Cooper ST Maxx 255-85-16 VS 265-75-16

Take much out of context?

Some light reading on rolling resistance, to which the rubber compound can be a contributor (that's what I actually said). ;)

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/techpage.jsp?techid=29

The point I'm trying to make is that things out of our control like being stuck in bumper to bumper traffic or hitting red lights all the way to work probably do more to effect the average persons MPG than a little extra weight.

Just trying to put it into perspective instead of having a chicken little reaction to more weight.

Well, you said this:

It's not weight that kills mileage, it's increased rolling resistance along with improper gearing for the tire diameter.

My point was and is that weight IS a factor. Whereas you stated it was not.

Weight is a factor, as is rubber compound, casing construction, tread pattern, tread depth, tire diameter and section width, inflation pressure, etc., etc.

Driving conditions are definitely a factor too. As is how someone drives.

I don't need to read Tire Rack's explanation concerning rolling resistance. There is no new info there for me.

I've spent most of my life involved in cars and bikes and learning what works for them.

By far the most influential aspect in learning about tires, have been the years of involvement in Land Speed Racing, and Professional Dragracing, where tire construction and the understanding of it is absolutely critical.
 
Show me where I said that weight isn't a factor. Find where I actually said those exact words and stop bending my words to fit your argument. :shrug:

As for the tirerack link, you asked for info to back something else that I didn't say, so there it is.
 
Quote the entire sentence, not just the part that suits you.

Since your comprehension of what the entire sentence meant, let me try again.

Weight isn't the largest or only contributor to a changes in mileage. Increased rolling resistance and the wrong gear for the tires play a larger role. Better?
 
Last edited:
Probably not a relevant data if the source has an interest in selling lightweight wheels.

weight of wheels: The total rotational mass is not appreciably changed is it? I would think it is analogous to the lightweight drive shaft. Nothing anyone cares about except when they run out of things to do on their track car.
 
Last edited:
Yet you keep responding.....

Feel free to put me on your ignore list. I'm good with that.

I think the OP got the point. That's what matters.
 
Last edited:
I'm an avid hiker and have always gone by the rule--an extra 1 pound on your feet is equal to 5 pounds on your back. That is the folklore logic behind why I'm concerned with tire weight. I think the OP was more bothered by the weight Cooper claims and the actual weight being so far off.
 
Yet you keep responding.....

Feel free to put me on your ignore list. I'm good with that.

I think the OP got the point. That's what matters.

Well, it wasn't a complete waste of time. The 'Angry Little Man' replies, that are then edited to something that sounds a bit more reasonable and mature, have been amusing.

Have a good night. :hello:
 
I'm an avid hiker and have always gone by the rule--an extra 1 pound on your feet is equal to 5 pounds on your back. That is the folklore logic behind why I'm concerned with tire weight. I think the OP was more bothered by the weight Cooper claims and the actual weight being so far off.


Yes!! The difference was 7 lbs more per tire on top of an already weighty carcass...
 
Maybe Cooper weights the tire with no air and op weights it with psi. Might make the weight differance. Btw my 265/75/16 duratrecs c on oem five stars weigh 62 lbs each with 37 psi.
 
Maybe Cooper weights the tire with no air and op weights it with psi. Might make the weight differance. Btw my 265/75/16 duratrecs c on oem five stars weigh 62 lbs each with 37 psi.

But that is with your rim included, right? These are tire weights without the rims....
Thanks..
 
I hate to get on topic but does anyone know how the 255's air down? My gut says you would have to air them down a lot and that the bead may come unseated easier due to less width.
 
I'm an avid hiker and have always gone by the rule--an extra 1 pound on your feet is equal to 5 pounds on your back. That is the folklore logic behind why I'm concerned with tire weight. I think the OP was more bothered by the weight Cooper claims and the actual weight being so far off.


If you get on sport bike and some MX forums, it's the same concern with tires (and wheels and brake rotors) . The heavier tires not only are slower to accelerate, but slower to stop. And any extra weight that's "unsprung" the suspension can't help compensate for.
 
I hate to get on topic but does anyone know how the 255's air down? My gut says you would have to air them down a lot and that the bead may come unseated easier due to less width.

To answer your question I've aired them down to 12 when I had them on my FJ Cruiser and never had any issues with loosing a bead. You cant even tell they are aired down until you get under 15. Now I air them down between 16-18 because that's where I've found the best pressure to be at.

And I'm not quite sure why the weight is an issue. If you want to run a mud tire that's part of the trade off. They are all heavier tires. Common sense would tell me that if I was worried about weight a mud tire would be the last type of tire I would be looking at.

Just my 2 cents.
 
Well, it wasn't a complete waste of time. The 'Angry Little Man' replies, that are then edited to something that sounds a bit more reasonable and mature, have been amusing.

Glad I could amuse you. My edits are at least evidence of stepping back and thinking about what I said. Had you done the same you might have realized that you misinterpreted what I said, especially after I agreed that weight does have a factor, however minimal it may be and stopped the quotes taken out of context, etc. I get it though, you have to be the guy that's right.
 
Alright. For crying out loud... Yes they weigh a little more, and your mpgs might suffer a little (drive a civic if you dont like it). Try a RTT and a few hundred pounds of gear. Yep, this thing is an Offroad RV (and a DD) for me and if I still get 17-18 hwy with a supercharger, Im good. i was a weight weenie in cycling matters, but holy hell. 5-7#s per tire difference? You coulda run 265s without a lift.
My $.02
 
Alright. For crying out loud... Yes they weigh a little more, and your mpgs might suffer a little (drive a civic if you dont like it). Try a RTT and a few hundred pounds of gear. Yep, this thing is an Offroad RV (and a DD) for me and if I still get 17-18 hwy with a supercharger, Im good. i was a weight weenie in cycling matters, but holy hell. 5-7#s per tire difference? You coulda run 265s without a lift.
My $.02


Haha, thanks for the push! I am trying to find a nice happy medium... I had the 265/75/16's on with no lift and they were a bit out of proportion so I did the OME 1.5-2" lift and THOUGHT I needed to fill up the space with a bigger/tougher skin but OYE! These buggers are 18lbs. heavier each! And and 1.75 inches in diameter bigger... Waiting on Discount to bring in a 265/75/16 in the ST Maxx for me to weigh and measure as I heard they will run big (around 32" in real life and about 55lbs)
It might fit the bill as something between the 42lb -31" Goodyear Adventure AT I have now and the ST MAXX 60lb-32.8 anchor!

I DO need a tougher tire as the Goodyears are nice but have a thin 2 ply sidewall and are NOT the best for the sharp rocky trails out here in AZ...
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
278,316
Messages
3,554,120
Members
248,016
Latest member
Advally Service

Trending content

Back
Top