I'm trying to learn about the pros and cons of 15" vs. 16" tire rims -
especially with respect to onroad vs. offroad use

Research so far appears to reveal the following general beliefs/"facts":

1) All else equal, 15" rims may be better offroad due to higher tire
sidewall (increased flex)

2) 16" rims may be better onroad, due to less tire sidewall (decreased
flex)

3) 16" rims fit only metric-sized tires (? is this correct?), but such
tires tend to cost more (? again, is this true?)

4) Despite "fact" #1, 16" rims are preferred for rock crawling (if true,
why?)

5) Internationally, 16" rims are more "standard" and tires to fit them are
more readily available

6) Generally speaking, 16" tires may be used more widely by SUV
manufacturers who realize the primary use of such vehicles is onroad (? if
true, why would Jeep choose 16" tires as the standard rim size for the
Rubicon, unless "fact" #4 is actually true?)

Would appreciate someone verifying these "facts" or setting me straight...

PLM

--
[ ]
__OIIIIO__
|||=oo=|||
||| |||

 

"Patrick Mills" <plm1954_R_E_M_O_V_E@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.02.09.10.50.33.915880@ix.netcom.com. ..
> I'm trying to learn about the pros and cons of 15" vs. 16" tire rims -
> especially with respect to onroad vs. offroad use
>
> Research so far appears to reveal the following general beliefs/"facts":
>
> 1) All else equal, 15" rims may be better offroad due to higher tire
> sidewall (increased flex)
>

Correct. The sidewalls - and more accurately, the shoulder of the tread - is
a very important traction aid when the tires are aired-down. But, when the
tires are aired down, the rim can be exposed to more damage if the sidewalls
are smaller.



> 2) 16" rims may be better onroad, due to less tire sidewall (decreased
> flex)
>

Again, correct. The smaller sidewalls have less flex, therefore they provide
a more sure footed driving experience on the highway.



> 3) 16" rims fit only metric-sized tires (? is this correct?), but such
> tires tend to cost more (? again, is this true?)
>

I have to do some research on this one, but my knee-jerk response is that
you are wrong on this point. The metric size that comes on the Rubi can be
translated into a 31x9.50 or 31x10.50 (I forget which). But, I am almost 99%
positive that you can get a 32" ~ 35" on a 16" rim.



> 4) Despite "fact" #1, 16" rims are preferred for rock crawling (if true,
> why?)
>

I am not sure this is true. Given the explanation that I used, I would lean
towards the 15" as the better choice. I happen to think that the Rubi has
other features that make the 16" tires an "acceptable risk."




> 5) Internationally, 16" rims are more "standard" and tires to fit them are
> more readily available
>

I don't think this is true at all. 15" rims have been around for decades,
16" is a relatively new option.





> 6) Generally speaking, 16" tires may be used more widely by SUV
> manufacturers who realize the primary use of such vehicles is onroad (? if
> true, why would Jeep choose 16" tires as the standard rim size for the
> Rubicon, unless "fact" #4 is actually true?)
>

This is a good question, one that I have asked myself. I think that in the
grand scheme of things, the manufacturer has to be concerned with liability
issues relative to tall tires. I suppose they can mitigate some of those
issues with a larger rim. I really don't think the manufacturers set out to
build the extreme rock crawlers that we so enjoy. They look at what we do,
and try to blend the needs of highway safety with the desire for extreme
offroading, and the 16" tires on the Rubi are a happy medium where these two
worlds meet.

 

"Patrick Mills" <plm1954_R_E_M_O_V_E@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.02.09.10.50.33.915880@ix.netcom.com. ..
> I'm trying to learn about the pros and cons of 15" vs. 16" tire rims -
> especially with respect to onroad vs. offroad use
>
> Research so far appears to reveal the following general beliefs/"facts":
>
> 1) All else equal, 15" rims may be better offroad due to higher tire
> sidewall (increased flex)
>

Correct. The sidewalls - and more accurately, the shoulder of the tread - is
a very important traction aid when the tires are aired-down. But, when the
tires are aired down, the rim can be exposed to more damage if the sidewalls
are smaller.



> 2) 16" rims may be better onroad, due to less tire sidewall (decreased
> flex)
>

Again, correct. The smaller sidewalls have less flex, therefore they provide
a more sure footed driving experience on the highway.



> 3) 16" rims fit only metric-sized tires (? is this correct?), but such
> tires tend to cost more (? again, is this true?)
>

I have to do some research on this one, but my knee-jerk response is that
you are wrong on this point. The metric size that comes on the Rubi can be
translated into a 31x9.50 or 31x10.50 (I forget which). But, I am almost 99%
positive that you can get a 32" ~ 35" on a 16" rim.



> 4) Despite "fact" #1, 16" rims are preferred for rock crawling (if true,
> why?)
>

I am not sure this is true. Given the explanation that I used, I would lean
towards the 15" as the better choice. I happen to think that the Rubi has
other features that make the 16" tires an "acceptable risk."




> 5) Internationally, 16" rims are more "standard" and tires to fit them are
> more readily available
>

I don't think this is true at all. 15" rims have been around for decades,
16" is a relatively new option.





> 6) Generally speaking, 16" tires may be used more widely by SUV
> manufacturers who realize the primary use of such vehicles is onroad (? if
> true, why would Jeep choose 16" tires as the standard rim size for the
> Rubicon, unless "fact" #4 is actually true?)
>

This is a good question, one that I have asked myself. I think that in the
grand scheme of things, the manufacturer has to be concerned with liability
issues relative to tall tires. I suppose they can mitigate some of those
issues with a larger rim. I really don't think the manufacturers set out to
build the extreme rock crawlers that we so enjoy. They look at what we do,
and try to blend the needs of highway safety with the desire for extreme
offroading, and the 16" tires on the Rubi are a happy medium where these two
worlds meet.

 

"Patrick Mills" <plm1954_R_E_M_O_V_E@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.02.09.10.50.33.915880@ix.netcom.com. ..
> I'm trying to learn about the pros and cons of 15" vs. 16" tire rims -
> especially with respect to onroad vs. offroad use
>
> Research so far appears to reveal the following general beliefs/"facts":
>
> 1) All else equal, 15" rims may be better offroad due to higher tire
> sidewall (increased flex)
>

Correct. The sidewalls - and more accurately, the shoulder of the tread - is
a very important traction aid when the tires are aired-down. But, when the
tires are aired down, the rim can be exposed to more damage if the sidewalls
are smaller.



> 2) 16" rims may be better onroad, due to less tire sidewall (decreased
> flex)
>

Again, correct. The smaller sidewalls have less flex, therefore they provide
a more sure footed driving experience on the highway.



> 3) 16" rims fit only metric-sized tires (? is this correct?), but such
> tires tend to cost more (? again, is this true?)
>

I have to do some research on this one, but my knee-jerk response is that
you are wrong on this point. The metric size that comes on the Rubi can be
translated into a 31x9.50 or 31x10.50 (I forget which). But, I am almost 99%
positive that you can get a 32" ~ 35" on a 16" rim.



> 4) Despite "fact" #1, 16" rims are preferred for rock crawling (if true,
> why?)
>

I am not sure this is true. Given the explanation that I used, I would lean
towards the 15" as the better choice. I happen to think that the Rubi has
other features that make the 16" tires an "acceptable risk."




> 5) Internationally, 16" rims are more "standard" and tires to fit them are
> more readily available
>

I don't think this is true at all. 15" rims have been around for decades,
16" is a relatively new option.





> 6) Generally speaking, 16" tires may be used more widely by SUV
> manufacturers who realize the primary use of such vehicles is onroad (? if
> true, why would Jeep choose 16" tires as the standard rim size for the
> Rubicon, unless "fact" #4 is actually true?)
>

This is a good question, one that I have asked myself. I think that in the
grand scheme of things, the manufacturer has to be concerned with liability
issues relative to tall tires. I suppose they can mitigate some of those
issues with a larger rim. I really don't think the manufacturers set out to
build the extreme rock crawlers that we so enjoy. They look at what we do,
and try to blend the needs of highway safety with the desire for extreme
offroading, and the 16" tires on the Rubi are a happy medium where these two
worlds meet.

 

I would consider using 16" wheels if needed to provide clearance for larger
calipers - don't know if that has anything to do with the reason the rubi
has them....

--
Carlo F. Serusa, Jr. RPh
carlo.jr at comcast DOTnet
'98 Sahara TJ - '89 YJ - '79 Scout II
O|||||||O
'92 Explorer '65 Mustang


"CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:102fjd79t1kas19@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Patrick Mills" <plm1954_R_E_M_O_V_E@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.02.09.10.50.33.915880@ix.netcom.com. ..
> > I'm trying to learn about the pros and cons of 15" vs. 16" tire rims -
> > especially with respect to onroad vs. offroad use
> >
> > Research so far appears to reveal the following general beliefs/"facts":
> >
> > 1) All else equal, 15" rims may be better offroad due to higher tire
> > sidewall (increased flex)
> >
>
> Correct. The sidewalls - and more accurately, the shoulder of the tread -
is
> a very important traction aid when the tires are aired-down. But, when the
> tires are aired down, the rim can be exposed to more damage if the
sidewalls
> are smaller.
>
>
>
> > 2) 16" rims may be better onroad, due to less tire sidewall (decreased
> > flex)
> >
>
> Again, correct. The smaller sidewalls have less flex, therefore they
provide
> a more sure footed driving experience on the highway.
>
>
>
> > 3) 16" rims fit only metric-sized tires (? is this correct?), but such
> > tires tend to cost more (? again, is this true?)
> >
>
> I have to do some research on this one, but my knee-jerk response is that
> you are wrong on this point. The metric size that comes on the Rubi can be
> translated into a 31x9.50 or 31x10.50 (I forget which). But, I am almost
99%
> positive that you can get a 32" ~ 35" on a 16" rim.
>
>
>
> > 4) Despite "fact" #1, 16" rims are preferred for rock crawling (if true,
> > why?)
> >
>
> I am not sure this is true. Given the explanation that I used, I would
lean
> towards the 15" as the better choice. I happen to think that the Rubi has
> other features that make the 16" tires an "acceptable risk."
>
>
>
>
> > 5) Internationally, 16" rims are more "standard" and tires to fit them
are
> > more readily available
> >
>
> I don't think this is true at all. 15" rims have been around for decades,
> 16" is a relatively new option.
>
>
>
>
>
> > 6) Generally speaking, 16" tires may be used more widely by SUV
> > manufacturers who realize the primary use of such vehicles is onroad (?
if
> > true, why would Jeep choose 16" tires as the standard rim size for the
> > Rubicon, unless "fact" #4 is actually true?)
> >
>
> This is a good question, one that I have asked myself. I think that in the
> grand scheme of things, the manufacturer has to be concerned with
liability
> issues relative to tall tires. I suppose they can mitigate some of those
> issues with a larger rim. I really don't think the manufacturers set out
to
> build the extreme rock crawlers that we so enjoy. They look at what we do,
> and try to blend the needs of highway safety with the desire for extreme
> offroading, and the 16" tires on the Rubi are a happy medium where these
two
> worlds meet.
>
>
>

 

I would consider using 16" wheels if needed to provide clearance for larger
calipers - don't know if that has anything to do with the reason the rubi
has them....

--
Carlo F. Serusa, Jr. RPh
carlo.jr at comcast DOTnet
'98 Sahara TJ - '89 YJ - '79 Scout II
O|||||||O
'92 Explorer '65 Mustang


"CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:102fjd79t1kas19@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Patrick Mills" <plm1954_R_E_M_O_V_E@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.02.09.10.50.33.915880@ix.netcom.com. ..
> > I'm trying to learn about the pros and cons of 15" vs. 16" tire rims -
> > especially with respect to onroad vs. offroad use
> >
> > Research so far appears to reveal the following general beliefs/"facts":
> >
> > 1) All else equal, 15" rims may be better offroad due to higher tire
> > sidewall (increased flex)
> >
>
> Correct. The sidewalls - and more accurately, the shoulder of the tread -
is
> a very important traction aid when the tires are aired-down. But, when the
> tires are aired down, the rim can be exposed to more damage if the
sidewalls
> are smaller.
>
>
>
> > 2) 16" rims may be better onroad, due to less tire sidewall (decreased
> > flex)
> >
>
> Again, correct. The smaller sidewalls have less flex, therefore they
provide
> a more sure footed driving experience on the highway.
>
>
>
> > 3) 16" rims fit only metric-sized tires (? is this correct?), but such
> > tires tend to cost more (? again, is this true?)
> >
>
> I have to do some research on this one, but my knee-jerk response is that
> you are wrong on this point. The metric size that comes on the Rubi can be
> translated into a 31x9.50 or 31x10.50 (I forget which). But, I am almost
99%
> positive that you can get a 32" ~ 35" on a 16" rim.
>
>
>
> > 4) Despite "fact" #1, 16" rims are preferred for rock crawling (if true,
> > why?)
> >
>
> I am not sure this is true. Given the explanation that I used, I would
lean
> towards the 15" as the better choice. I happen to think that the Rubi has
> other features that make the 16" tires an "acceptable risk."
>
>
>
>
> > 5) Internationally, 16" rims are more "standard" and tires to fit them
are
> > more readily available
> >
>
> I don't think this is true at all. 15" rims have been around for decades,
> 16" is a relatively new option.
>
>
>
>
>
> > 6) Generally speaking, 16" tires may be used more widely by SUV
> > manufacturers who realize the primary use of such vehicles is onroad (?
if
> > true, why would Jeep choose 16" tires as the standard rim size for the
> > Rubicon, unless "fact" #4 is actually true?)
> >
>
> This is a good question, one that I have asked myself. I think that in the
> grand scheme of things, the manufacturer has to be concerned with
liability
> issues relative to tall tires. I suppose they can mitigate some of those
> issues with a larger rim. I really don't think the manufacturers set out
to
> build the extreme rock crawlers that we so enjoy. They look at what we do,
> and try to blend the needs of highway safety with the desire for extreme
> offroading, and the 16" tires on the Rubi are a happy medium where these
two
> worlds meet.
>
>
>

 

I would consider using 16" wheels if needed to provide clearance for larger
calipers - don't know if that has anything to do with the reason the rubi
has them....

--
Carlo F. Serusa, Jr. RPh
carlo.jr at comcast DOTnet
'98 Sahara TJ - '89 YJ - '79 Scout II
O|||||||O
'92 Explorer '65 Mustang


"CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:102fjd79t1kas19@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Patrick Mills" <plm1954_R_E_M_O_V_E@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.02.09.10.50.33.915880@ix.netcom.com. ..
> > I'm trying to learn about the pros and cons of 15" vs. 16" tire rims -
> > especially with respect to onroad vs. offroad use
> >
> > Research so far appears to reveal the following general beliefs/"facts":
> >
> > 1) All else equal, 15" rims may be better offroad due to higher tire
> > sidewall (increased flex)
> >
>
> Correct. The sidewalls - and more accurately, the shoulder of the tread -
is
> a very important traction aid when the tires are aired-down. But, when the
> tires are aired down, the rim can be exposed to more damage if the
sidewalls
> are smaller.
>
>
>
> > 2) 16" rims may be better onroad, due to less tire sidewall (decreased
> > flex)
> >
>
> Again, correct. The smaller sidewalls have less flex, therefore they
provide
> a more sure footed driving experience on the highway.
>
>
>
> > 3) 16" rims fit only metric-sized tires (? is this correct?), but such
> > tires tend to cost more (? again, is this true?)
> >
>
> I have to do some research on this one, but my knee-jerk response is that
> you are wrong on this point. The metric size that comes on the Rubi can be
> translated into a 31x9.50 or 31x10.50 (I forget which). But, I am almost
99%
> positive that you can get a 32" ~ 35" on a 16" rim.
>
>
>
> > 4) Despite "fact" #1, 16" rims are preferred for rock crawling (if true,
> > why?)
> >
>
> I am not sure this is true. Given the explanation that I used, I would
lean
> towards the 15" as the better choice. I happen to think that the Rubi has
> other features that make the 16" tires an "acceptable risk."
>
>
>
>
> > 5) Internationally, 16" rims are more "standard" and tires to fit them
are
> > more readily available
> >
>
> I don't think this is true at all. 15" rims have been around for decades,
> 16" is a relatively new option.
>
>
>
>
>
> > 6) Generally speaking, 16" tires may be used more widely by SUV
> > manufacturers who realize the primary use of such vehicles is onroad (?
if
> > true, why would Jeep choose 16" tires as the standard rim size for the
> > Rubicon, unless "fact" #4 is actually true?)
> >
>
> This is a good question, one that I have asked myself. I think that in the
> grand scheme of things, the manufacturer has to be concerned with
liability
> issues relative to tall tires. I suppose they can mitigate some of those
> issues with a larger rim. I really don't think the manufacturers set out
to
> build the extreme rock crawlers that we so enjoy. They look at what we do,
> and try to blend the needs of highway safety with the desire for extreme
> offroading, and the 16" tires on the Rubi are a happy medium where these
two
> worlds meet.
>
>
>

 

The Rubi can run 15" or 16" wheels, it uses 16" (probably) due to larger
wheels being more stylish right now.

Jerry
--
Jerry Bransford
To email, remove 'me' from my email address
N6TAY, PP-ASEL
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.***.net/jerrypb/

"Carlo" <carlo.jr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Pc2dnU1CM6c6ZrrdRVn-uA@comcast.com...
> I would consider using 16" wheels if needed to provide clearance for
larger
> calipers - don't know if that has anything to do with the reason the rubi
> has them....
>
> --
> Carlo F. Serusa, Jr. RPh
> carlo.jr at comcast DOTnet
> '98 Sahara TJ - '89 YJ - '79 Scout II
> O|||||||O
> '92 Explorer '65 Mustang
>
>
> "CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:102fjd79t1kas19@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Patrick Mills" <plm1954_R_E_M_O_V_E@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:pan.2004.02.09.10.50.33.915880@ix.netcom.com. ..
> > > I'm trying to learn about the pros and cons of 15" vs. 16" tire rims -
> > > especially with respect to onroad vs. offroad use
> > >
> > > Research so far appears to reveal the following general
beliefs/"facts":
> > >
> > > 1) All else equal, 15" rims may be better offroad due to higher tire
> > > sidewall (increased flex)
> > >
> >
> > Correct. The sidewalls - and more accurately, the shoulder of the
tread -
> is
> > a very important traction aid when the tires are aired-down. But, when
the
> > tires are aired down, the rim can be exposed to more damage if the
> sidewalls
> > are smaller.
> >
> >
> >
> > > 2) 16" rims may be better onroad, due to less tire sidewall (decreased
> > > flex)
> > >
> >
> > Again, correct. The smaller sidewalls have less flex, therefore they
> provide
> > a more sure footed driving experience on the highway.
> >
> >
> >
> > > 3) 16" rims fit only metric-sized tires (? is this correct?), but such
> > > tires tend to cost more (? again, is this true?)
> > >
> >
> > I have to do some research on this one, but my knee-jerk response is
that
> > you are wrong on this point. The metric size that comes on the Rubi can
be
> > translated into a 31x9.50 or 31x10.50 (I forget which). But, I am almost
> 99%
> > positive that you can get a 32" ~ 35" on a 16" rim.
> >
> >
> >
> > > 4) Despite "fact" #1, 16" rims are preferred for rock crawling (if
true,
> > > why?)
> > >
> >
> > I am not sure this is true. Given the explanation that I used, I would
> lean
> > towards the 15" as the better choice. I happen to think that the Rubi
has
> > other features that make the 16" tires an "acceptable risk."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > 5) Internationally, 16" rims are more "standard" and tires to fit them
> are
> > > more readily available
> > >
> >
> > I don't think this is true at all. 15" rims have been around for
decades,
> > 16" is a relatively new option.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > 6) Generally speaking, 16" tires may be used more widely by SUV
> > > manufacturers who realize the primary use of such vehicles is onroad
(?
> if
> > > true, why would Jeep choose 16" tires as the standard rim size for the
> > > Rubicon, unless "fact" #4 is actually true?)
> > >
> >
> > This is a good question, one that I have asked myself. I think that in
the
> > grand scheme of things, the manufacturer has to be concerned with
> liability
> > issues relative to tall tires. I suppose they can mitigate some of those
> > issues with a larger rim. I really don't think the manufacturers set out
> to
> > build the extreme rock crawlers that we so enjoy. They look at what we
do,
> > and try to blend the needs of highway safety with the desire for extreme
> > offroading, and the 16" tires on the Rubi are a happy medium where these
> two
> > worlds meet.
> >
> >
> >
>
>

 

The Rubi can run 15" or 16" wheels, it uses 16" (probably) due to larger
wheels being more stylish right now.

Jerry
--
Jerry Bransford
To email, remove 'me' from my email address
N6TAY, PP-ASEL
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.***.net/jerrypb/

"Carlo" <carlo.jr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Pc2dnU1CM6c6ZrrdRVn-uA@comcast.com...
> I would consider using 16" wheels if needed to provide clearance for
larger
> calipers - don't know if that has anything to do with the reason the rubi
> has them....
>
> --
> Carlo F. Serusa, Jr. RPh
> carlo.jr at comcast DOTnet
> '98 Sahara TJ - '89 YJ - '79 Scout II
> O|||||||O
> '92 Explorer '65 Mustang
>
>
> "CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:102fjd79t1kas19@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Patrick Mills" <plm1954_R_E_M_O_V_E@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:pan.2004.02.09.10.50.33.915880@ix.netcom.com. ..
> > > I'm trying to learn about the pros and cons of 15" vs. 16" tire rims -
> > > especially with respect to onroad vs. offroad use
> > >
> > > Research so far appears to reveal the following general
beliefs/"facts":
> > >
> > > 1) All else equal, 15" rims may be better offroad due to higher tire
> > > sidewall (increased flex)
> > >
> >
> > Correct. The sidewalls - and more accurately, the shoulder of the
tread -
> is
> > a very important traction aid when the tires are aired-down. But, when
the
> > tires are aired down, the rim can be exposed to more damage if the
> sidewalls
> > are smaller.
> >
> >
> >
> > > 2) 16" rims may be better onroad, due to less tire sidewall (decreased
> > > flex)
> > >
> >
> > Again, correct. The smaller sidewalls have less flex, therefore they
> provide
> > a more sure footed driving experience on the highway.
> >
> >
> >
> > > 3) 16" rims fit only metric-sized tires (? is this correct?), but such
> > > tires tend to cost more (? again, is this true?)
> > >
> >
> > I have to do some research on this one, but my knee-jerk response is
that
> > you are wrong on this point. The metric size that comes on the Rubi can
be
> > translated into a 31x9.50 or 31x10.50 (I forget which). But, I am almost
> 99%
> > positive that you can get a 32" ~ 35" on a 16" rim.
> >
> >
> >
> > > 4) Despite "fact" #1, 16" rims are preferred for rock crawling (if
true,
> > > why?)
> > >
> >
> > I am not sure this is true. Given the explanation that I used, I would
> lean
> > towards the 15" as the better choice. I happen to think that the Rubi
has
> > other features that make the 16" tires an "acceptable risk."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > 5) Internationally, 16" rims are more "standard" and tires to fit them
> are
> > > more readily available
> > >
> >
> > I don't think this is true at all. 15" rims have been around for
decades,
> > 16" is a relatively new option.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > 6) Generally speaking, 16" tires may be used more widely by SUV
> > > manufacturers who realize the primary use of such vehicles is onroad
(?
> if
> > > true, why would Jeep choose 16" tires as the standard rim size for the
> > > Rubicon, unless "fact" #4 is actually true?)
> > >
> >
> > This is a good question, one that I have asked myself. I think that in
the
> > grand scheme of things, the manufacturer has to be concerned with
> liability
> > issues relative to tall tires. I suppose they can mitigate some of those
> > issues with a larger rim. I really don't think the manufacturers set out
> to
> > build the extreme rock crawlers that we so enjoy. They look at what we
do,
> > and try to blend the needs of highway safety with the desire for extreme
> > offroading, and the 16" tires on the Rubi are a happy medium where these
> two
> > worlds meet.
> >
> >
> >
>
>

 

The Rubi can run 15" or 16" wheels, it uses 16" (probably) due to larger
wheels being more stylish right now.

Jerry
--
Jerry Bransford
To email, remove 'me' from my email address
N6TAY, PP-ASEL
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.***.net/jerrypb/

"Carlo" <carlo.jr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Pc2dnU1CM6c6ZrrdRVn-uA@comcast.com...
> I would consider using 16" wheels if needed to provide clearance for
larger
> calipers - don't know if that has anything to do with the reason the rubi
> has them....
>
> --
> Carlo F. Serusa, Jr. RPh
> carlo.jr at comcast DOTnet
> '98 Sahara TJ - '89 YJ - '79 Scout II
> O|||||||O
> '92 Explorer '65 Mustang
>
>
> "CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:102fjd79t1kas19@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Patrick Mills" <plm1954_R_E_M_O_V_E@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:pan.2004.02.09.10.50.33.915880@ix.netcom.com. ..
> > > I'm trying to learn about the pros and cons of 15" vs. 16" tire rims -
> > > especially with respect to onroad vs. offroad use
> > >
> > > Research so far appears to reveal the following general
beliefs/"facts":
> > >
> > > 1) All else equal, 15" rims may be better offroad due to higher tire
> > > sidewall (increased flex)
> > >
> >
> > Correct. The sidewalls - and more accurately, the shoulder of the
tread -
> is
> > a very important traction aid when the tires are aired-down. But, when
the
> > tires are aired down, the rim can be exposed to more damage if the
> sidewalls
> > are smaller.
> >
> >
> >
> > > 2) 16" rims may be better onroad, due to less tire sidewall (decreased
> > > flex)
> > >
> >
> > Again, correct. The smaller sidewalls have less flex, therefore they
> provide
> > a more sure footed driving experience on the highway.
> >
> >
> >
> > > 3) 16" rims fit only metric-sized tires (? is this correct?), but such
> > > tires tend to cost more (? again, is this true?)
> > >
> >
> > I have to do some research on this one, but my knee-jerk response is
that
> > you are wrong on this point. The metric size that comes on the Rubi can
be
> > translated into a 31x9.50 or 31x10.50 (I forget which). But, I am almost
> 99%
> > positive that you can get a 32" ~ 35" on a 16" rim.
> >
> >
> >
> > > 4) Despite "fact" #1, 16" rims are preferred for rock crawling (if
true,
> > > why?)
> > >
> >
> > I am not sure this is true. Given the explanation that I used, I would
> lean
> > towards the 15" as the better choice. I happen to think that the Rubi
has
> > other features that make the 16" tires an "acceptable risk."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > 5) Internationally, 16" rims are more "standard" and tires to fit them
> are
> > > more readily available
> > >
> >
> > I don't think this is true at all. 15" rims have been around for
decades,
> > 16" is a relatively new option.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > 6) Generally speaking, 16" tires may be used more widely by SUV
> > > manufacturers who realize the primary use of such vehicles is onroad
(?
> if
> > > true, why would Jeep choose 16" tires as the standard rim size for the
> > > Rubicon, unless "fact" #4 is actually true?)
> > >
> >
> > This is a good question, one that I have asked myself. I think that in
the
> > grand scheme of things, the manufacturer has to be concerned with
> liability
> > issues relative to tall tires. I suppose they can mitigate some of those
> > issues with a larger rim. I really don't think the manufacturers set out
> to
> > build the extreme rock crawlers that we so enjoy. They look at what we
do,
> > and try to blend the needs of highway safety with the desire for extreme
> > offroading, and the 16" tires on the Rubi are a happy medium where these
> two
> > worlds meet.
> >
> >
> >
>
>