I put on my 22.5's!!!!
05-29-2006, 11:01 PM
#77
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, Pa. & Columbus, OH.
Posts: 3,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BigDan
Looks awsome, I just may make the worlds first Quad cab short bed dulley with 22.5's.
I just saw your RA bumpers for sale on Ebay, what gives?????
I just saw your RA bumpers for sale on Ebay, what gives?????
And go for it!! We need more 22.5 guys!
08-06-2006, 05:17 PM
#78
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas,Texas
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice truck. What back spacing did you end up running? I bought a set of 22.5 wheels and tires from Chromewheel in Houston and for some odd reason they won't work. I can't get the guy to call me back to make the sale right. So I am going to just show up and make him fix it! I am running a bigger tire then the ones you are would that matter? I have a 6 inch lift and a 3 inch body on my truck.The truck is parked at the off road shop where I had all the work done looks kinda of funny with 9 inch lift and the stock wheels. My truck is also a 06 drw thanks for the help
08-07-2006, 09:11 AM
#79
Well, I thougth my favorite thread had disappeared So, I guess I have to make one more analogy on the fuel savings. I play baseball, been clocked in the upper 80's, have touched 90 on the radar. So, all things considered, my arm strength is is considered above average.
Let's compare my right arm to the CTD engine.
If I take a golf ball and a baseball, and throw both, which is going to go further? Golf ball, why? Less mass!!!!! Same with the dang stock rims and tires over your 22.5s!!!!!!!!!
Even take a bowling ball for that matter, and throw/roll a 8 LB down the alley, and take a 12 LB ball and see which is harder to accellerate/harder to control/gets there faster. The smaller ball, because of LESS MASS!!!!! There is a tradeoff with your taller tire/less RPMS per mile over mass, and this case, as heavy as your wheeels tires and adapters are, they are offsetting any gain of the less RPM theory. And if you think that in 25K miles your rims tires will have been paid off in fuel savings, your math is horrible.
I wish this thread would have been about how cool the rims look , how right the truck looks and such, and THEN I could have enjoyed it. But when someone starts babbling about how much fuel they are going to save in this situation, is down right ridiculous. Oh yeah, can't wait for you to haul that big car hauler you have with your new setup, you will REALLY love the lower gearing you have 
So, I guess I have to make one more analogy on the fuel savings. I play baseball, been clocked in the upper 80's, have touched 90 on the radar. So, all things considered, my arm strength is is considered above average.Let's compare my right arm to the CTD engine.
If I take a golf ball and a baseball, and throw both, which is going to go further? Golf ball, why? Less mass!!!!! Same with the dang stock rims and tires over your 22.5s!!!!!!!!!
Even take a bowling ball for that matter, and throw/roll a 8 LB down the alley, and take a 12 LB ball and see which is harder to accellerate/harder to control/gets there faster. The smaller ball, because of LESS MASS!!!!! There is a tradeoff with your taller tire/less RPMS per mile over mass, and this case, as heavy as your wheeels tires and adapters are, they are offsetting any gain of the less RPM theory. And if you think that in 25K miles your rims tires will have been paid off in fuel savings, your math is horrible.
I wish this thread would have been about how cool the rims look , how right the truck looks and such, and THEN I could have enjoyed it. But when someone starts babbling about how much fuel they are going to save in this situation, is down right ridiculous. Oh yeah, can't wait for you to haul that big car hauler you have with your new setup, you will REALLY love the lower gearing you have
08-07-2006, 09:24 AM
#80
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 2,534
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SSminnow
Well, I thougth my favorite thread had disappeared So, I guess I have to make one more analogy on the fuel savings. I play baseball, been clocked in the upper 80's, have touched 90 on the radar. So, all things considered, my arm strength is is considered above average.
Let's compare my right arm to the CTD engine.
If I take a golf ball and a baseball, and throw both, which is going to go further? Golf ball, why? Less mass!!!!! Same with the dang stock rims and tires over your 22.5s!!!!!!!!!
Even take a bowling ball for that matter, and throw/roll a 8 LB down the alley, and take a 12 LB ball and see which is harder to accellerate/harder to control/gets there faster. The smaller ball, because of LESS MASS!!!!! There is a tradeoff with your taller tire/less RPMS per mile over mass, and this case, as heavy as your wheeels tires and adapters are, they are offsetting any gain of the less RPM theory. And if you think that in 25K miles your rims tires will have been paid off in fuel savings, your math is horrible.
I wish this thread would have been about how cool the rims look , how right the truck looks and such, and THEN I could have enjoyed it. But when someone starts babbling about how much fuel they are going to save in this situation, is down right ridiculous. Oh yeah, can't wait for you to haul that big car hauler you have with your new setup, you will REALLY love the lower gearing you have
So, I guess I have to make one more analogy on the fuel savings. I play baseball, been clocked in the upper 80's, have touched 90 on the radar. So, all things considered, my arm strength is is considered above average.Let's compare my right arm to the CTD engine.
If I take a golf ball and a baseball, and throw both, which is going to go further? Golf ball, why? Less mass!!!!! Same with the dang stock rims and tires over your 22.5s!!!!!!!!!
Even take a bowling ball for that matter, and throw/roll a 8 LB down the alley, and take a 12 LB ball and see which is harder to accellerate/harder to control/gets there faster. The smaller ball, because of LESS MASS!!!!! There is a tradeoff with your taller tire/less RPMS per mile over mass, and this case, as heavy as your wheeels tires and adapters are, they are offsetting any gain of the less RPM theory. And if you think that in 25K miles your rims tires will have been paid off in fuel savings, your math is horrible.
I wish this thread would have been about how cool the rims look , how right the truck looks and such, and THEN I could have enjoyed it. But when someone starts babbling about how much fuel they are going to save in this situation, is down right ridiculous. Oh yeah, can't wait for you to haul that big car hauler you have with your new setup, you will REALLY love the lower gearing you have
08-07-2006, 09:33 AM
#81
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Crosby, TEXAS
Posts: 540
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Diesel_Dan
I can see your point if the main amt of driving was around town...but on the Hwy at Speed....that mass will keep the tires rolling….A Gyroscopic effect if you will.. ..so at speed, the only real disadvantage is wind resistance.......Yes it takes more effort to get them rolling, but once there, it takes less effort to maintain speed. Thus a fuel saving could be noted…. Those of you with a Physic degree, am I way off base here?
08-07-2006, 10:31 AM
#82
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Boise, Idaho
Posts: 5,540
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are correct...once in motion...stay in motion applys here. The penalties are felt during accel/decel/increased drag (due to height).
I manage to get the same mileage now as I did when my truck was stock...go figure! LOL
I manage to get the same mileage now as I did when my truck was stock...go figure! LOL
08-07-2006, 11:27 AM
#83
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Fontana, CA
Posts: 5,776
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's Newton's 1st Law of Motion:
Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.
Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.
08-07-2006, 02:53 PM
#88
Registered User
taller, heavier, and wider tires are always going to require more engery. It is true that during accelerations and decellerations, the effects will be greater, but under a constant speed, there still lies a certain quantity of work required to keep the tires at speed, and that work comes from your diesel tank! If any savings are found, its from the effective gearing ratio - not from having heavy *** tires. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine.
08-07-2006, 03:02 PM
#89
Registered User
Originally Posted by Diesel_Dan
I can see your point if the main amt of driving was around town...but on the Hwy at Speed....that mass will keep the tires rolling….A Gyroscopic effect if you will.. ..so at speed, the only real disadvantage is wind resistance.......Yes it takes more effort to get them rolling, but once there, it takes less effort to maintain speed. Thus a fuel saving could be noted…. Those of you with a Physic degree, am I way off base here?
but at any rate - your theory is easily proven wrong in this simple instance. your truck weighs in at lets say 7500lbs. So under your theory - if we bump the weight up to 8500lbs via tractor weights that will have no wind resistance in the bed, she will get better fuel economy once at speed b/c its got a new found increased inertia? Yea, I dont think so either.
08-07-2006, 04:11 PM
#90
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Crosby, TEXAS
Posts: 540
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 2-Stroke
Yes, you are off base abit. For the record, I did earn a B.S. in Physics back in 04...
but at any rate - your theory is easily proven wrong in this simple instance. your truck weighs in at lets say 7500lbs. So under your theory - if we bump the weight up to 8500lbs via tractor weights that will have no wind resistance in the bed, she will get better fuel economy once at speed b/c its got a new found increased inertia? Yea, I dont think so either.
but at any rate - your theory is easily proven wrong in this simple instance. your truck weighs in at lets say 7500lbs. So under your theory - if we bump the weight up to 8500lbs via tractor weights that will have no wind resistance in the bed, she will get better fuel economy once at speed b/c its got a new found increased inertia? Yea, I dont think so either.
