How does your bus perform offroad? What have you done to improve its performance?

[o1marc]

Think seriously about how much off roading you plan. Off road and heavy treaded tires are hard on the drive train and fuel mileage. Everything has a tradeoff. Not to mention how noisy big tread tires are.

[Truthseeker4449]

Originally Posted by dzl_

I've noticed the tires marketed as "waste and recycling" or "waste hauler" look like the right amount of aggressive for me. But I'm not sure how they would do in terms of wear or long distance highway driving or in terms of MPG (they have pretty thick treads). tires marketed as "construction on and off road" seem to fit the bill as well and are a bit more varied in aggressiveness.

Those tires usually come with a 55 mph speed restriction. One of the joys of coaches is that when you have get tire shop to do a road call, they generally only have waste hauler tires in that size (305/80R22.5 iirc) in stock. Then you have to remove the tire when the coach gets back to the shop and figure out what to do with the brand new tire because it is basically useless on a coach that does 70mph+.

My bus has all-terrain tires on the rear, a standard setup for that county. They have a good chunk of backroads that justify the use. I think they suck a lot of fuel tho.... I'm barely getting 7 mpg

On my truck (pickup) I had a set of BFG All Terrains that I loved and seemed to be the right balance between on and offroad capability and traction and highway comfort. ideally I would like a bus tire that fills the same niche.

Those are excellent tires, some of the best tires money can get for a pickup. A very close and cheaper competitor is the General Grabber ATX, that I have on my pickup.

[dzl_]

(no way I'd want to wrestle that 200lb wheel/tire onto the roof).

Agreed, I cringe when I see spare tires mounted up top. In some cases its better than no spare at all, but the difficulty of getting it up and down from there, and the affect of having an extra 200-300lbs (when you account not just for the tire/wheel, but the weight of the roof structure needed to safely mount/secure a 200lb tire up there) mounted 10 feet up in the air would have on your buses center of gravity is enough to make me uncomfortable.

Originally Posted by o1marc

With as little room to build in a bus as is, there's hardly enough spare space to house a spare tire... A spare is not usually needed as you only need 4 wheels on the bus, and you have 6, 2 spares. Unless it's a front, yes, when a rear blows, you don't lose the whole corner.

All depends on how you use your bus, where you plan to take it, and what your priorities are.



I enjoy overland off highway travel, and in the overland community space and weight constraints are usually waaaaay more restrictive than with skoolies, but its still quite common for people to carry two fullsize spares in remote areas or on long trips (example a, example b, example c), and 1 fullsize mounted spare is seen as a bare minimum. Its a tradeoff in space and in weight, but if you travel to areas where cell service is non-existant, where AAA won't or can't go, or where the nearest tire shop is 100 miles of dirt road from you, it pays to be a little more self reliant. You may be able to limp to pavement with 3 of 4 rears but I wouldn't want to count on it.



I was in a remote valley in Northern Death valley a few weeks back and the group camped next to me had had to leave one of their vehicles on the side of the trail, 3-4 hours from the nearest paved road, after a rock tore through both passenger tire sidewalls. They were more prepared than most with a spare tire AND a patch kit but the patch couldn't be used because of the sidewall tear. Took 3 days (happened over veterans day weekend) for the tow truck to show up.


That said, if you drive 95% on highway and the other 5% you are on or close to pavement or graded gravel roads, and you have a AAA membership I can totally understand the decision to forego a spare and devote that space to something that better meets your needs. But its not a question of not having the space or weight capacity, just on what your priorities and needs are, and what tradeoffs you are willing to make. Things like woodstoves, butcherblock countertops, full baths, 2x4 framing and roof decks are far from space/weight efficient, but based on your priorities they may be worth it for you. I like the style and creature comforts of Skoolie builds and the self reliant, redundant, and purpose built nature of overland builds. I hope to combine aspects of both and arrive at something that fits me. Personally I would not feel comfortable without a mounted spare and the ability to put it on myself, but that is based on where I see myself going and my personal priorities. Different strokes for different folks

[dzl_]

Originally Posted by o1marc

Think seriously about how much off roading you plan. Off road and heavy treaded tires are hard on the drive train and fuel mileage. Everything has a tradeoff. Not to mention how noisy big tread tires are.

You are very correct, finding the proper tradeoff between offroad traction/durability and onroad manners and mpg is quite difficult, and its something I struggle with no matter what vehicle I own. Ideally I want something that is a good balance, usually these fall in the "all terrain" to less aggressive "mud terrain" categories for consumer vehicles, but it seems this niche isn't as well served in the commercial market.


I don't need anything super extreme, at best I anticipate 60/30/10 (Pavement/Dirt Road/Offroad) and in all likelihood it'll be closer to 80/15/5. But that final 5% or 10% are the places you generally really really would prefer not to be stuck. I believe the right "hybrid" tire for my needs is out there, its just a matter of finding it. Because I do agree with you that its a tradeoff and the knobbbier and beefier you go the more ride quality on road and MPG suffers. I am considering single rear wheels so that would counteract (and probably exceed any drivetrain stress and mpg loss from heavier tires) but I want to increase efficiency anywhere I can.


edit: and I would guess the 3 main factors affecting tire fuel economy (for a given diameter) would be (1) weight (2) amount of rubber on the road (3) tire stiffness (both in terms of PSI and type of rubber used). The first two should be easy to compare the third one probably a bit harder.

[EastCoastCB]

Originally Posted by dzl_

I am also curious to hear what specific model all-terrain or M&S tires people have had good experiences with and would recommend. Or what specific features people look for in steer or rear tires.


I've noticed the tires marketed as "waste and recycling" or "waste hauler" look like the right amount of aggressive for me. But I'm not sure how they would do in terms of wear or long distance highway driving or in terms of MPG (they have pretty thick treads). tires marketed as "construction on and off road" seem to fit the bill as well and are a bit more varied in aggressiveness.


On my truck (pickup) I had a set of BFG All Terrains that I loved and seemed to be the right balance between on and offroad capability and traction and highway comfort. ideally I would like a bus tire that fills the same niche.

Try Simple Tire. They have a big variety of open shoulder drive tires.
Probably the meatiest lugs I've seen on bus tires were some open shoulder Sailun brand at the local tire shop.
They're about $300 each installed.

[banman]

My bus has Michelin XDE M/S drive tires on it now -- but they are worn close to the legal limit -- but they also say (molded onto the sidewall) that they're regroovable -- is this a real thing? Do I wanna try that with 4 tires? It would be nice to save $1000 that's for sure!!!

I'm sure this is a good hwy tire as well as offering enough traction for not getting stuck in the grass...

As to economy -- You really have to figure how many miles you will actually be putting on your bus. If I only drive my bus 5000 miles a year and m/s tires cost me 1 or 2 mpg that's only a fuel cost increase of ~125 gal every 5000 miles. ONE tow charge will cost more than that... and how do you value the time lost...
(the above math is figuring a generous 10mpg dropping to 8mpg based on a pure hwy tire compared to a good M/S or A/T tire.)

I think tire noise is gonna be irrelevant -- I ain't gonna hear either tire over the engine & wind noise!

[PNW_Steve]

Originally Posted by dzl_

I am also curious to hear what specific model all-terrain or M&S tires people have had good experiences with and would recommend. Or what specific features people look for in steer or rear tires.


I've noticed the tires marketed as "waste and recycling" or "waste hauler" look like the right amount of aggressive for me. But I'm not sure how they would do in terms of wear or long distance highway driving or in terms of MPG (they have pretty thick treads). tires marketed as "construction on and off road" seem to fit the bill as well and are a bit more varied in aggressiveness.


On my truck (pickup) I had a set of BFG All Terrains that I loved and seemed to be the right balance between on and offroad capability and traction and highway comfort. ideally I would like a bus tire that fills the same niche.

I have looked at the waste hauler tires and wondered if you would see similar results to what I do on my trucks. I switched from a low resistance highway tread to an "all terrain". My fuel mileage dropped over 10% and they were loud. I moved out of snow country and went back to highway tread. Then I moved back to snow country and I have a 4 wheel drive truck that won't go in the snow.

I am not going to buy any more tires until I wear these out Then I either need mud and snow tread or move to Florida.

I am thinking that Florida may be the best option.

[TheHubbardBus]

Unfortunately, commercial tires aren't usually labeled as 'all-terrain'. The closest I see is 'mixed use' or 'on/off road', but those tires appear to be aimed primarily at construction / mining / lumber vehicles, which leads me to believe their emphasis is strongly off-road.

Perusing through the Bridgestone Commercial Tire Catalog (https://commercial.bridgestone.com/c...08-07-2018.pdf)...

I see a few long/regional use tires that have tread patterns which appear to strike a nice compromise. For instance, this looks like it would be a descent part-time light sand/dirt/gravel tire:

https://commercial.bridgestone.com/e...us/m760-ecopia

And this looks like it might do somewhat OK in light mud:

https://commercial.bridgestone.com/c...oductSheet.pdf

Originally Posted by banman

I think tire noise is gonna be irrelevant -- I ain't gonna hear either tire over the engine & wind noise!

Tire noise would be nothing compared to the profanity-infused tirade I'd likely go into getting my bus stuck in the boonies

[Ronnie]

Originally Posted by banman

My bus has Michelin XDE M/S drive tires on it now -- but they are worn close to the legal limit -- but they also say (molded onto the sidewall) that they're regroovable -- is this a real thing? Do I wanna try that with 4 tires? It would be nice to save $1000 that's for sure!!!

I'm sure this is a good hwy tire as well as offering enough traction for not getting stuck in the grass...

As to economy -- You really have to figure how many miles you will actually be putting on your bus. If I only drive my bus 5000 miles a year and m/s tires cost me 1 or 2 mpg that's only a fuel cost increase of ~125 gal every 5000 miles. ONE tow charge will cost more than that... and how do you value the time lost...
(the above math is figuring a generous 10mpg dropping to 8mpg based on a pure hwy tire compared to a good M/S or A/T tire.)

I think tire noise is gonna be irrelevant -- I ain't gonna hear either tire over the engine & wind noise!

Yes regroovable is a real thing, and I have done it on many tires. Two things about it first, you need to find to what depth it is safe to regroove, and if it is legal in your state if you have inspections to be concerned with.

[dzl_]

Originally Posted by TheHubbardBus

Unfortunately, commercial tires aren't usually labeled as 'all-terrain'. The closest I see is 'mixed use' or 'on/off road', but those tires appear to be aimed primarily at construction / mining / lumber vehicles, which leads me to believe their emphasis is strongly off-road.

Yeah, I came away with the same impression. I have come across 1 or 2 tires that are marketed for long haul, with the need for occasional offroad travel, but for the most part their doesn't seem to be much overlap between fuel efficient highway tires and semi-capable offroad tires. I would think there would be a market for them. I could imagine some tow trucks, emergency vehicles, oil field trucks and buses, and even long haul trucks operating in places like northern canada or alaska, would have a need for a tire that blends the benefits of an on and offroad tire.


As important to me as the additional traction of an 'all terrain' equivalent tire is the greater puncture resistance and sidewall protection of offroad oriented tires. I would probably be willing to sacrifice a little traction for a little fuel economy, but I would be worried about sidewall punctures offroad with strictly highway tires. Even the tires that are just meant for around town pickup and delivery need beefier sidewalls than the long haul rubber.



All three of the tires you seem like a somewhat decent compromise between on and offroad performance/efficiency. The Ecopia looks like the most road oriented and is designed to be fuel efficient (and is recognized as a fuel efficient tire by the EPA and California CARB). I'm not sure how well it would perform offroad though, the tread pattern is pretty tight, and apparently the 'closed shoulder' is good on highway and wears better but not ideal in town (or offroad). One thing worth noting about the Ecopia and I think all other "smartway certified" tires is that they use a specialized hard compound that improves MPG but is the opposite of what you generally want offroad.



I really like the look of the XDE M/S. It has the same tread depth as the Ecopia, but looks much better suited for light offroad applications. Michelin considers it an "All-purpose drive tire for regional/P&Dapplications." The next step up in aggressiveness would be the XDS, XDY, and X Works Ready [PDF].

[TheHubbardBus]

Originally Posted by dzl_

One thing worth noting about the Ecopia and I think all other "smartway certified" tires is that they use a specialized hard compound that improves MPG but is the opposite of what you generally want offroad.

Good point. I was looking exclusively at tread patterns that seemed to offer a compromise, but hadn't taken rubber compound into play. In our specific case, we can (and likely should) get away with slightly harder rubber compounds, due to our above average temps. But that's only here, and only part-time.

I really like the look of the XDE M/S. It has the same tread depth as the Ecopia, but looks much better suited for light offroad applications. Michelin considers it an "All-purpose drive tire for regional/P&Dapplications." The next step up in aggressiveness would be the XDS, XDY, and X Works Ready [PDF].

I'll look into those myself. Your concerns echo ours, & we're looking for something somewhat off-road capable. I appreciate this thread.

[dzl_]

Originally Posted by banman

My bus has Michelin XDE M/S drive tires on it now

Banman,

How do you like those tires? I was just looking at them, they seem like they would have pretty good traction, and Michelin markets them as "All purpose drive tires for regional/P&D" so I would imagine they are pretty decent on road tires with decent sidewall protection.

Originally Posted by PNW_Steve

I have looked at the waste hauler tires and wondered if you would see similar results to what I do on my trucks. I switched from a low resistance highway tread to an "all terrain". My fuel mileage dropped over 10% and they were loud.

PNW_Steve,
10% is no small number. This analysis from Fourwheeler.com and Michelin (read to the bottom for some more good data on efficiency, psi, rolling resistance, etc) shows about the same efficiency penalty (12-15% penalty changing from a highway LT tire to an aggressive AT/MT). I wish the difference wasn't so drastic. There is always a tradeoff I guess, more so with tires than with many things. The features that make a good fuel efficient highway tire are quite opposite from the features that make a decent offroad tire.



I am hoping I can find a 'hybrid' tire that has some of the ruggedness and better traction of an on/offroad tire with maybe only a <5% efficiency penalty.

[PNW_Steve]

Originally Posted by dzl_

Banman,

How do you like those tires? I was just looking at them, they seem like they would have pretty good traction, and Michelin markets them as "All purpose drive tires for regional/P&D" so I would imagine they are pretty decent on road tires with decent sidewall protection.





PNW_Steve,
10% is no small number. This analysis from Fourwheeler.com and Michelin (read to the bottom for some more good data on efficiency, psi, rolling resistance, etc) shows about the same efficiency penalty (12-15% penalty changing from a highway LT tire to an aggressive AT/MT). I wish the difference wasn't so drastic. There is always a tradeoff I guess, more so with tires than with many things. The features that make a good fuel efficient highway tire are quite opposite from the features that make a decent offroad tire.



I am hoping I can find a 'hybrid' tire that has some of the ruggedness and better traction of an on/offroad tire with maybe only a <5% efficiency penalty.

How you are going to use the bus will help you to decide tread pattern.

Have to run. i will finish later.

[banman]

Originally Posted by Ronnie

Yes regroovable is a real thing, and I have done it on many tires. Two things about it first, you need to find to what depth it is safe to regroove, and if it is legal in your state if you have inspections to be concerned with.

Cool. Meaning you paid to have it done, or you did it yourself?

If the latter is there a tool you recommend (specific brand of groover) for it?

[Ronnie]

Originally Posted by banman

Cool. Meaning you paid to have it done, or you did it yourself?

If the latter is there a tool you recommend (specific brand of groover) for it?

Did it myself. I don't have a brand to recommend, but there a number of them out there, Summit racing has them.

[banman]

Originally Posted by Ronnie

Did it myself. I don't have a brand to recommend, but there a number of them out there, Summit racing has them.

Any excuse to buy a new tool!

I'll have to read up on this groovin'.
Did you have your tires rebalanced afterwards -- any problems?

[Ronnie]

I did not rebalance, these were mostly slower local trucks, so just not a concern. If you are careful about maintaining the same depth you should be fine.I would take the bus for a test drive and see if it is smooth, if not get them balanced.

[dzl_]

I came across a handy tool on the Michelin website that lets you compare 'rolling resistance' (i.e. the primary factor in tire fuel economy) between different tires. It's super useful for comparing tires, and for analyzing how different tread depths or aggressiveness effect efficiency.


A couple takeaways. Tread depth can have a bigger impact than aggressiveness of tread. Tires designed for winter conditions had one of the biggest efficiency penalties. Aggressiveness was a factor but modestly aggressive tires with moderate tread depths did not have that much more rolling resistance than 'line haul' highway tires of similar tread depths.


Using the rolling resistance comparison tool, in conjunction with the tire reference guide or the much more extensive tire databook (pdf, 130 pages) is a good way to compare and research tires and find a tire that strikes the right balance for your needs.

[dzl_]

Originally Posted by TheHubbardBus

Unfortunately, commercial tires aren't usually labeled as 'all-terrain'. The closest I see is 'mixed use' or 'on/off road', but those tires appear to be aimed primarily at construction / mining / lumber vehicles, which leads me to believe their emphasis is strongly off-road.

I've been browsing through the Michelin Truck Tire Databook, and come across some useful information about their branding/product segmentation that sheds some light on this topic.


According to Michelin, their "X Works" line is intended for:

• 80% on-road, 20% off-road use
• Intended for: "heavy loads and slower speed, operating on a mixture of improved secondary and aggressive road surfaces"
• Mostly applicable to offroad use
• Warning: tire not intended for extended highway use or at speeds above its rated speed (50-65mph)

Whereas their more aggressive "X Force" line is intended for:

• 20% on-road, 80% off-road
• Intended for: "very heavy loads on poor or unimproved surfaces"
• Partially applicable to regional and urban use
• Warning: tire not intended for extended long term highway use or at speeds above its rated speed (usually 65-68 mph)

And their less aggressive "X Multi line: is intended for:

• "Regional Applications"
• Intended for: "medium to heavy loads, frequently on 2-lane secondary roads
• Partially applicable to long haul/highway, urban, and light on/offroad use

It sounds like the line that most fits how most people use their buses is the "X Multi" line. For some that do a lot of highway driving and a lot of parking and not much around town driving, backroads driving, wandering, or curb scraping, a "line haul" ("X Line" series) might make more sense. For others who are willing to sacrifice a little efficiency and maximum speed (or who have a DT360/AT545 combo ) for a stronger on/offroad tire, the "X Works" line might make more sense (or a tire that straddles "on/offroad" and "regional" designations).


All the info I posted here came from the MICHELIN Truck Tire Data Book (pages 9-10)

[BoggerBus]

Mine performs great off-road but its a cutaway and I built it specifically to haul us around off-road parks lol.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSIiegAa4HE