Nokian Vatiivas w/ pics

[Even Steven]

Can you measure the tread with a tape measure from edge to edge, meaning the contact surface of the tread only? Those tires look like they have very sharp edges, so it should be easy to get an accurate measurement.

Thanks!

 

[blueleezard]

10-4 on that ... so, we should immediately stop talking about how beautiful the women and the countryside are in these parts ... otherwise, pretty soon the secret will be out, and who knows what will happen then! OK, I'm gonna do my part and change my story -- listen up -- nobody should waste their time up here, the mountains are ugly and the women plain -- in fact, both are downright flat and dumpy. The weather is the sh*ts, the fishing is terrible, the job situation is getting worse all the time, any T4Rs you see are all rusted out and don't run, the beer is warm and as flat as a pancake, the mosquitoes are bigger than crows and meaner than a pack of starving marmots, the coffee is cold and at least two weeks old, gasoline is watered down and ten bucks a gallon ... let's see, did I leave anything out? Oh yeah, people get more mileage out of a flat tire in these parts than a tall tale told six ways to Sunday ... OK, that's a start. :bigok:

 

[alaskaman]

.........gosh what the could I have thinking....LOL!

 

[blueleezard]

Hey Even Steven -- my tape says tread width is approx 8.85" edge-to-edge carefully measured on the properly inflated, lightly-used 265/65R17s Nokian Vatiivas on my 2003 V8 Sport.

 

[alaskaman]

GF from BC was simply awful. cooked every night made up the place. went to baseball games here in the USA with Boston Cap on and shorts....drunk as much beer as the boys, asked "why do they hate blue" and "whatever comes into you yanks heads comes out of your mouth".....danced so well I had to fight guys off her (really)...laughed all day gave russian bread to tired cops....fed the firefighters.. who could put up with that sht.

Those Canadians I tell ya.

 

[blueleezard]

All: I found out today through Kal Tire [major tire vendor here who distributes Nokian] that the Vatiiva recall mentioned earlier in this discussion list affected only 8 [count 'em, eight] tires in the Calgary AB area -- and, all of the affected tires have been replaced, plus none of them were in the 265/65R17 size [the spokesperson I chatted with didn't have info on which size or sizes were affected -- it was a while ago]. So that sounds as though out here in this part of Western Canada -- unless somebody independently imported and is running affected tires originating from another region -- the problem is no longer.

 

[Baba Booey]

Can you measure the tread with a tape measure from edge to edge, meaning the contact surface of the tread only? Those tires look like they have very sharp edges, so it should be easy to get an accurate measurement.

Thanks!

Contrary to blueleezard's findings, I measured my Vatiivas at 9.25 inches across the tread. Perhaps it has something to do with the tire pressure.

I am running my Vatiivas at 29 psi. I received info from an experienced person on another forum that it is best to run the Vatiivas at a slightly lower pressure on a "light-weight" vehicle like the 4Runner (compared to something like an F350 diesel). Supposedly, they may have a tendency to wear the center-tread area if the psi is set too high.

Judging by my sidewall "bulge", or lack thereof, I believe this person is onto something. The tires appear to easily handle the weight of the 4Runner at this pressure.

 

[blueleezard]

Baba Booey et al: Interesting ... I just went to the garage with three measuring tapes [one from the Toyota dealer that looks like a little tire (yeah, aren't we lucky), one from Home Hardware, one from Canadian Tire, the latter of which is a Stanley 25' powerlock] and each measures pretty well the same tread width as reported yesterday -- 8.85" [give or take just a bit to account for ye olde fumbling error]. Tire pressure is 31 psi, as are the other tires. Garage floor is flat finished concrete, perfectly level. I suspect that the method by which the contact tread width is being measured here is at issue. FYI I am holding the start-of-tape measuring tab to be at approx 90 degrees from the inner edge of the contact surface of the tire [the "sharp edge" as noted elsewhere], then as straight [90 degrees to the rolling edge] as possible directly across the contact surface of the tire to the opposing edge, with my thumbnail marking the point directly over that opposing edge. Can't see that there is a great deal of error in that measurement. Seems we are very close on inflation pressure -- probably not enough to deform the tire to the measured extent. So, I am not sure precisely what is being measured by Baba Booey if the tread width is estimated at over 9 inches as reported. Mind you, it is close, yes? I am here confirming that the tire we are talking about is actually the same: 265/65R17 [if not, well, c'est la vie, n'est pas? Oops, that's French, eh? Pretty clumsy for a Westerner!]. :

 

[Even Steven]

Contrary to blueleezard's findings, I measured my Vatiivas at 9.25 inches across the tread. Perhaps it has something to do with the tire pressure.

I am running my Vatiivas at 29 psi. I received info from an experienced person on another forum that it is best to run the Vatiivas at a slightly lower pressure on a "light-weight" vehicle like the 4Runner (compared to something like an F350 diesel). Supposedly, they may have a tendency to wear the center-tread area if the psi is set too high.

Judging by my sidewall "bulge", or lack thereof, I believe this person is onto something. The tires appear to easily handle the weight of the 4Runner at this pressure.

Are you measuring the tread toward the bottom of the tire or the top? You should probably measure at the top to avoid measuring any bulge at the bottom. Also, are you measuring from shoulder to should, meaning only the part of the tread that contacts the ground?

 

[Baba Booey]

I must admit, my measuring technique wasn't scientifically precise. I just "hooked" the lip of the tape measure onto one of the treadblocks on the inside of the tire and stretched the tape across and looked at the measurement at the edge of the treadblock on the outside of the tire. I'm not sure if my tape was straight across or if I contorted it somewhat to follow the arch of the tire a bit.

Nokian has these stats on their website as well. If I remember correctly, they have something like a 9" or 10" width listed.

Mine are 265/65/17. Out of curiosity, why is this tread width measurement important? Shouldn't all tires in this same size fall within a very close range?

 

[blueleezard]

My guess about Even Steven's original question is that if a person is thinking about buying tires, that might be something he'd want to know or at least have a good idea about -- and asking around, owners included, seems a good way to confirm manufacturer info, etc., and per the function of the T4R list, to get additional knowledge, personal impressions, and opinions. Pretty reasonable. Seems that observed fractional differences in measurements aren't really that important, though, what with subjective techniques and all. If we collectively discovered that the observed differences were huge on tires that for all intents and purposes are supposed to be identical, then there'd be something to talk about. But they are expertly manufactured with fine tolerances and build material, and this is really straightforward stuff. Bottom line: these tires are good quality, have good wear characteristics, and -- from what I can tell -- they are round in all the right places! Have a good Christmas, guys.

 

[Even Steven]

Mine are 265/65/17. Out of curiosity, why is this tread width measurement important? Shouldn't all tires in this same size fall within a very close range?

It's not really important....I was just curious. When I was researching replacement tires for my Dunlops, I noticed that not all tires of the same (or similar size) were the same width.

For example, consider the Bridgestone Revos. If you measure the treadwidth on the 265/65/17 size and compare it to the treadwidth on the 265/70/17 size, you'll see that the tread on the 65 tire is wider. I thought this was strange because the "265" number is supposed to be the width of the tread in millimeters.

I started looking at other tires to see how they "measured up" in terms of treadwidth. Eventually, I settled on Cooper Discoverer ATRs as replacements for my Dunlops. I decided to measure the Discoverers and was surprised to learn that they were a full one inch wider across the tread than the Dunlops! That's a significant difference for tires that are listed as the same size.

Anyway, I like the look of the fatter (wider) tires, so whenever I see a new tire, I wonder how it measures up.

 

[blueleezard]

I suspect that differing tread widths [and even height] with different manufacturers is common, even when sizes stare you in the face as identical. A vehicle not in my sigline [mainly because it was my wife's car first-off, not mine -- I just got to drive it once in a while] was a really nice white 1993 manual Celica all-trac in almost new condition -- it had a sort of weird pale blue leather interior that I didn't find very appealing, but it had a great stereo w/ CD, the transmission was excellent, and with the supercharger it really went like stink. I had never driven a vehicle with a 220kph speedo before, and it could get awfully close to that speed, still stable and predictable -- very quick off the line and very fast overall. Good brakes, too. Yikes. Anyway, it was a wonderful road car with the only problematic thing being an annoying torque wind-up "clunk" from the centre differential when making a slow-speed, full lock turn [and I seem to recall reading somewhere once upon a time that the drive train found its way into the earlier RAV4 line]. But back to the tires -- not surprisingly, the original Michelins wore down fast and needed replacing in short order. I can't remember the size offhand [they were pretty small -- something like 205/45ZR15], but when the new ones were delivered -- with the identical sizing to the ones being replaced -- I was amazed to see that the new tires, not Michelins but something else [can't remember the brand now] were more than a full inch narrower than the stock high-performance ones. And even though the numbers were exactly the same, they were also not quite as tall at regular pressure, either, so the car took on a bit of a peculiar, somewhat stunted "roller-skate" look. It still went fast and was a lot of fun, but with the tire change, for me it lost a bit of its original charm, zap and handling ability -- it eventually found a new owner still shod with the smaller, "shorty" tires. The V8 Sport is, of course, a completely different animal -- but it's still a wonderful thoroughbred in the same spirit as the little white all-trac from years ago. And the Vatiivas seem perfectly suited to it.

 

[RonMAIDEN]

That is a nice tire for a daily driver but I wouldn't compare it as an alternative to Grapplers or BFGs for more than the occasional off road venture,it's more closely related to the Revo.

The Nokians on the other hand look like they would kick but in snow/ice/rain and their dry grip isn't probably too bad either.

If I lived where we actually had more snow on the ground throughout winter I'd consider a set just for the winter months.

 

[blueleezard]

All: I just posted the following under "Clubs" "Calgary [etc.]" and thought it might be relevant.

"Yo, your personal description reminded me that on my 1999 mica green SR5 from years gone by, I had 10-ply Toyo 285/75R16s installed. I chose 10-ply ... why? They were the only ones available at the time -- a default choice. But as I look back on the experience, I'm really glad I made that choice. Taller than stock, a bit narrower than stock, rode a bit more firmly, and I have to say: totally indestructible. Winter, Summer, mud, snow, sand, whatever and whenever. I put almost 100,000KM on those puppies and there was virtually *no wear*!!!! When the vehicle was sold, nobody [including the Toyota dealer that I'd dealt with for more than a decade] could believe the tires had that many KMs. And I had to agree. But the bill of sale told the truth. And they looked new. It was as if they were made of iron. Over the years of ownership, they had excellent traction in all conditions [down to -40C and nasty, nasty heavy snow etc.] all the way up to +40C that would fry eggs on any surface in less than a second. These things stood up, let me tell you. When the 265/65R17 Vatiivas now on the V8 Sport begin to show wear, I'll head over to the local Toyo dealer to find a Toyo along the lines of what I had previously -- I can't remember exactly but I think they were "606s". No contest."

 

[rook]

The other Vatiiva

That is a nice tire for a daily driver but I wouldn't compare it as an alternative to Grapplers or BFGs for more than the occasional off road venture,it's more closely related to the Revo.

The Nokians on the other hand look like they would kick but in snow/ice/rain and their dry grip isn't probably too bad either.

If I lived where we actually had more snow on the ground throughout winter I'd consider a set just for the winter months.

For off roading the Vatiiva M/T is available. It looks downright nasty!