leadfoot067
1/2 ton status
anybody got the 39,s yet?? they seem awful cheep /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif..wondered if they are any good /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif
CK5
Register an account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members.
IROKS
- Thread starter leadfoot067
- Start date
Silver84k5
1/2 ton status
the price of them caught my eye too... im still waiting to hear how the perform.... but it seems like the tread is fairly shallow.
mudhog
THEGAME
i plan on getting the new 39.5x13x16's as my next set of tires /forums/images/graemlins/thumb.gif
Paxx
1/2 ton status
What is the price on em?
About 40 bones cheaper than TSL's (each)...but then again the IROK's have 6/32 less tread depth and are 2 inches narrower. I'm going with the TSL's myself.
Rene
Rene
mudhog
THEGAME
they have not listed a price for the 39.5x13x16in ones yet /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
mudhog
THEGAME
[ QUOTE ]
About 40 bones cheaper than TSL's (each)...but then again the IROK's have 6/32 less tread depth and are 2 inches narrower. I'm going with the TSL's myself.
Rene
[/ QUOTE ]
i would to but they dont offer anything bigger than a 38in tsl in 16in rim size and only a 38.5x11x16in bogger /forums/images/graemlins/angryfire.gif
About 40 bones cheaper than TSL's (each)...but then again the IROK's have 6/32 less tread depth and are 2 inches narrower. I'm going with the TSL's myself.
Rene
[/ QUOTE ]
i would to but they dont offer anything bigger than a 38in tsl in 16in rim size and only a 38.5x11x16in bogger /forums/images/graemlins/angryfire.gif
wayne
3/4 ton status
Here is what I have heard on them: They are to soft for a daily driver. They will ware out quick on the street. As far as traction they are great on the rocks. Have not heard much on how well they are in the mud.
yunit
1/2 ton status
Plus, I think the tread pattern is too open. I will be satisfied once I grove my 42's.
I've got the first set of 40's that came off the mold. I have one good wheeling trip on them and really can't form an opinion just yet, but heres what I learned so far.
They worked real good on muddy trails here in Missouri. There were several uphill climbs I did as well as theBigdaddyof2 with his comparable 40" swampers. I would have to say, they went everywhere his did. One noteable difference was the Irok seemed to clean out better in the sticky stuff without wheelspin. Prolly from the larger voids. Our trucks are so similar its a very even comparo. His 40"s appear wider, but are actually the same sectional width. Tread width is narrower on the Irok. Tread depth issue is a mute point in my book. Most of you drive around with tires with less tread than my new Irok's have and never complain of performance until they are bald. /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif It is important for tread life though - so I get your point. I did trails mostly with loose rock - so no accurate rock data at the moment either. All I can say is - I wheeled all weekend and did not even think about my tires. They performed perfectly and never let me down. With the scooped outer lugs, they <font color="brown">Fling Poo</font> nicely! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
I drive mine to and from the trails - mounted on beadlocks with zero balance weight. For being a Bias tire, they ride pretty good compared to my 38" TrXus Radials. They are lighter than comparable tires of size by at least 20 pounds. I dont have accurate data on weights - I was in too big of a hurry when installing them.
Scooped lugs:
So, in summary - If you want a tire that will go as good as a swamper in a lighter package, GO For it! /forums/images/graemlins/thumb.gif
They worked real good on muddy trails here in Missouri. There were several uphill climbs I did as well as theBigdaddyof2 with his comparable 40" swampers. I would have to say, they went everywhere his did. One noteable difference was the Irok seemed to clean out better in the sticky stuff without wheelspin. Prolly from the larger voids. Our trucks are so similar its a very even comparo. His 40"s appear wider, but are actually the same sectional width. Tread width is narrower on the Irok. Tread depth issue is a mute point in my book. Most of you drive around with tires with less tread than my new Irok's have and never complain of performance until they are bald. /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif It is important for tread life though - so I get your point. I did trails mostly with loose rock - so no accurate rock data at the moment either. All I can say is - I wheeled all weekend and did not even think about my tires. They performed perfectly and never let me down. With the scooped outer lugs, they <font color="brown">Fling Poo</font> nicely! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
I drive mine to and from the trails - mounted on beadlocks with zero balance weight. For being a Bias tire, they ride pretty good compared to my 38" TrXus Radials. They are lighter than comparable tires of size by at least 20 pounds. I dont have accurate data on weights - I was in too big of a hurry when installing them.
Scooped lugs:
So, in summary - If you want a tire that will go as good as a swamper in a lighter package, GO For it! /forums/images/graemlins/thumb.gif
[ QUOTE ]
i would to but they dont offer anything bigger than a 38in tsl in 16in rim size and only a 38.5x11x16in bogger
[/ QUOTE ]
So run 15's...it ain't a big deal. 16" is the absolute last rim size I'd ever run. No good sizes of anything available...
Rene
i would to but they dont offer anything bigger than a 38in tsl in 16in rim size and only a 38.5x11x16in bogger
[/ QUOTE ]
So run 15's...it ain't a big deal. 16" is the absolute last rim size I'd ever run. No good sizes of anything available...
Rene
leadfoot067
1/2 ton status
well i have 36sx swampers now...i went with the sx for the extra sidewall thickness..so it would seem reasonable to think with the irok lighter weight the sidewalls will be thinner?? and that i dont like /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif i already had to patch and tube one sidewall hole in my sx...
[ QUOTE ]
well i have 36sx swampers now...i went with the sx for the extra sidewall thickness..so it would seem reasonable to think with the irok lighter weight the sidewalls will be thinner?? and that i dont like /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif i already had to patch and tube one sidewall hole in my sx...
[/ QUOTE ]
That's an assumption - the sidewalls are as thick as any other Swamper. The IROK is a 6 and 8 ply rated tire where your SX is 4 and 6. So, it would be reasonable to assume your tire will cut easier than mine. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif Maybe, thats why you had to patch them.
well i have 36sx swampers now...i went with the sx for the extra sidewall thickness..so it would seem reasonable to think with the irok lighter weight the sidewalls will be thinner?? and that i dont like /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif i already had to patch and tube one sidewall hole in my sx...
[/ QUOTE ]
That's an assumption - the sidewalls are as thick as any other Swamper. The IROK is a 6 and 8 ply rated tire where your SX is 4 and 6. So, it would be reasonable to assume your tire will cut easier than mine. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif Maybe, thats why you had to patch them.
leadfoot067
1/2 ton status
yes it is an assumption...figured they had to take weight of from somewhere..i dunno guess i need to go check them out in person /forums/images/graemlins/thumb.gif
mudhog
THEGAME
ya but then i have to buy new rims /forums/images/graemlins/eek.gif /forums/images/graemlins/rotfl.gif /forums/images/graemlins/rotfl.gif
You could sell the old ones and not have to spend much at all. Rock Crawlers are pretty cheap.
Rene
Rene
sled_dog
1 ton status
I'd say they lost the weight in the less tread. THere are bigger gaps in between tread lugs vs a super swamper sx. I saw them first hand at Bloomsburg and the tread doesn't look too shallow in person like it does in pictures. I still look at pictures and say it looks like nothing but having seen it in person I know thats not true. They look like pretty much every used super swamper I've seen in my life, tread depth wise that is.
TrcksR4ME
1/2 ton status
I am assuming these were designed more for rocks than other types of wheeling? If so I would guess that there is less tread depth because rock crawler types dont run their tires until they are bald, don't they (heard this somewhere) get rid of them when the edges are rounded off?? Maybe this is wrong or f'd up info, but based on that you wouldn't need as much tread depth if you aren't gettin use out of it /forums/images/graemlins/thinking.gif
I just talked to Interco and found out some real good information concerning the tread depth.
This tire is a Primary Service Application meaning, its intended to be used for RockCrawling but of course, Interco seems to "grab" other terrain types when a new design is molded. It's like the Bogger - "the Bogger is like a Drag tire for Mud". By design, the Bogger is made for forward momentium in Mud and lateral traction is not of concern. It just worked out that these tires also worked in other types of terrain, but you still have to use "Common Sense" when using a tire in terrain other than what it was designed for. You would not dive into a mud pit with your all terrains and expect the same performance as a Bogger would you? Common sense tells me I would not get very far with low void, non cleaning tires in the goo.
Natually Interco progresses with each new design. The "borrow" the ideas that work from other designs in the past and adapt them to their new design. They also listen to the public, heres an example.
About the IROK and its shallower tread depth. Some of the competitors in the Rockcrawling world said they needed the "lightest tire available". Although Interco had a different philosophy on this design, you have to listen to these competitors - they usually know what they need. Where they saved weight? They created higher voids in the tread pattern. They also shallowed up the tread a bit. What did this do? It provided a lighter tire and the open voids allow the tread to grip and find traction better than a tire with lesser voids. Another way they saved weight all the while adding a traction aid - they added side wall lugs, but hollowed them out to save weight. The reason the larger lugs on the sidewalls are curved is so they grip rock better and hold onto it. A straight lug on the side, doesn't tend to grip a rock - they slide off.
Why are the IROK's cheaper than traditional Swampers? When you have higher voids and shallower tread depth, it also makes the price come down. Rubber costs just like a pound of hamburger. The more you get, the more it costs you.
This tire is a bias design, so you will not get that torque split like traditional radials either.
This is information from the source, so take it however you want. /forums/images/graemlins/thumb.gif
This tire is a Primary Service Application meaning, its intended to be used for RockCrawling but of course, Interco seems to "grab" other terrain types when a new design is molded. It's like the Bogger - "the Bogger is like a Drag tire for Mud". By design, the Bogger is made for forward momentium in Mud and lateral traction is not of concern. It just worked out that these tires also worked in other types of terrain, but you still have to use "Common Sense" when using a tire in terrain other than what it was designed for. You would not dive into a mud pit with your all terrains and expect the same performance as a Bogger would you? Common sense tells me I would not get very far with low void, non cleaning tires in the goo.
Natually Interco progresses with each new design. The "borrow" the ideas that work from other designs in the past and adapt them to their new design. They also listen to the public, heres an example.
About the IROK and its shallower tread depth. Some of the competitors in the Rockcrawling world said they needed the "lightest tire available". Although Interco had a different philosophy on this design, you have to listen to these competitors - they usually know what they need. Where they saved weight? They created higher voids in the tread pattern. They also shallowed up the tread a bit. What did this do? It provided a lighter tire and the open voids allow the tread to grip and find traction better than a tire with lesser voids. Another way they saved weight all the while adding a traction aid - they added side wall lugs, but hollowed them out to save weight. The reason the larger lugs on the sidewalls are curved is so they grip rock better and hold onto it. A straight lug on the side, doesn't tend to grip a rock - they slide off.
Why are the IROK's cheaper than traditional Swampers? When you have higher voids and shallower tread depth, it also makes the price come down. Rubber costs just like a pound of hamburger. The more you get, the more it costs you.
This tire is a bias design, so you will not get that torque split like traditional radials either.
This is information from the source, so take it however you want. /forums/images/graemlins/thumb.gif
Silver84k5
1/2 ton status
good info, Thx....
How soft are they compared to a bogger?
i assume with the less tread depth, these tires wont chunk as bad as boggers.
How soft are they compared to a bogger?
i assume with the less tread depth, these tires wont chunk as bad as boggers.
