| Author | Message | ||||||
     Jack Quinlan (Jsq) Senior Member Username: Jsq Post Number: 293 Registered: 10-2002 |
Could someone please tell me what tire size the Camel Trophy discos typically ran? thanks and happy trails. | ||||||
| Neil Flanagan (Electriceel) Member Username: Electriceel Post Number: 123 Registered: 02-2002 |
7.5R16 | ||||||
| Leslie N. Bright (Leslie) Senior Member Username: Leslie Post Number: 2210 Registered: 02-2002 |
No, they were 7x16, which is a bit smaller than the 7.5x16.... -L | ||||||
| Jack Quinlan (Jsq) Senior Member Username: Jsq Post Number: 294 Registered: 10-2002 |
Pardon my ignorance, but what does that make it in conventional sizing? | ||||||
| Keith Armstrong (Keith) New Member Username: Keith Post Number: 3 Registered: 02-2003 |
Stinkin close to a 215/85-16 | ||||||
| Leslie N. Bright (Leslie) Senior Member Username: Leslie Post Number: 2211 Registered: 02-2002 |
Yep.... 7.5x16 is close to a 235/85R16.... with the 7.5 usually being a tad narrower. The 7x16 isn't a common size; 225/75R16 wouldn't be too far from it either, but would be a little wider and an little shorter; the 215/85R16 would be a little more narrow and a little taller. If you could find a 220/80R16, you'd have it....  -L | ||||||
| Rob Davison (Nosivad_bor) Senior Member Username: Nosivad_bor Post Number: 367 Registered: 02-2003 |
i have for sale 6.5 x 16 on steel rims Camel trophy style tires "michelin XL" ../12/15281.html"#444444"> | Steve Cooper (Scrover) Senior Member Username: Scrover Post Number: 322 Registered: 09-2002 |
The 7.50R16 is equivalent to about a 210/95-16 if such a size existed. | ||||
| Leslie N. Bright (Leslie) Senior Member Username: Leslie Post Number: 2216 Registered: 02-2002 |
Steve, I've seen that quoted elsewhere, but.... tire-size varies from manufacturer to manufacturer, and style to style.... In some instances, yes, it may be narrow and tall, but.... the 7.5x16 that is on my SIII is no more narrow than the 225/75 on my wife's Disco, and is no taller than a 235/85 on another Series there at the shop... Go to TireRack, or to some tire maker, and compare the size-info between the 7.5 and the 235/85, within that same tire-model..... -L | ||||||
| Steve Cooper (Scrover) Senior Member Username: Scrover Post Number: 323 Registered: 09-2002 |
Yeah, it's very hard to find data for the Michelins. The best I could find is 210mm wide and 802mm tall for a 7.50 XZL - which is about 31.57 inches tall. I think most 235/85s would be slightly taller and about an inch wider, but you're right, it varies from one brand to another. Here's a Michelin tire that they make in all 3 above sizes - 215, 235 and 7.50 for comparison: http://tires.michelin-us.com/assets/pdfs/doc_xpstraction.pdf Steve | ||||||
| Jack Quinlan (Jsq) Senior Member Username: Jsq Post Number: 303 Registered: 10-2002 |
Thanks for all the info guys. The majority of the sizes listed come out to about a 30 but a few are more like a 32. Sort of a big discrepancy, but it still answers my question. Basically the CTs didn't have very big tires. Certainly those trucks didn't have a lot of things e.g. lockers, real-steel bumpers etc. but they certainly proved "capable". The reason I asked in general was that recently I've been reflecting upon the fact that myself and others have always looked at the CT rovers as models of perfection and while they are definitely full of style and history, they are no more technically capable than many of the rovers on this board, my own included. In fact, I'd say most of us use a lot of higher quality components in the arena of lights, winches and extras such as C02 tanks and tools. They certainly set the standard and model for the well-equipped expedition vehicle, but they aren't the pennultimate. www.camel-discovery.com gives a good run down of kit and it's all pretty obvious. No hidden secret weapons other than dedicated operators. The coolness factor may not be reachable, but every time I figure I better hurry up and buy ARBs, I tell myself "Self, if the camel lads could get by without, then you can do the same!" Of course they did have all the many blessings of diesel. I take the camel specs especially to heart as the farther reaching more logistical outings are the one's I always enjoy the most. I've had some good outings in the rock crawling style, but none of them were as much fun or as much of an adventure as the longer "expeditions" that covered much less technical trails in comparison. I also believe Rovers in general and mine in specific really shine in the long range arena. When I'm out covering a lot of ground in the Disco, I feel like I'm ready for anything and not playing second fiddle to any kind of jeep or toyota. something I can't really say about the rocks. Whatismore, while originally I probably "settled" for a disco because I couldn't get a D90, I'm so pleased with my current truck and what it does that I'd never trade it for a Defender. The Defender is very capable and certainly very cool, but again on those longer trips where you are covering a lot of ground and hauling a lot of gear, the disco is the ultimate ride in my eyes. Plenty of space, very comfortable, very capable and not too complicated. Here's to the Land Rover Discovery, the ultimate (in my eyes) long-range-offroader! | ||||||
| Jens Störmer (Jenzz) New Member Username: Jenzz Post Number: 31 Registered: 08-2002 |
>>Here's to the Land Rover Discovery, the ultimate (in my eyes) long-range-offroader!<< Jack, you are so right. By the way, I had the privilege to drive a CT-Disco at a german selection in 96, and yes these things are unbeaten regarding aura and character, but technically I prefer my own rig. | ||||||
| Peter Sharratt (Gummikuh) Member Username: Gummikuh Post Number: 122 Registered: 02-2003 |
Hi The thing about the CT was they showed what could be done with what was a standard vehicle. And as such only very few common sense alterations were made. You also have to remember that if you had such available manpower, nothing would stop you, they basically carried them through with there bare hands. Who needs lockers when there is maybe 20 other vehicles? And would you care about damage if you were driving a LR owned vehicle? They way they came back it was obvious they didn`t. Please don`t read this the wrong way, I also believe the Discovery 1 is the best "all round" 4WD and takes some beating when compared to the competition. There is a school of thought that advocates keeping things standard and simple, less to go wrong, but this IMO takes a little of the fun out of owning a LR, I love being different. All the best Pete S | ||||||
| Rob Davison (Nosivad_bor) Senior Member Username: Nosivad_bor Post Number: 373 Registered: 02-2003 |
yeah, when you have a one ten filled to the brim with spare parts following up behind you you can throw down the hammer and hang on. rd | ||||||
| Phillip Perkinson (Rover4x4) Member Username: Rover4x4 Post Number: 230 Registered: 02-2003 |
or a D-90 | ||||||
| Jack Quinlan (Jsq) Senior Member Username: Jsq Post Number: 306 Registered: 10-2002 |
I agree that a lot of what was achieved may have been through a certain willingness to "sacrifice" a sill or two, but at the same time I would guess that a lot of the more reckless attempts were in the interest of speed. Not being in a competition I bet you could complete a lot of the obstacles more cleanly with more patience. | ||||||
| Phillip Perkinson (Rover4x4) Member Username: Rover4x4 Post Number: 232 Registered: 02-2003 |
or just put the pedal down | ||||||
| Jens Störmer (Jenzz) New Member Username: Jenzz Post Number: 32 Registered: 08-2002 |
The problem (or maybe the strong point?) with CT was that many of the contestants had little or no wheeling experience before they came to the selections. The Trainers did a great job to teach them everything they needed to know before the competition, but hell, you know that you can't compensate years of experience with your own truck. So quite often "getting that damn bus through" was the goal, not picking the cleanest line uphill. In many other fields, those guys (and girls) were lightyears ahead of me. Many did Triathlon and that stuff, so they got just warmed up when I already died from exhaustion. | ||||||
| Max Thomason (Lrmax) Member Username: Lrmax Post Number: 160 Registered: 11-2002 |
A agree with many people here, the main thing the CT vehicles have over our vehicles is momentum. Example: There is a long, rutted, muddy hill climb with steep banks on either side which means you must follow in the two ruts that are established. There is also a large rock (like 1.5 feet in diameter) about 1/3 the way up. You would think, "OK, I'm going to take it easy as I go over that rock, then pour on the coals afterwards". A CT participant would think, "I'll just put it in 3rd and floor it. (Bonk), oh, there is the trailing link...." Also, would you like to take your discovery out on a 4,000 mile (was that how long they were) journey and come back with a destroyed truck? Thats what the CT vehicles are. Also, I think they used 130s as support vehicles. I remember some participants complaining about how hard it was to get those things through the mud. I don't doubt it either. Max T. I would LOVE to beat the crap out of someone elses car, and not get in trouble . | ||||||
| R. B. Bailey (Rover50987) Senior Member Username: Rover50987 Post Number: 568 Registered: 07-2002 |
Hey, I cheat and use the tire size calulator from EE.com to find the "english" tire size, but how do you guys know how tall a 7.5x16 tire is? It seems like there is some info missing if you want to know what the height is?? Couldn't they essentially be any height after being 7.5 inches wide, on a 16 inch rim? | ||||||
| Leslie N. Bright (Leslie) Senior Member Username: Leslie Post Number: 2221 Registered: 02-2002 |
That particular sizing method came about when most tires were bias-ply, not radials. Radial tires really hold their shape well, and can mave a certain tread-width, a variable sidewall height, etc. Bias-ply tires started more like the old "balloon" tires, that have a circular shape. Of course, once a vehicle is sitting on a tire, it would flatten out a bit, but, you should be able to visulaize it, kinda like a bare inner-tube. Well, tire design did progress, and later tires were no longer squishy circle, but, the sizing remained. A 6.5x16 versus a 7x16 versus a 7.5x16 versus an 8x16... in each case, the diameter of the tube is increasing. It's not exactly 7.5 inches across on a modern built tire, but that was the source of the original system. Most places, it's far easier just to order a 235/85R16 these days.... -L |
