I disagree that any extra stress would be on the front end components as long as the front tires could track properly. If anything, I'm thinking it might be more sturdy. Moving the anchor point out never weakened a structure. Convince me that I am wrong, I read this forum to learn. Yes, it is homely, and you would never find a fender to both cover them and let them turn. And yes, some punk as someone put it would drool over it, but weren't we all punks at some point? Or at least young? Just saying........
blt2ski wrote: I would rather have some 435-40-17's or some such size equal than duals! Same width, but better traction all around in ALL conditions.
Altho a kewl pic none the less.
Marty
I found a few real tires: Coker's Pro-Trac still has 515/45-15, at 32.8" diameter by 17.2" of tread width, OR Pirelli has a 385/35R24 at 34.6" diameter, that requires wheels 13-15" wide, rated to 2760# each.
Both are fully treaded for rain use, but the 515s are known to hydroplane like no dually ever has.
Why go small? Get some nice 445/65R22.5 super singles!
One could go with the SS tires, but at what 40 or so inches in diam, makes the bed of a pickup on the tall side of things. I was toying with a 32-33" diam tire that is also about 18-20" wide like a SS in a pickup size diam. The 445 part would work, the 65 part is probably a bit tall, and the 22.5 is way tall in the course of things. hence my approx size of a 435-40-17, which is of all things, 30.65" diam if I did the math correct, so a good size single Dual if you will for a pickup!
Marty
05 Chev CC D/A LS Dooley
92 Navistar dump truck, 7.3L 7 sp, 4.33 gears with a Detroit no spin
00 Chev C2500, V5700, 4L80E, 4.10, base truck, no options!
92 Red-e-haul 12K equipment trailer
3 Single axle utility trailers
blt2ski wrote: I would rather have some 435-40-17's or some such size equal than duals! Same width, but better traction all around in ALL conditions.
Altho a kewl pic none the less.
Marty
I found a few real tires: Coker's Pro-Trac still has 515/45-15, at 32.8" diameter by 17.2" of tread width, OR Pirelli has a 385/35R24 at 34.6" diameter, that requires wheels 13-15" wide, rated to 2760# each.
Both are fully treaded for rain use, but the 515s are known to hydroplane like no dually ever has.
Why go small? Get some nice 445/65R22.5 super singles!
John and Elizabeth (Liz), with 3 nutty cats
My beloved St. Bernard, Marm, lost him 1/2/12
Current rig:
1992 International Genesis school bus conversion
It is for those "Ranchers/Farmers" that have the ALL WHEEL drive Tractors!!!! You know the ones with Duallys all around. Have to keep up with the BEST and Latest.
Oh, someone will make fender extenders for it and keep that paint job in good shape.
Where there is a NEED there is a WAY!!!
Remember: It is never too late to have a happy childhood!
This would fill that need for many.
RUBY 2, 04' Born Free 24RB
37 CKSLS Cameo by Carriage
'08 Ford F450 Crew Cab 4x4 Dually 6.4Diesel
4.88 Gears AT, SCTLivewire
B&W Companion hitch
I'm a BSG'er!! Only 3 RULES:
Have a "B", Had a "B", or Want a "B"!!
bucky wrote: I disagree that any extra stress would be on the front end components as long as the front tires could track properly. If anything, I'm thinking it might be more sturdy. Moving the anchor point out never weakened a structure. Convince me that I am wrong, I read this forum to learn. Yes, it is homely, and you would never find a fender to both cover them and let them turn. And yes, some punk as someone put it would drool over it, but weren't we all punks at some point? Or at least young? Just saying........
With very basic engineering principles, or even just basic high school physics knowledge, you would know that increasing the distance at which a load is placed on a structure, increases the torque on that structure and thus the bending moment and fracturing stress of the material and connections of the structure.
Remember from HS, force x mass = acceleration, and from my C9-B Navy Loadmaster days, weight x arm (distance) = moment ( place and amount of effect). Exact same concept as why we move things around in the RV to affect the TV in different ways.
Mark, Cathy and Zoey (aka The Golden Missle)
2011 F350 CCSB 6.7 (aka Frosty)
2011 Cyclone 2812 (aka The Little Guy)
Lasher Sport ATH
Lasher Sport BTX
bucky wrote: I disagree that any extra stress would be on the front end components as long as the front tires could track properly. If anything, I'm thinking it might be more sturdy. Moving the anchor point out never weakened a structure. Convince me that I am wrong, I read this forum to learn. Yes, it is homely, and you would never find a fender to both cover them and let them turn. And yes, some punk as someone put it would drool over it, but weren't we all punks at some point? Or at least young? Just saying........
With very basic engineering principles, or even just basic high school physics knowledge, you would know that increasing the distance at which a load is placed on a structure, increases the torque on that structure and thus the bending moment and fracturing stress of the material and connections of the structure.
Yeah, the side loads placed on the front axle bearings alone from the outb'd tires can whip out a axle bearing in a hurry.
At best a great looking show/no go truck with a dual wheel front end setup like that.
"good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment" ............ Will Rogers
'03 2500 QC Dodge/Cummins HO 3.73 6 speed manual Jacobs Westach
'97 Park Avanue 28' 5er 11200 gvwr two slides
Offline
