Mike, I am speaking of specialty snow vehicles, for cargo transport in arctic conditions. These vehicles can be quite large. Check out the fat tires on this vehicle.
I think these have become the new alternative for the fat tires I showed above. Today’s heavy arctic vehicles probably have these instead of tires. They sure do make driving on top of snow look like fun.
Whitey…COOL.
Pic taken 2 miles from where I grew up.
In case you didn’t notice…The top of that truck is 15’ high.
i want one
“I said you obviously don’t have much experience in driving in SNOW. 50” a year…I’ve seen more snow in 2 days. So compared to myself and many people I grew up with…you have very very little experience in driving in snow. Sorry…but it’s a fact."
You got yourself into this by saying “far far far more” and your more than 50" in two days is right up in world record territory. Are you saying you drove in 50" inches of snow? If you are, sounds like a lie, if you’re not, it’s irrelevant.
Like Milton Berle, I only take out enough to win.
You’ve got quite an attitude, and coming from me, that’s saying something.
“Move to Watertown NY for a winter and try the different tires yourself. If your car can safely handle a skinnier tire then switch them out. You’ll notice a HUGE difference in cutting through the snow with the skinnier tires. I recommend Watertown because of the snow fall…I think this small city averages about 250”/yr. So you’ll have plenty of practice."
The actual figure is 114". Less than half of what you “think”. This calls everything you say into question. “Sorry…but it’s a fact.”
That vehicle spends most of its time driving on ice or very very cold hard packed snow. If it is 50 below, traction is not much of a problem except deep powder, When you are talking cars in the lower 48 the slipperiest conditions are freezing and just below. Where I live we get about 100 " of snow and I regularly drove tractor trailer through places that had 300 ". Taller narrower tires are the way to go. Fat tires create their own wedge of snow to climb up on and lose traction and steering. The first cars we saw up on top of the guardrails every winter were always Camaros, Firebirds and Mustangs. (Probably because no on was crazy enough to drive a Corvette in the winter here.)
Agreed Watertown does not get 300 " of snow on average , but the people there regularly drive through places just 20 or 30 miles South ( between Lake Ontario and the Tug Hill plateau ) that do. These places do not understandably have a large enough population to have a national weather service reporting station but everyone that drives up there knows about them. Every truck driver in the Northeast knows about them. Looking up something on the internet doesn’t trump local knowledge.
Sorry, SOTP (AKA new-age logic) evaluations are not acceptable. I accept only data. I have driven in a lot of snow, with and without chains, snow tires (studded and not), all season tires, feeble wheel drive, right wheel drive. I have never driven the same vehicle with tires of different shapes that were otherwise identical under identical conditions. It is just too expensive for me, personally, to do the experiment.
Lots of snowfall in an exotic place is not necessary. The tools would be a limited-access paved area where turning and hill-climbing could be tested, and a snow machine. A passenger sedan with some differently-shaped tires is obvious. Control over the temperature of the pavement would be desirable, but not absolutely necessary. Some instrumentation and special equipment to measure traction under different loads would make experimental design and data analysis much easier.
Any time I have driven a passenger sedan in deep, unplowed snow, on a paved surface, I got packed snow under the tires. I suppose I have never driven in really deep snow because I was always limited by the fact that snow pilling up under the bumper, and in front of it, limited progress. Now, my new-age logic opinion on the subject is that for a passenger sedan, as long as you are not trying to plow, the tire profile is not going to make a darned bit of difference. I would accept, however, data that proved that wrong.
BTW, I would love to live in Watertown. I spent a lot of time in areas with lake-effect snow in NYS. Not as much as Watertown, but lots. I enjoy going out to play in the snow or on a frozen pond or lake. (Frozen rivers are much too exciting.) I will be about 100 miles from there in a week and a half. Unfortunately, if the normal patterns prevail, it will be too early in the season to be really fun outdoors.
“The first cars we saw up on top of the guardrails every winter were always Camaros, Firebirds and Mustangs.”
I’m sure it had nothing to do with driver error, since Camaro, Firebird, and Mustang drivers are the most by-the-book operators on God’s green earth. It was all about the tires.
Guys,
If you look carefully at winter driving conditions, there are a variety of conditions that have to addressed - and the answer as to whether or not tall narrow tires are better is going to be dependent on which condition is in front of you.
But the “Tall / Narrow” proposition is supposed to be for penetrating the snow and getting down to the pavement. Pavement ALWAYS has better grip than snow, so if you can get even the most minute part of the tread surface in contact with the pavement, you are better off. And, of course, that is a condition you’ll never be able to test in, because it is impossible to re-create.
So the question is: Is the most common condition the “penetrating the snow to get to pavement” condition - and if it is, then “Tall / Narrow” would be sound advice.
I owned a couple 60’s Camaros and Firebirds. The Firebird had 60 series tires on the back and 70 series tires on the front. It was completely worthless even on 1" of snow. Not great on we roads either. The Camaro had 70 series all around…and not much better. Those cars had a lot of power and a very light rear-end…made for a very dangerous combination for driving in snow. They pretty much stayed in storage from October thru April.
And I grew up just West of the Tug Hill Plateau (Pulaski). I only mentioned Watertown because it’s a mid-size city that gets more snow than any city it’s size or bigger in the US. 200-250 EASY every year. Syracuse at the southern end of the snow-belt only averages about 120"/yr. Pulaski averages about 300…Some places in Tug Hill average over 400…and one town set the US record of 720" (60’) of snow in one year. Great place for snowmobiling…and in the Summer (all 4 weeks)…it’s real nice place to visit.
Places like Watertown is a great place to LEARN how to drive in snow. Sure here in NH we get snow…but MAYBE 2-3 storms a year…Most of the time you’re driving on paved roads. Places like Watertown gets so much snow and so fast at times…you do a LOT of driving on snow…You can’t avoid it…I can EASILY AVOID driving on snow here in NH by not going out when it’s snowing. It’s IMPOSSIBLE to avoid in places like Watertown or Pulaski. Too much snow to avoid. 2 years I lived in Pulaski and worked in Syracuse. I can’t count the number of times I left work in Syracuse on a clear evening, then drive to Pulaski into a middle of a 10" lake-effect storm…And Syracuse never even got one flake of snow. The street I lived on…you never saw the pavement MOST of the year…just hard packed snow about 6" thick. Then in March when the rains come…WOW…be prepared for pure ice conditions.
The actual figure is 114". Less than half of what you “think”. This calls everything you say into question. “Sorry…but it’s a fact.”
It depends on where you live in Watertown…or Jefferson County. The Southern part of Watertown is right in the middle of the snow-belt. The northern part isn’t. So I suspect it may average out to something like 114"…
http://www.co.jefferson.ny.us/Jefflive.nsf/profileg
Average annual snowfall is 101 inches in Watertown, but approaches 200 inches in the snowbelt areas. And you’re right…I thought it had the same amount as we did in Pulaski…But it’s only 200". Oswego county and Jefferson county always are right up there for the highest snow fall in the US (not counting the Colorado Rockies).
Snow in Watertown.
Got into this late, but we’re not talking about comparing a cookie cutter to a rolling pin. As far as size change from one season to another it may be just 5mm in wide; which is small but significant and worthwhile when combined with the winter tread as well. And, Whitey was absolutely right about deciding if you’re going to drive through or on top of snow, with each having a different approach; and you 4 wheel ATV riders know the difference.
My biggest pet peeve is with vehicles that have traction control, esp on 4wd that have no defeat switch. TIRES NEED TO SPIN IN DEEP SNOW/MUD to keep treads clear at lower speeds.
My only last comment to all this.
If snow/winter is so bad whether wider vs narrower tires makes the difference of getting about (safely), you should not be driving.