general AT tyres. Me about slightly more specialized, like hmmm say a Maxxis Creepy Crawler M-8090 Reviews.

Originally Posted by Jaggu

Now the WW design looks interesting, but i think there is lot more to a modern tyre than just the shape or cut of the thread. Isn't it? I know you would want me to explain further right?

Hi Jaggu,

You Still haven't explained to me the criteria of a "modern" off-road tyre.

Tread Patterns have been there for ages.

wrt. to construction Radial vs Nylon, the competition spec vehicles all go in for Bias Ply/Cross Ply construction, which is as old as the pneumatic tyre itself.

So now what is left to be "modern"?

i) Made in the 21st Century Fresh Stock?

ii) More advanced manufacturing Process?

Regards,

Arka

[Jaggu]

Originally Posted by ex670c

So now what is left to be "modern"?

Arka Arka Arka arka

A modern tyre for me is something which has been designed in the recent times, using modern design tools/machinery which are more accurate and optimized for any particular application. Each and every aspect of these tyres are designed for the specific application, say (egs) sidewall thickness, flex, protection, grip. Similarly for the thread, if it can channel out the mud more efficiently, self clean the threads etc etc.

This is what a layman me can explain, now you can explain as the expert?

As you said a simple NDMS with a diff cut or pattern makes it perform in a different league, no imagine the same cut done with precision tools which can control the variance to .00000mm

And something which i could google out from rally boys link

[ex670c]

Originally Posted by Jaggu

Arka Arka Arka arka

A modern tyre for me is something which has been designed in the recent times, using modern design tools/machinery which are more accurate and optimized for any particular application. Each and every aspect of these tyres are designed for the specific application, say (egs) sidewall thickness, flex, protection, grip. Similarly for the thread, if it can channel out the mud more efficiently, self clean the threads etc etc.

This is what a layman me can explain, now you can explain as the expert?

As you said a simple NDMS with a diff cut or pattern makes it perform in a different league, no imagine the same cut done with precision tools which can control the variance to .00000mm

And something which i could google out from rally boys link

Hi Jaggu,

What makes you think the Older Tyres weren't designed keeping the above criteria in mind.

Are you serious that a self cleaning tread is a modern feature

The degree of variance you are talking about will surely help in radial construction.

wrt. to cutting with a precision tool, these tyres are vulcanised, the treads are moulded, even if they were to be cut, do you think 0.0000mm variance will make a difference in a compressible compound like nylon/rubber, which eventually wears out due to friction.

Regards,

Arka

[Jaggu]

Originally Posted by ex670c

Hi Jaggu,

What makes you think the Older Tyres weren't designed keeping the above criteria in mind.

Are you serious that a self cleaning tread is a modern feature

The degree of variance you are talking about will surely help in radial construction.

wrt. to cutting with a precision tool, these tyres are vulcanised, the treads are moulded, even if they were to be cut, do you think 0.0000mm variance will make a difference in a compressible compound like nylon/rubber, which eventually wears out due to friction.

Regards,

Arka

Arka you are reading too much into and between the lines I was giving examples of various parameter a tyre manufacturer keeps in mind. Why do you think i believed that self cleaning is a modern design factor only?

If the vulcanization thingie aka the dye, is precision made, wont it help?

In a compound like Rubber, the hardness itself make great difference for tyres, so how the rubber and other compounds are used around the whole circumference will do matter. Wont it?

Am sure you will have more questions, please do ask.

[ex670c]

Originally Posted by Jaggu

Arka you are reading too much into and between the lines I was giving examples of various parameter a tyre manufacturer keeps in mind. Why do you think i believed that self cleaning is a modern design factor only?

If the vulcanization thingie aka the dye, is precision made, wont it help?

In a compound like Rubber, the hardness itself make great difference for tyres, so how the rubber and other compounds are used around the whole circumference will do matter. Wont it?

Am sure you will have more questions, please do ask.

Hi Jaggu,

You are just not able to describe or define a "modern" off-road tyre.

How much of difference will 0.000 variance make in a rubber mould/dye?

One modern advancement in Tyre technology is compound.

So what makes you think that MRF or JKTyre in 2006c is not using a better mould or better compound to make the 7.00X16 NDMS.

Regards,

Arka

[Jaggu]

Originally Posted by ex670c

You are just not able to describe or define a "modern" off-road tyre.

Yeah unfortunately no matter how much ever i try i cant be as convincing as you. But then again its upto each one of us to experience the "other side" and decide themselves.

My convincing reply, wonder why people are running around to buy "modern" tyres? maybe they all are being conned by big multinationals who does not want apna MRF NDMS to be the world leaders in offroad tyres.

Originally Posted by ex670c

How much of difference will 0.000 variance make in a rubber mould/dye?

There you go again lol in between and more.

Originally Posted by ex670c

One modern advancement in Tyre technology is compound.

Oh so you agree to atleast one modern thing?

Originally Posted by ex670c

So what makes you think that MRF or JKTyre in 2006c is not using a better mould or better compound to make the 7.00X16 NDMS.

Regards,

Arka

Read carefully what i replied earlier (few posts back on MRF), its very much self explanatory

So what is the next question?

[ex670c]

Originally Posted by Jaggu

Yeah unfortunately no matter how much ever i try i cant be as convincing as you. But then again its upto each one of us to experience the "other side" and decide themselves.

My convincing reply, wonder why people are running around to buy "modern" tyres? maybe they all are being conned by big multinationals who does not want apna MRF NDMS to be the world leaders in offroad tyres.

There you go again lol in between and more.

Oh so you agree to atleast one modern thing?

Read carefully what i replied earlier (few posts back on MRF), its very much self explanatory

So what is the next question?

Hi Jaggu,

I am convincing because I have experienced "Modern" off-road Tyres and a variety of NDMS Tyres in a variety of JEEPs over a few years of OTRs.

You haven't give one technical reason on your judgement on "modern" tyres so far.

wrt to MRF NDMS, they are not the best OTR tyres, but can easily stand amongst them.

Considering the JEEPs we use the 7.00X16/7.50X16 NDMS are the best because of the following reason.

1) Steering
i) Strain
ii) Effort
iii) Turning Radius

2) Improving ADR Angles

3) Rolling Resistance and Resulting Powerloss.


Most off-roaders in India are buying tyres that are available, not their prime choice, and also the big butch bling factor.

How many of these off-roaders have improved their vehicles to incorporate these tyres?
i) Gearing to compensate for the loss of wheel down force?
ii) Steering System - to handle the additional strain
iii) Turning Radius

Regards,

Arka

[Jaggu]

Originally Posted by ex670c

Hi Jaggu,

I am convincing because I have experienced "Modern" off-road Tyres and a variety of NDMS Tyres in a variety of JEEPs over a few years of OTRs.

Arka without "any actual data" on the "technical theory" part mentioned below, how can anyone be convincing? Expected better reply than this

Originally Posted by ex670c

You haven't give one technical reason on your judgement on "modern" tyres so far.

I never claimed to be a technical person for tyres also from my side he he he, i wanted convincing reply to your theory of MRF NDMS which you always promote. I am yet to see in real life or with factual data (not theory, we all had enough of theories from everywhere).

Originally Posted by ex670c

wrt to MRF NDMS, they are not the best OTR tyres, but can easily stand amongst them.

I would say in real life, barely able to stand up. Only because they cost some 4k instead of 7k? I cant term them amongst them. Yes performance is also delivered at the best 60% for a normal driver (read as not an expert).

I have not seen a single NDMS jeep having things easy, anywhere in the hands of an ordinary offroader. Maybe my experiences are VERY limited compare to yours lol On the other hand i have seen them in the hand of experts in my humble mallu land right from the age of 10, doing things that would atleast surprise me. Not only NDMS, have seen bald road tyred jeeps also do these circus. That is not an attribute of the tyres, is it?? atleast not to me.

Originally Posted by ex670c

Considering the JEEPs we use the 7.00X16/7.50X16 NDMS are the best because of the following reason.

To a great extent i agree!

How many of them know it is NOT the width alone that helps in traction most of the time?? Its the "surface area", surface area egs: ie the flat surface, increases when you air down. It is not purely width (side to side) that increases, not as much as the length of the thread (front to back), that aides traction.

So there is an ideal width which can be very close to the area of 7 or 7.5's x 16. Even creepy crawlers of 7" work best in CJ if am not mistaken.

Originally Posted by ex670c

1) Steering
i) Strain
ii) Effort
iii) Turning Radius

Yes simple straight forward stuff, but if the steering systems are upgraded to more modern type like say a "bolero type" and a wider axle, cant it handle? I think so.

And why are you blaming tyres for this? tyres are doing their job of better performance. its a different matter that the vehicle cant handle it lmfao. Let us talk tyres before complicating it by bringing in the jeep as a whole.

Originally Posted by ex670c

2) Improving ADR Angles

Care to explain how a 7 or 7.5" x 16 creepy crawlies will not have same ADR (approach, departure and ramp over angles, hope i got it right, excuse me am not a techie??)? So right size also does matter, that atleast am not disputing. Actually we never got to this part which is more critical and why a modern tyre might score better he he he

Originally Posted by ex670c

3) Rolling Resistance and Resulting Powerloss.

Most off-roaders in India are buying tyres that are available, not their prime choice, and also the big butch bling factor.

I agree on bling factor and "most" part, but the serious offroaders are much better off and has done the needed mods to sort these issues and go to un-reasonable extent to find the "right" tyre.

Originally Posted by ex670c

How many of these off-roaders have improved their vehicles to incorporate these tyres?
i) Gearing to compensate for the loss of wheel down force?
ii) Steering System - to handle the additional strain
iii) Turning Radius

As i said those who are aware of this and those who have gone through the painful process call prior experience has done it. I know "quite a few" now in BLR

cheers
Jaggu

[ex670c]

Originally Posted by Jaggu

I would say in real life, barely able to stand up. Only because they cost some 4k instead of 7k? I cant term them amongst them. Yes performance is also delivered at the best 60% for a normal driver (read as not an expert).

How many of them know it is NOT the width alone that helps in traction most of the time?? Its the "surface area", surface area egs: ie the flat surface, increases when you air down. It is not purely width (side to side) that increases, not as much as the length of the thread (front to back), that aides traction.

So there is an ideal width which can be very close to the area of 7 or 7.5's x 16. Even creepy crawlers of 7" work best in CJ if am not mistaken.

Yes simple straight forward stuff, but if the steering systems are upgraded to more modern type like say a "bolero type" and a wider axle, cant it handle? I think so.

And why are you blaming tyres for this? tyres are doing their job of better performance. its a different matter that the vehicle cant handle it lmfao. Let us talk tyres before complicating it by bringing in the jeep as a whole.

Care to explain how a 7 or 7.5" x 16 creepy crawlies will not have same ADR (approach, departure and ramp over angles, hope i got it right, excuse me am not a techie??)? So right size also does matter, that atleast am not disputing. Actually we never got to this part which is more critical and why a modern tyre might score better he he he

I agree on bling factor and "most" part, but the serious offroaders are much better off and has done the needed mods to sort these issues and go to un-reasonable extent to find the "right" tyre.

As i said those who are aware of this and those who have gone through the painful process call prior experience has done it. I know "quite a few" now in BLR

Hi Jaggu,

1) What is the cost of the steering box conversion to reduce effort? 15K upwards.

2) What is the cost of wider Axles to improve or restore turning radius(57"OKBJ or 58" CKKP)? - 15-30K

3) What is the cost of the corresponding Rear Axle Swap? - 10-15K

4) Now please add the cost of swapping the diff-ratio to some what compensate for the power loss 8-12K

5) Also please add the cost of offset and wider alloy wheels to get optimum fitment and size - 25-35K

4) I consider the above the minimal requirement to run 235-85-16/245-75-16 and 31-10.50-15 as efficiently as a 7.00X16 NDMS.

The contact patch of your Modern tyres are atleast 25-60% more, so please give your valuable inputs on the resulting loss of power.

This to to fit the tyres and excluding the cost of the tyres.

wrt to 7.00X16/7.50X16

1) Tighten the Steering Stopper

2) Change Diff-Ratio 8-12K

3) Wider Axle 48.5 to 51 to 58" CKKP - 5-15K

4) Corresponding Rear Axle Swap - 5-10K

Now lets do a direct comparison of the

7.00X16 NDMS (6Ply) vs 235-75-15 Maxxis Trepador

1) Rolling Resistance - NDMS is much less, hence NDMS is Better

2) Sidewall Strength - Hands down NDMS wins

3) Weight - Trepadors win due to "modern" Radial Construction

4) OD - Improvement to ADR Angles - at 30" it drastically improves the CJ3B's ADR Angles and little less improvement on a MM540.

5) Self-Cleaning - I think the NDMS has an advantage, but am willing to go with Trepador on this one if enough people say so.

wrt to Factual Data, if you have any Factual Data to say that 7.00X16 NDMS performs lesser than "modern" OTR Tyres I will consider it.

From experience I have seen this over a few years.

In 2006 we started hunting for a replacement for 6.00X16, because of insufficient section with and Circumference, this directly led us to the MRF 7.00X16.

I have seen UBS ripping through the sand in TPC2006 on a petrol CJ3B, something which not many people can do.

TPC2009 & TPC2010 Baskar Kesavalu showed us what a MM540DP with 7.00X16 NDMS can do, incidentally he picked up his set way back in 2006 for TPC2006 in his CJ3B.

I have driven my MM540XD with 7.00X16 for numerous Mud Terrain OTRs, they only deficiency felt was size, for MM540 7.50X16 is more comfortable.

In fact EXAMM I was very apprehensive how the NDMS will do in monsoon mud situation, I was happy with its performance and wanted something in 7.50X16 to get better contact patch.

Initially I was under the impression that Trepadors are better than NDMS in mud obstacles, but, on the really longer climbs, I noticed them sapping the breath out of the CJ3B.

Also on the same climb, on UBS's JEEP, I climbed up from the edge of the slope, while the JEEP was slipping down, just spun the hell out of the tyres, tapped the pedal, feathered the steering left to right the job was done.

Tried the same with the other JEEP, but the resistance was too much and the engine I guess was a bit underpowered.

The Real Advantage the Trepadors have is MUD & SAND ability. it does superb on Sand due to the Chevron patter as demonstrated by Manzoor in Robinson's CJ3B.

All this is fun in a CJ3B, or CJ500D, when it comes to a MM540 its back to the 700 Family, the result was obvious with Swastik Viji's team in TPC2010, had Viji run his modern "Mudzilla" I'll wait for his opinion or Star_Aqua's version on the 31-10.50-15 Yoko Geolander AT's.

I have seen both combinations, and AFAIK, both the combinations were started here in Chennai keeping Palar, in mind, both combinations work, and I can argue for either with out going into modern or 4K vs 7K.

The reason I promote the 7.00X16 it because it work and it is a painless upgrade, especially for an MM540, and since I have tried out extensively.

Regards,

Arka

[Jaggu]

You made me wait for long but really informative post.

Originally Posted by ex670c

Hi Jaggu,

1) What is the cost of the steering box conversion to reduce effort? 15K upwards.

===========
4) I consider the above the minimal requirement to run 235-85-16/245-75-16 and 31-10.50-15 as efficiently as a 7.00X16 NDMS.

Again you are digressing from the point, but for the argument sake let me take it. Assume that i dont care about so many mods or minor damage to mechanicals. Will a Trep work better than NDyemS?

All i had to spent was 7k on a brand new steering system (which anyways i had to change when i was on NDMS) and about 1k labor charges to make my 3B run on treps 235/75/15 gypsy rims. Please note this is a bone stock vehicle otherwise with no upgrades what so-ever.

Disadvantages for me: turning radius has increased, steering effort at "stand still" more. GC reduced by close to 1/2 inch at the diff? Apart from that no real difference even on FE! (though i cant be 100% sure about FE since i had done some tune up in between to be honest or wait!! actually i had used treps earlier also to confirm).

Originally Posted by ex670c

The contact patch of your Modern tyres are atleast 25-60% more, so please give your valuable inputs on the resulting loss of power.

I will need a calculator and a mechanical engineer to do the math, but seriously i doubt if it is making so much of power loss on tarmac as you calculate it to be. Am deriving from the fuel efficiency figure (which is a direct reading of such loss), also accounting that tyre dia has changed resulting in speedo error from ndms.

On offroad terrain the same 20-60% (is that so much? wow!) is giving me a huge advantage. Strain i need to put on the vehicle is very less, so assume that it is offsetting the additional strain the tyres are putting on steering and transmission.

Originally Posted by ex670c

This to to fit the tyres and excluding the cost of the tyres.

So in short without a single paisa also you can fit the tyre, for me the advantage is too much to ignore. By spending 10k i get a reliable and a huge advantage with these tyres.

Now coming to disadvantage, its so very miniscule in real offroad and on road situation. Am not kidding here no arguing, just the reality am used to. FYI am not the only 3B on trepadors and i dont think anyone has ever complained about the shortcomings that they would advice against it.

But when did this suddenly become Trep Vs NDMS? You are smart Arka and i can take that also lol

My dream tyres are those Creepycrawlies, even if they would last 20k kms. Oh by the way that reminds me to bust YET ANOTHER MYTH the Treps i have have done about 15-18k at the least and still at 60% life, so dont worry about wear. Maybe because it was mostly used in lighter petrol vehicles. Then again it had taken some major abuse also, all in public.

Originally Posted by ex670c

wrt to 7.00X16/7.50X16

1) Tighten the Steering Stopper
===========
4) Corresponding Rear Axle Swap - 5-10K

So much to spend for putting stock 3B tyres!!! Arka isnt it too much? It should fit like a glove and run.

Originally Posted by ex670c

Now lets do a direct comparison of the 7.00X16 NDMS (6Ply) vs 235-75-15 Maxxis Trepador

1) Rolling Resistance - NDMS is much less, hence NDMS is Better

eh how? Better FE and big 3rd party insurance bills thanks to ever frequent rear ending from your 3B? Comm'on Arka i have driven the same vehicle with both these tyres and i definitely am not a joke of a driver when it comes to "feel" the vehicle or understanding what the vehicle is talking to me LMFAO!!

Originally Posted by ex670c

2) Sidewall Strength - Hands down NDMS wins

Yup but is the sidewall strength a big advantage in all the situations, same strength can become a weakness when terrain changes. Right?

Originally Posted by ex670c

3) Weight - Trepadors win due to "modern" Radial Construction

ehm actually not! they are quite heavy for their size, ie if you did not know that already.

Originally Posted by ex670c

4) OD - Improvement to ADR Angles - at 30" it drastically improves the CJ3B's ADR Angles and little less improvement on a MM540.

Vs 29" wow i really have to now take a scale and thread to see how much it has made a difference. Am more worried about the diff in real life where that 1" matters.

Originally Posted by ex670c

5) Self-Cleaning - I think the NDMS has an advantage, but am willing to go with Trepador on this one if enough people say so.

LOL no comments few of our very close friends have experienced what really happens in real life. Wonder why all of them are keeping quite oh i remember they have got more "modern" tyres now on their vehicle.

EDIT: went out for a coffee and that got me thinking. Tyres are the only connection between the vehicle and the terrain and even if 20% more contact patch increase should help in real life situation. In my particular case the lesser overall dia of the tyre gives more torque also. Right? So basically am getting paisa really wasool (bang for the buck) for the couple of 1000's i spent more with Trepadors compared to NDMS. Am i wrong?

[ex670c]

Originally Posted by Jaggu

You made me wait for long but really informative post.

Again you are digressing from the point, but for the argument sake let me take it. Assume that i dont care about so many mods or minor damage to mechanicals. Will a Trep work better than NDyemS?

All i had to spent was 7k on a brand new steering system (which anyways i had to change when i was on NDMS) and about 1k labor charges to make my 3B run on treps 235/75/15 gypsy rims. Please note this is a bone stock vehicle otherwise with no upgrades what so-ever.

Disadvantages for me: turning radius has increased, steering effort at "stand still" more. GC reduced by close to 1/2 inch at the diff? Apart from that no real difference even on FE! (though i cant be 100% sure about FE since i had done some tune up in between to be honest or wait!! actually i had used treps earlier also to confirm).

I will need a calculator and a mechanical engineer to do the math, but seriously i doubt if it is making so much of power loss on tarmac as you calculate it to be. Am deriving from the fuel efficiency figure (which is a direct reading of such loss), also accounting that tyre dia has changed resulting in speedo error from ndms.

On offroad terrain the same 20-60% (is that so much? wow!) is giving me a huge advantage. Strain i need to put on the vehicle is very less, so assume that it is offsetting the additional strain the tyres are putting on steering and transmission.

So in short without a single paisa also you can fit the tyre, for me the advantage is too much to ignore. By spending 10k i get a reliable and a huge advantage with these tyres.

Now coming to disadvantage, its so very miniscule in real offroad and on road situation. Am not kidding here no arguing, just the reality am used to. FYI am not the only 3B on trepadors and i dont think anyone has ever complained about the shortcomings that they would advice against it.

But when did this suddenly become Trep Vs NDMS? You are smart Arka and i can take that also lol

My dream tyres are those Creepycrawlies, even if they would last 20k kms. Oh by the way that reminds me to bust YET ANOTHER MYTH the Treps i have have done about 15-18k at the least and still at 60% life, so dont worry about wear. Maybe because it was mostly used in lighter petrol vehicles. Then again it had taken some major abuse also, all in public.


So much to spend for putting stock 3B tyres!!! Arka isnt it too much? It should fit like a glove and run.

eh how? Better FE and big 3rd party insurance bills thanks to ever frequent rear ending from your 3B? Comm'on Arka i have driven the same vehicle with both these tyres and i definitely am not a joke of a driver when it comes to "feel" the vehicle or understanding what the vehicle is talking to me LMFAO!!

Yup but is the sidewall strength a big advantage in all the situations, same strength can become a weakness when terrain changes. Right?

ehm actually not! they are quite heavy for their size, ie if you did not know that already.

Vs 29" wow i really have to now take a scale and thread to see how much it has made a difference. Am more worried about the diff in real life where that 1" matters.

LOL no comments few of our very close friends have experienced what really happens in real life. Wonder why all of them are keeping quite oh i remember they have got more "modern" tyres now on their vehicle.

Hi Jaggu,

Even if we leave out the minor mods what about the power loss?

Lets calculate the contact patch of 7.00X16 vs Trepador

7.00X16
7.00 = 7.00X25.4mm = 177.8mm section width

Circumference of 7.00X16 = 2394mm

Total Area = 423738 square mm

235-75-15 Trepador

235 = 235mm (section width)

Circumference = 2315mm

Total Area = 544031 square mm

Trepador has overall 28% more surface area. (Not the Actual Area in Contact)

245-75-16 (30.5")

245 = 245mm (section width)

Circumference = 2434.7 mm

Total Area = 596518 sq mm

The 245-75-16 has 40% more surface area (not actual contact patch)

235-85-16 (31.7")

235 = 235mm (section width)

Circumference = 2530mm

Total Area = 594682.9 square mm

The 235-85-16 has 40% more surface area (not actual contact patch)

31-10.50-15 (31")

Section Width - 10.50 = 266.7mm

Circumference = 2394mm

Total Area = 637031 square mm

The 31-10.50-15 has 50% more surface area (not actual contact patch)

so if the surface area (mathematical) is more then the contact patch will also be more.

If the contact patch is more then resistance is more.

This is without going into the effect of actual/real surface area, which off course depends on the tread pattern, and the resulting contact patch will be lesser.

If I were to run a V8 Diesel, Portal Axle, Bead Lock 6" suspension lift, I would have definitely opted for a 35" Tyre, 9.00X16 NDMS is available or maybe the Trepadors.

Will a Trepador work better then NDMS, depends on who is driving

Another important thing is the brick analogy. Take a regular Clay brick/Construction.

1) Push the Brick against its Width

2) Push a Brick against its Length

Which will offer more resistance, for the same surface area?

Also most of the guys who have fitted Trepadors have done so at my suggestion, so they won't advice you against it, same goes with the guys who have fitted 7.00X16.

Regards,

Arka