Bar Grip vs "MT" or "AT"

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
S

Steve Taylor

Guest
I am looking to replace my 101 Bargrips with new tyres, and its occurred
to me just, not having driven a 4x4 apart from a 101, what IS a bargrip
like compared to say, the MT or AT designation or this ratio of
offroadness/onroadness ? Now I know that the scariest rubber incident I
have ever experienced was... Anyway, wet bar grips are pretty scary too.
So, what does the team think ?

Steve
 
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 22:30:55 +0000, Steve Taylor
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I am looking to replace my 101 Bargrips with new tyres, and its occurred
>to me just, not having driven a 4x4 apart from a 101, what IS a bargrip
>like compared to say, the MT or AT designation or this ratio of
>offroadness/onroadness ? Now I know that the scariest rubber incident I
>have ever experienced was... Anyway, wet bar grips are pretty scary too.
>So, what does the team think ?
>

I can honestly say that bargrips are worse than any MT i've ever had
on a landrover. And MT's can be pretty dire on-road anyway...

Alex
 
Steve Taylor wrote:
> I am looking to replace my 101 Bargrips with new tyres, and its occurred
> to me just, not having driven a 4x4 apart from a 101, what IS a bargrip
> like compared to say, the MT or AT designation or this ratio of
> offroadness/onroadness ? Now I know that the scariest rubber incident I
> have ever experienced was... Anyway, wet bar grips are pretty scary too.
> So, what does the team think ?
>
> Steve

Barslicks have to be just about the scariest tyre I have ever driven
on, waltzing in a 101 is not good for the heart. Currently running on
Continentals which are a lot better (bargrips with grooves).

Did a fair amount of investigating when I was looking for tyres about
5 years ago, choice was very limited - Petlas (not much better than
tractor tyres) or a limited choice of radials that were generally 2"
smaller in diameter. Was lucky enough to fall over several sets of
Continentals which most of the group run on plus a mate found a set of
XCLs at a bargain price.

I believe the choice is much better now but still a bit restrictive in
16" rims, matching the original rolling radius is a bit of a problem.
You could go the Martyn Bailey route and get some 15" Mach 5 rims and
go for the full Icelandic look! (15" rims and the tyre world is your
bivalve mollusc!!) Graham Holding had some 255/100R16s which looked
rather nice but was scared to ask the price!!

Sean
73FL74 101GS
1984 110 2.5NA
Medway Military Vehicle Group
www.mmvg.net

 
Graham Holding had some 255/100R16s which looked
> rather nice but was scared to ask the price!!

Thats what I'll fit, if I ever get the money. Ditto regarding those of
Graham's ;-)
--
Graham

101 GS
101 Radio Body


 
In message <[email protected]>, Steve Taylor
<[email protected]> writes
>I am looking to replace my 101 Bargrips with new tyres, and its
>occurred to me just, not having driven a 4x4 apart from a 101, what IS
>a bargrip like compared to say, the MT or AT designation or this ratio
>of offroadness/onroadness ? Now I know that the scariest rubber
>incident I have ever experienced was... Anyway, wet bar grips are
>pretty scary too. So, what does the team think ?
>
>Steve


There is no comparison between Bar grips and a good quality MT.

Bar grips are scary and out of the ark.

Because I am a BFG agent I run MT's on my TD5 110, I don't really need
them but it is good for promoting he brand :) The only thing I notice
is a slight noise at 70 (not an issue in a 101) and you do have to
drive like a real tool to notice any loss of grip on tarmac.
--
Marc Draper
 

"Marc Draper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In message <[email protected]>, Steve Taylor
> <[email protected]> writes
> >I am looking to replace my 101 Bargrips with new tyres, and its
> >occurred to me just, not having driven a 4x4 apart from a 101, what IS
> >a bargrip like compared to say, the MT or AT designation or this ratio
> >of offroadness/onroadness ? Now I know that the scariest rubber
> >incident I have ever experienced was... Anyway, wet bar grips are
> >pretty scary too. So, what does the team think ?

I had bargrips on the front of my 109. They were a little slippy on road but
offroad were totally unbeatable. I came through some almost liquid mud 3
feet deep leaving a trail that was diff and exhaust pipe shaped. I was well
ready to call my farmer friend out with his tractor but she sailed though it
all with a little fishtailing of the back end. Unbelieveable grip.
TonyB


 
On or around Sat, 4 Feb 2006 13:53:07 +0000, Marc Draper
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>Because I am a BFG agent I run MT's on my TD5 110, I don't really need
>them but it is good for promoting he brand :) The only thing I notice
>is a slight noise at 70 (not an issue in a 101) and you do have to
>drive like a real tool to notice any loss of grip on tarmac.

do they come in a 900x16-equivalent size, though?
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"The breezy call of incense-breathing Morn, The swallow twittering
from the strawbuilt shed, The cock's shrill clarion, or the echoing
horn, No more shall rouse them from their lowly bed."
Thomas Gray, Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard.
 
On or around Sat, 4 Feb 2006 18:52:26 +0000 (UTC), "TonyB"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>
>"Marc Draper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In message <[email protected]>, Steve Taylor
>> <[email protected]> writes
>> >I am looking to replace my 101 Bargrips with new tyres, and its
>> >occurred to me just, not having driven a 4x4 apart from a 101, what IS
>> >a bargrip like compared to say, the MT or AT designation or this ratio
>> >of offroadness/onroadness ? Now I know that the scariest rubber
>> >incident I have ever experienced was... Anyway, wet bar grips are
>> >pretty scary too. So, what does the team think ?
>
>I had bargrips on the front of my 109. They were a little slippy on road but
>offroad were totally unbeatable. I came through some almost liquid mud 3
>feet deep leaving a trail that was diff and exhaust pipe shaped. I was well
>ready to call my farmer friend out with his tractor but she sailed though it
>all with a little fishtailing of the back end. Unbelieveable grip.

similar comments used to be made about SATs, which are also reckoned to be
lacking in road grip.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"The breezy call of incense-breathing Morn, The swallow twittering
from the strawbuilt shed, The cock's shrill clarion, or the echoing
horn, No more shall rouse them from their lowly bed."
Thomas Gray, Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard.
 
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 08:57:59 +0000, Austin Shackles
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On or around Sat, 4 Feb 2006 18:52:26 +0000 (UTC), "TonyB"
><[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>>
>>"Marc Draper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> In message <[email protected]>, Steve Taylor
>>> <[email protected]> writes
>>> >I am looking to replace my 101 Bargrips with new tyres, and its
>>> >occurred to me just, not having driven a 4x4 apart from a 101, what IS
>>> >a bargrip like compared to say, the MT or AT designation or this ratio
>>> >of offroadness/onroadness ? Now I know that the scariest rubber
>>> >incident I have ever experienced was... Anyway, wet bar grips are
>>> >pretty scary too. So, what does the team think ?
>>
>>I had bargrips on the front of my 109. They were a little slippy on road but
>>offroad were totally unbeatable. I came through some almost liquid mud 3
>>feet deep leaving a trail that was diff and exhaust pipe shaped. I was well
>>ready to call my farmer friend out with his tractor but she sailed though it
>>all with a little fishtailing of the back end. Unbelieveable grip.
>
>similar comments used to be made about SATs, which are also reckoned to be
>lacking in road grip.

I've got General SAG's on my SWB, which is about the same as a SAT -
they're a deep lugged MT, but they don't give me trouble on-road.
Frankly I get more grip from them than from the Goodyear AT's on the
other one.

Alex
 
In message <[email protected]>
Alex <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 08:57:59 +0000, Austin Shackles
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On or around Sat, 4 Feb 2006 18:52:26 +0000 (UTC), "TonyB"
> ><[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
> >
> >>
> >>"Marc Draper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]...
> >>> In message <[email protected]>, Steve Taylor
> >>> <[email protected]> writes
> >>> >I am looking to replace my 101 Bargrips with new tyres, and its
> >>> >occurred to me just, not having driven a 4x4 apart from a 101, what IS
> >>> >a bargrip like compared to say, the MT or AT designation or this ratio
> >>> >of offroadness/onroadness ? Now I know that the scariest rubber
> >>> >incident I have ever experienced was... Anyway, wet bar grips are
> >>> >pretty scary too. So, what does the team think ?
> >>
> >>I had bargrips on the front of my 109. They were a little slippy on road but
> >>offroad were totally unbeatable. I came through some almost liquid mud 3
> >>feet deep leaving a trail that was diff and exhaust pipe shaped. I was well
> >>ready to call my farmer friend out with his tractor but she sailed though it
> >>all with a little fishtailing of the back end. Unbelieveable grip.
> >
> >similar comments used to be made about SATs, which are also reckoned to be
> >lacking in road grip.
>
> I've got General SAG's on my SWB, which is about the same as a SAT -
> they're a deep lugged MT, but they don't give me trouble on-road.
> Frankly I get more grip from them than from the Goodyear AT's on the
> other one.
>
> Alex

SAT's ahhhhhhhh! I still have a set for the SII if I ever manage to
get back into trialling. They are my off-road tyre of choice, their
only vice being a tendancy to slip on side slopes - and they are
crap when revesing. I used to use then on the road for my 109 as well,
and didn't have any problems to speak of (though I had just come off
Michelin XCLs - *very* interesting in the wet!).

I wouldn't reccomend SAT's coil sprung motors though for every-day use,
not least as the one's I have are cross-ply and their use is deprocated
by LR.

My last set of tyres on the 110 were General SAG's (Radials - the
cross-ply version has an entirely different tread) - they looked
like they should perform as per SAT's, but they didn't - they really
weren't very good off-road, and on road they were marginal and wore
out rather quickly.

I'm currently back on Rangemasters after excursions into all sort of other
tyres - halelujah! Excellent on road and very much good enough off -
though I think the 8 ply sidewalls would have been a better choice than
12 ply I have off-road, they tend to do a Michellin (not "fold" round
rocks etc leading to embarassing moments).

Richard

--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
Running a business in a Microsoft free environment - it can be done
Powered by Risc-OS - you won't get a virus from us!!
Boycott the Yorkshire Dales - No Play, No Pay
 

>>
>> I've got General SAG's on my SWB, which is about the same as a SAT -
>> they're a deep lugged MT, but they don't give me trouble on-road.
>> Frankly I get more grip from them than from the Goodyear AT's on the
>> other one.
>>
>> Alex
>
>SAT's ahhhhhhhh! I still have a set for the SII if I ever manage to
>get back into trialling. They are my off-road tyre of choice, their
>only vice being a tendancy to slip on side slopes - and they are
>crap when revesing. I used to use then on the road for my 109 as well,
>and didn't have any problems to speak of (though I had just come off
>Michelin XCLs - *very* interesting in the wet!).
>
>I wouldn't reccomend SAT's coil sprung motors though for every-day use,
>not least as the one's I have are cross-ply and their use is deprocated
>by LR.

Indeed, coil-sprung motors weren't designed for X-ply. Althouth I find
it makes little difference on a Series if you have radials or X-ply.

>
>My last set of tyres on the 110 were General SAG's (Radials - the
>cross-ply version has an entirely different tread) - they looked
>like they should perform as per SAT's, but they didn't - they really
>weren't very good off-road, and on road they were marginal and wore
>out rather quickly.

I have the SAG X-ply's on my SWB 88", i didn't know the radials were a
different patterd. They're coming up for replacement shortly and I'd
love to get another set, but people give me bemused expressions when I
ask, are they out of production? One tyre guy did suggest some Chinese
tyres marked "Security", which are obviously a cheapo, but the tread
is nearly identical to the SAG X-ply. Still, I rekon i've got 3-4K
left in the SAGS, which means i'll be getting about 15K from a set,
which is not bad for mainly road work.

Alex


 
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 08:57:06 +0000, Austin Shackles
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On or around Sat, 4 Feb 2006 13:53:07 +0000, Marc Draper
><[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>>Because I am a BFG agent I run MT's on my TD5 110, I don't really need
>>them but it is good for promoting he brand :) The only thing I notice
>>is a slight noise at 70 (not an issue in a 101) and you do have to
>>drive like a real tool to notice any loss of grip on tarmac.
>
>do they come in a 900x16-equivalent size, though?

Like i've said before - 255/85r16 is as close as it seems you can get
in more common sizes. Craddocks sell BFG MT's in this size i think
too.
255/85 gives you 8.5inch high sidewalls by my calculations, so you
will loose an inch over the whole tyre assuming that the old 9.00x16
bargrips are the exactl correct size to start with.
Ive seem mention of some 100 profile ones that were a closer match
(235/100 or 230/100 i think) - but ive not found anywhere that sell
them.
 
Tom Woods wrote:

> Like i've said before - 255/85r16 is as close as it seems you can get
> in more common sizes. Craddocks sell BFG MT's in this size i think
> too.
> 255/85 gives you 8.5inch high sidewalls by my calculations, so you
> will loose an inch over the whole tyre assuming that the old 9.00x16
> bargrips are the exactl correct size to start with.
> Ive seem mention of some 100 profile ones that were a closer match
> (235/100 or 230/100 i think) - but ive not found anywhere that sell
> them.

Hi Tom,
Just been offered 285/75R16 - rolling diameter would be 33" Diameter.
340 quid for 5 delivered.

http://www.tyresdirectuk.co.uk/xcart/customer/product.php?productid=5445&cat=14&page=1



What do you reckon ?

Steve
 
In message <[email protected]>, Tom Woods
<[email protected]> writes
>>do they come in a 900x16-equivalent size, though?
>
>255/85r16 is as close as it seems you can get
>in more common sizes.


You beat me to it.

Yes the BFG MT is available in 255/85R16 sold a set today.
--
Marc
 
Marc Draper wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>, Tom Woods
> <[email protected]> writes
>>> do they come in a 900x16-equivalent size, though?
>>
>> 255/85r16 is as close as it seems you can get
>> in more common sizes.
>
>
> You beat me to it.
>
> Yes the BFG MT is available in 255/85R16 sold a set today.

How much ?

Steve
 
On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 13:10:09 +0000, Steve Taylor
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Tom Woods wrote:
>
>> Like i've said before - 255/85r16 is as close as it seems you can get
>> in more common sizes. Craddocks sell BFG MT's in this size i think
>> too.
>> 255/85 gives you 8.5inch high sidewalls by my calculations, so you
>> will loose an inch over the whole tyre assuming that the old 9.00x16
>> bargrips are the exactl correct size to start with.
>> Ive seem mention of some 100 profile ones that were a closer match
>> (235/100 or 230/100 i think) - but ive not found anywhere that sell
>> them.
>
>Hi Tom,
>Just been offered 285/75R16 - rolling diameter would be 33" Diameter.
>340 quid for 5 delivered.
>
>http://www.tyresdirectuk.co.uk/xcart/customer/product.php?productid=5445&cat=14&page=1
>
>
>
>What do you reckon ?

Hmm. They sound like they would fit.. Only one way to find out ;)

Remember that they will be over 11" wide too which may make the
steering even heavier!

diameter would be more like 32.5" by my reckoning. I've no idea what
loosing another half inch would do to things - I have seen a table
with tyre size effects on 101 gear rations, but dont know where to
find it again now.
Can anybody tell me what i need to put in and i can draw it up in a
spreadsheet or something.
 
On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 13:16:59 +0000, Steve Taylor
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Marc Draper wrote:
>> In message <[email protected]>, Tom Woods
>> <[email protected]> writes
>>>> do they come in a 900x16-equivalent size, though?
>>>
>>> 255/85r16 is as close as it seems you can get
>>> in more common sizes.
>>
>>
>> You beat me to it.
>>
>> Yes the BFG MT is available in 255/85R16 sold a set today.
>
>How much ?

and do you have a web site Marc?

>Steve

 
Tom Woods wrote:
> Hmm. They sound like they would fit.. Only one way to find out ;)

I was afraid you'd say that...
>
> Remember that they will be over 11" wide too which may make the
> steering even heavier!
Power steering on Bob.
>
> diameter would be more like 32.5" by my reckoning.
I got nearer 39. How did you do it ?

>I've no idea what
> loosing another half inch would do to things - I have seen a table
> with tyre size effects on 101 gear rations, but dont know where to
> find it again now.
> Can anybody tell me what i need to put in and i can draw it up in a
> spreadsheet or something.

Rich Clafton did it didn't he ?

Steve
 
On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 17:19:57 +0000, Steve Taylor
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Tom Woods wrote:
>> Hmm. They sound like they would fit.. Only one way to find out ;)
>
>I was afraid you'd say that...
>>
>> Remember that they will be over 11" wide too which may make the
>> steering even heavier!
>Power steering on Bob.
>>
>> diameter would be more like 32.5" by my reckoning.
>I got nearer 39. How did you do it ?

modern tyre size is written as:
(width)/(height as percantage of width) r (diameter of wheel)

so for 285/75 r 16

width = 285 (or 11.2")
height =75% of 285 = 213.75 (or 8.4")
wheel = 16"

This gives the overall diameter as 8.4"+8.4"+16" = 32.8"

A bargrip is size 9.00x16. This style tyre has the height as 100% of
the width. which means that it has:

width = 9" (228.6mm)
height= 9"
wheel = 16

which is 34" total. A bargrip would be around 225/100r16 to 230/100r16
in new numbers.

The tyre i was looking at, 255/85r16 would be

width = 255 = 10"
height = 85% of 255 = 216.75 = 8.5"
wheel = 16

so total = 33

Hope that makes it clearer!





>>I've no idea what
>> loosing another half inch would do to things - I have seen a table
>> with tyre size effects on 101 gear rations, but dont know where to
>> find it again now.
>> Can anybody tell me what i need to put in and i can draw it up in a
>> spreadsheet or something.
>
>Rich Clafton did it didn't he ?
>
>Steve

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top