Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 21:03:30 -0500
Reply-To: "Derek Drew (by way of Derek Drew <drew@interport.net>)"
<DREW@INTERPORT.NET>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: "Derek Drew (by way of Derek Drew <drew@interport.net>)"
<DREW@INTERPORT.NET>
Subject: Wolfgang's Killer 16" Tire Rsh--part 1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
From: Derek Drew <DREW@INTERPORT.NET>
Although my brain has partly fallen out trying to read the machine
translation of the German carried further down in this email, I think I
actually can kind of stand reading this stuff, and it makes some kind of
sense.
Basically, it is becoming apparent that we have something of a star on our
hands in the form of Wolfgang, who has joined our ranks in the last year or
so, it seems.
His knowledge of large tire sizes and rims, the more one looks into it, is
encyclopedic.
Basically, it seems like that to go with a vanagon monster truck tires you
should also get the Seikel springs/shocks or at least heavier duty springs.
We all know the Seikel springs/shocks are stiffer than we would normally
like, but the point seems to be that these will help the vehicle deal with
the very heavy big tires, and help avoid having the tire bang the battery box.
Since I drive around overloaded all the time, I am temped to hold my nose
and follow the advice in the direction of Seikel.
As Wolfgang told us a few weeks ago, the biggest tires that will fit seem
to be about 31" tall, give or take an inch, depending on how radical you
want to go. There seems to be some trimming here and there to make the
sheet metal compliant with such a large tire on a Vanagon. That is, you
have to start thinking that it is ok to go at your beloved vanagon with a
saw and hammer. Hang in there. It sounds bad at first to do this. But it
kind of grows on you over time. The changes are hidden under plastic, so it
doesn't ultimately affect the look of your van in a negative way. You have
to be willing to tell your wife you've turned the camper into a monster
truck.
Making the big tires fit seems to be mostly a matter of trimming away sheet
metal here and there, and there is once place it seems, if I read
Wolfgang's report correctly, where you go into the wheelwell yourself with
a sledge hammer in your hand to smash your wheelwell into the desired
shape. (This seems like fun.) There are five places the tires can hit the
vehicle body and other suspension parts that Wolfgang writes about.
One fellow seems to like his tires that are 7.50 R 16 tall. But Wolfgang
seems to feel this is pushing things, and sort of says things top off at
7.00 R 16, which he says is near in size to 215/85 R 16, the size he uses.
His tire size is about 30.4" tall according to a calculator program I found
on the net at http://www.off-road.com/tools/gearcalc.html. (Some of
Wolfgang's considerations are TUV related, and we don't have problems
passing European regulations of this sort in the USA, so possibly the
7.50R16 size is a go.)
The report of a 7.50 R 16 tire sounds like it might be better from my point
of view. This tire seems to about 31.7" tall, according to the gear
calculator, calculating off the similar size 235/85 R 16. But again,
Wolfgang seems to think 235/85R16 is too big.
Interestingly, Wolfgang must have *two* different sets of tires, for he
writes of having both 245/75R16 tires as well as 215/85R16 tires, saying
that both fit OK. They seem to be 30.5" and 30.4" high respectively,
according to the tire calculator. Of these two, the 245 is wider by about
an inch.
Wolfgang, between the two tires which one works best? (Since I drive on
snowmobile trails in wintertime, i'd probably prefer a wider tire, but not
if it does not fit well).
Summary of what it seems like Wolfgang is saying:
Safe sizes: 245/75R16, 21585R16, 7.00R16--About 30.5" tall
Too big??? 235/85R16, 7.50 R 16--About 31.7" tall
So the big suspense of the year is whether the maximum size for vanagon
tires is 30.5" or 31.7". Something tells me some devil is going to find out
it is the latter.
Of the safe tires above, the 21585R16 has a width of about 8.5" while the
245/75R16 has a width of 9.6". The tires on the next row are 9.3 and 8.7
inches wide, respectively. Since fit in this category is critical, one
would prefer the 7.50R16 all else being equal since it is narrower. But the
9.3 might also fit, and would materially increase the range of potential
tires to choose from. I did not look into potential tires in size
235/85/r16 for the purpose of creating this email, since it seemed to make
sense to take up the 7.50R16 instead as a starting point.
In 7.50R16, taking a quick spin at tire rack www.tirerack.com, one sees the
Radial Rover RT, which one customer wrote in and said was good in muddy
clay conditions. It does not look all that aggressive in the picture, but
is the most aggressive of Tireracks 7.50R16s. The Michelin XPS traction
looks too wimpy.
Wolfgang also writes of a Cooper and a Goodyear in this size. Instead of
the XPS I didn't think was very interesting, he points to the Michelin 4x4
OR XZL 7.50 R 16. There is a page on these tires at
http://www.michelin.com/us/eng/tire/truck/tires/offroad.html and the XZL is
the one that looks most practiacal as the other ones are quite wild. Take a
look and say what you think. I poked around there, but the low maximum
speed of the XZL gives pause. Moreover, if you download the Michelin
pictures of the tire, it looks just too radical for my taste--big beefy
lugs and huge spaces between them suggest lots and lots of noise on the
highway, and lots of racket as they wear unevenly. Michelin provides no
indication on its web site it actually offers this tire in 7.50 size,
strangely. One thing I did like about the specification on this tire was
that it was compatable with beadlock systems. These hold the tire on the
rim when you are aired down to, say, 8psi while offroading up the
slowmobile trail. With my 27x8.5014s my tires would start coming off if I
went any lower than 18psi and drove through muddy bolder fields, and I
hated this. I destroyed several tires this way.
Wizzing around at Cooper's web site, one notes that the Discoverer CTD
looks doable, and is offered in the correct size. Given a 2440 lb max
weight per tire, that means you could drive down the highway with two
syncros, one bolted on top of the other, at 70mph and still be within the
max weight rating for this tire. This tire looks like an aggressive All
Terrain tire while the Discoverer SST looks like the Mud Terrain
equivalent. Between the CTD and the SST, I'd be tempted to go with the
milder CTD but would like to hear what others on this list think. If
everybody went radical, I probably would too (am I really a follower?).
Blast www.coopertire.com and hit up the light truck tires to see quick
pictures of each of these. They say this is a 32" tall tire, but I think we
can assume it is closer to 31.7" that the calculator turns up. They suggest
a 6" rim, which sounds fine to me, and give a range of 5.5" to 7.0" for the
rim altogether. There is also an absurd looking cooper called the Super
Traction Tread in our size. In the right mood I might be interested in this
but I think the neighbors would frown and my wife would throw up. My kid
would like this tire but he's six.
I gonged out at Goodyear, but that isn't to say I shouldn't try again. I
just could not find a tire in the right size there.
It would seem that the Coopers might be the ticket or that Radial Rover RT
but this research is incomplete and should be augmented by others on the
list with an interest in the subject matter. Yokahama might have tires in
this size, for example, but I didn't have time to check.
Below I reproduce four previous emails from Wolfgang and then the machine
translation of his magnum opus epic that gave me the headache, and yielded
the above summary. If you can get anything out of it that I didn't, let me
know. There is probably something about this I missed. Also, stay tuned for
Wolfgang to correct me in some way. I asked him for commentary on this
email, but naturally, he didn't respond since it is almost as overwhelming
as his original posting on this subject.
Per Lindgren is thinking of removing the headache factor from the material
below, since he speaks both German and English.
There is a handy little tire size chart at
http://www.geocities.com/Baja/Dunes/7501/tires.html:
After completing this tire research, the next thing will be to find very
strong beadlocker wheels in a very strong alloy, in a width of, say, 6".
What say ye list about the choice of widths for the wheel? Is there an
advantage to being narrower on the rim or wider?
==============================
A previous communication from Wolfgang on this topic reads like this
The outer corner of the battery box of my 16" has been cut by SDP
to fit the bigger tires. I am not sure whether this is same at the 14".
The battery still fits in.
Mine is a quite heavy camper (2300 kg or more). I tried my
215/85 R 16 first with the stock springs. When steering was turned
at limit, there was about 5-6cm space between the tire and the battery
box. When i drove slowly over the edge of a pavement (steering at
limit), the tire touched the battery box. This is not a big problem
since in general you drive slowly when steering is at max, but
i would not recommend bigger tires. Of course it becomes better
with taller springs, but i think i need not discuss the disadvantages
of springs which are too tall.
Its not a good idea to calculate the tire circ from the body dimensions.
You have to look into the manufacturer's tables. A BFG All Terrain
31x10.50 R 15 has a circumference of 2354mm which corresponds
to an effective diameter of 29.5". The real effective diameter is even
smaller (about 1-2%) because of the slip between tire and street.
A 215/85 R 16 has about the same diameter.
I have measured the effective circumference, its easy
with a tripmeter (?) and a known distance of about 20 miles
when you know the gears in your front diff.
At 4000rpm, 4.gear 0.70, r&p 6.17 the speed is
4000/60/0.7/6.17*2.354*3.6/1.61 = 81mph.
You might try a Michelin 4x4 OR XZL 7.50 R 16,
circ = 2510mm, speed = 87mph which is the maximum speed
for this tire anyway. Its a pure narrow off-road tire.
In my opinion (see my previous posts) its too big for general use,
but i think it helps when the tire is narrow.
Would that speed ok for you? Keep in mind that max. speed drops
with big tires and tall springs.
Wolfgang
=================================
Hello Stewart
> Im doing a trip down to Senegal later this year and Ive finally decided
on
> BFG all terrain tyres for the trip.......whats the biggest tyre size for
my
> 16"......i think 225 75R16s are ok...... would 235 85 16s be too big
225/75R16 is ok.
I have 215/85R16, but BFG all terrain was not available in that size.
I had to cut the front plastic fenders and in rough terrain the tire comes
into contact with the battery box.
I have heard of one guy who was going to switch to 235/85R16, but
I think thats too big, you have to cut into the metal and at least
mount taller springs.
245/75R16 is a better choice if you can afford wider rims.
Wolfgang
syncro16 TD 89
======================================
From: "Wolfgang Nicklich" <won@knuut.de>
Hello all,
i have 7X16 rims with 30mm offset and 245/75R16 General
Grabber ST. Between tire and real trailing arm is about 1cm
space (i cannot check it now), between tire and open sliding
door is 3mm space. I had to cut the front plastic fenders
and a little bit metal and i use taller springs. In my opinion
this is the biggest reasonable size for a syncro 16". I know
of a guy who had a Michelin 7.50R16 on an abroad trip.
I think this size is about 32" tall. He had to cut the front
and rear plastic fenders and cut much metal from the front
fender. He did not touch the rear trailing arms, but i estimate
that there are only a few mm space to the tire. Of course this
depends on the tire brand and tolerances of the parts. I think
its no problem to fit this size and drive on flat roads, but
offroad the tire can bump onto the battery box and the back
side wall in the front fender. The front tire moves backwards
when diving in !! One possible solution is to use very tall and
stiff springs.
Wolfgang
syncro16 TD 89
=============================================
===========================================
>From: chayan@npc.co.th
>To: DREW@INTERPORT.NET
>Subject: RE: [Syncro] German To English Translator Needed $25
>Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 08:54:13 +0700
>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
>
>Hi,
>There is a free translator on
><http://translator.go.com>http://translator.go.com you can use to
>translate any message you would like. However, some technical terms,
>abbreviation or some its dictionary does not have will be remained in
>German. Hereunder is the one you asking on list. Hope this help. How about
>new VC? :)
>
>Chayan Srisawat
>'89 Syncro and '72 Bus
>Rayong, Thailand
>
> >>>>
>
>Tire tip
>Author team: Knut differently, Ralf Burde, Wolfgang Nicklich,
>Michel Thevissen
>
>
>Tire re-equipment with the Syncro 16 ' '
>
>... does not encounter special problems, there the type any longer
>and obviously no commercial interest is produced
>exists, for the small number at vehicles re-equipment
>to offer. Besides seems to be also often unknown,
>that it once a version of the VW bus with larger tyre
>gave, so that existing appraisals for special rims
>to be incorrect can, by it itself only on the 14 " version
>refer, and an entry to the TUEV refuses. With that
>Rim re-equipment is one logical-proves on a close
>Co-operation with the dealer dependent; I want therefore
>plumb the possibilities in the following mainly, which
>the assembly of larger tires on the series rim 5 1/2 JKx16
>H2 ET 34 still goes and which not. Re-equipment on others
>Rims I become however, as far as she admits to me is,
>consider.
>
> >From VW or from Steyr Daimler Puch one does not receive
>Tire releases above 205 R 16. The tire manufacturers
>or importers place quite readily sucked. Releases out,
>if the appropriate boundary conditions, like correct
>Rim size (see below), max. rate and
>admissible wheel load (which is located everything in the vehicle
>registration), in
>permitted framework is situated. Many TUEV places hold this however
>for sufficient and an appraisal does not require. Those
>Preparation of a single appraisal is quite expensive and that
>positive output is not certain.
>
>Here helps only, with many different releases with many
>to inquire different TUEVs and as non-standard as possible also
>to clarify an examiner, who documents are sufficient.
>After the company ProjektZwo in the T3 syncro no lucrative
>Market more sees, remains the following two companies than good
>Partner also for failed re-equipment:
>
>Off Road center Meisen
>Schlagbaumer STR 102
>42653 Solingen
>Tel. 0212/546630
>
>and
>
>extremely
>Sport and jeep technique
>Petrol Wels STR. 5
>42111 Wuppertal
>Tel. 0202/270650
>
>Here re-equipment particularly on base be boron-prayed
>Aluminum rim Design CD offered by CW vehicle technique, in
>the quantities 7Jx15 and 7Jx16 ET30 for the Syncro is available
>(KBA 43312). The pitch diameter becomes when ordering up
>Customer's request bored. The load-carrying capacity of this rim is quite
>highly.
>
>In the case of re-equipment on other rims caution is required, like that
>Example of the Ronal rim R9 shows, a 5-Stern rim for
>Mercedes, those in former times of ProjektZwo also for the Syncro
>one offered and also in photos in the technical literature too
>see was. A daily broke however the mold with
>Manufacturer and one decided there - probably because the rim Design
>meanwhile from the mode had not come - the rim
>to produce further. In addition it came that the load-carrying capacity one
>expedition-suited equipped Syncro in the area not
>had grown, so that it geruechteweise to rim breaks
>, at least has ProjektZwo the rim came only into
>Connection with lowered axle load offered. In
>Rains are now all, with which a wheel damages somehow
>and now no more back-up one got.
>
>Strengthened feathers/springs to the high putting in particular from heavy
>The company offers to vehicles
>
>Auto Seikel
>Industriestr. 5
>63579 free court (Altenmittlau)
>Tel. 06055/5282
>
>The Eibach Seikel feathers/springs have a spring rate of 140
>kg/cm in front and 120 kg/cm in the back opposite 75 kg/cm with that
>Series feathers/springs. Thus the vehicle comes in the dummy condition
>about 1 cm and in the loaded status 3-5 cm more highly. This
>Feathers/springs become already from several people the IG syncro
>16 " with satisfaction driven. That is inevitable
>Suspension comfort somewhat smaller than with the original. Those
>Use of Seikel feathers/springs creates workstation for larger
>Tire, there bouncing under high load drastically
>one reduces. Thus it is prevented that the tire with
>Dive into the wheel housing offends. Thus can in some
>Fell the necessary body work to be facilitated.
>