![]() |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Also, the 9.25-16 sizing seems to only be a uniquely Canadian idea. English-made tyres (WW2 production) for 5 degree bead seat are designated "9.00-16 for American Wheels".
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I believe the 9-25 X 16 was also used on British Humbers , the 4X4 FFW PU and the Box ?
I tend to agree with Rick, the 9-25's had a lower profile ( nothing to do with brands ) and this low profile was a deliberate design spec. .
__________________
1940 cab 11 C8 1940 Morris-Commercial PU 1941 Morris-Commercial CS8 1940 Chev. 15cwt GS Van ( Aust.) 1942-45 Jeep salad |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hi
This is interesting considering we were all feed the line over the years that the Allies won because they standardised everything and the Axis lost because they could stop inventing and re-inventing things. And yet here we are with two tyres which on the surface would seem too close to one another i.e 9.00 and 9.25 to bother with, yet they did it and produced both. Can't imagine in the heat of battle and looking for a spare tyre I'd have been too choosie!, not like I'm going to be stopped for a roadworthy as I'm rushing forward from El Amein or worst back from Tobruk!! |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quite correct, and the Humber Scout Car was also on Runflat 9.25-16 tyres. I have driven a Humber Scout on 9.00-16 and it is considerably more high geared due to the increased circumference. Especially awkward when trying to get it up on the neck of a low loader semi-trailer.
__________________
Richard 1943 Bedford QLD lorry - 1941 BSA WM20 m/cycle - 1943 Daimler Scout Car Mk2 Member of MVT, IMPS, MVG of NSW, KVE and AMVCS KVE President & KVE News Editor |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hi
So what was the reason for 9.25 x 16 versus 9.00 x 16 surely when they were trying to keep rubber use to a minimum one tyre would have been easier to produce, Was it something to do with weight carrying capacity, they were both off road tyres right, so there would have been no need for different performance characteristics surely. Was it something to do with the 'run flat' requirement on armoured cars etc. regards Matt |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
It is amazing what turns up sometimes. This is a copy of a photo in an article in the latest Classic Military Vehicle magazine about the Morris Light Reconnaissance car.
It is the contract card for an order for Mark 1 cars and shows the tyre size required. - Tyres. 9.25-16R.F. img141.jpg So here we have another vehicle which used the 9.25 x 16 tyre. Regards Rick.
__________________
1916 Albion A10 1942 White Scoutcar 1940 Chev Staff Car 1940 F30S Cab11 1940 Chev WA LRDG "Te Hai" 1941 F60L Cab12 1943 Ford Lynx 1942 Bren Gun Carrier VR no.2250 Humber FV1601A Saracen Mk1(?) 25pdr. 1940 Weir No.266 25pdr. Australian Short No.185 (?) KVE Member. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hi Rick
Still begs the question Why, what was so different in the technical specs between a 9.00 and 9.25 tyre. Matt |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Whilst whetting me appetite on the tyre history does any of you knowledgeable people have any idea or intel on a source for 10.5 x 16s as will be needing a set soon
Regards Gary |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
9.00-16 Tyres...... | Monkey Man | Post-war Military Vehicles | 3 | 07-03-13 12:20 |
12:00-20 tyres | Harry Moon | The Restoration Forum | 6 | 14-12-12 06:25 |
10.00 X 20 tyres | Robin Craig | Post-war Military Vehicles | 5 | 12-11-12 14:47 |
900 x 13 Tyres | Lynx45 | The Gun Park | 15 | 07-09-07 03:32 |
Want some tyres?? | Bill Murray | The Softskin Forum | 10 | 13-02-06 10:58 |