super singles

[1-Up trucker]

are they worth the cost in fuel savings?

can someone who has actually used them explain to me how they give less traction than conventional duallies?

i understand the rim itself is made of aluminum which is lighter, and i have heard rumors that you can get an extra .5 mpg just from slapping them on.

is it worth investing $$$ into?

[no_worries]

You aren't going to see .5 mpg improvement unless you put them on both tractor and trailer, and even then it depends on what tires/wheels you're changing from. The improvement over the most efficient dual setup probably won't be that great. They have a slightly smaller footprint (amount of rubber contacting the road) than duals.

Is it worth changing over? Depends on your operation and how much the switch will cost you. In the long term you will probably come out ahead...if you can stay away from road service calls and early replacements.

[Copperhead]

While it is true that wide base tires are more fuel efficient, there are many regular tires now that offer virtually similar rolling resistance and the gap has closed up. Considering that there are some darn efficient low pro standard tires available, it would take a substantially long time to recover the cost of switching to wide based tires. While a person may see up to .5 mpg better, that would only be if one is comparing good wide based tires to really lousy regular tires. When you try and compare wide based tires to something like Michelin's XDA Energy drive tire, any savings by going the wide based route would be very small.

Nothing against wide based, but a person can realize almost the same savings just by doing a little research and getting good low rolling resistance regular tires. That is my preferred way to do it. I buy very low rolling resistance standard sized tires. All of the regular tires I now get come within single digits difference in rolling resistance compared to a similar wide based tire. And I just changed my drive tires and they had roughly 420,000 miles on them and were still legal. I had decided to change them because they were becoming susceptible to hydroplaning after the tread depth got down below 5/32. Did that slip slide game a little in the last two rainstorms I was in, so decided it was time for new ones.

[JR OTR]

When you try and compare wide based tires to something like Michelin's XDA Energy drive tire, any savings by going the wide based route would be very small.

Nothing against wide based, but a person can realize almost the same savings just by doing a little research and getting good low rolling resistance regular tires.

Uh, no. Since you brought up Michelin, lets go to their site and see the figures they use for their own tires (including the XDA you mention): Michelin Americas Truck Tires X One® Fuel Savings Page

A casual perusal will show that the XDA Energy Drive tire you swear by is listed as under 100 rolling resistance, on the scale provided, while the wide base XDA-HT is over 140 on the same scale. There is no single-width tire you can purchase that even comes close to wide base in this regard.

As far as the original question in the thread, yes they can be a good investment. Since changing the rims is not inexpensive, you will want to be in a situation where you can use them for a long time to recoup that investment. I'm just past the third complete year in my lease with super singles and I estimate that by the end of this year I will have saved approximately $11,000 over the cost of leaving the factory duals on my tractor.

Good luck,

Jim

[allan5oh]

Lower numbers are better there chief.

[no_worries]

A "casual perusal" would be more effective if you know what you're looking at. Just how do you arrive at your $11,000 figure?

[mitchno1]

with duals if you get a flat you can keep going and especialy with your trailer duals dont allow it to slide so much ,plus lot cheaper here anyway

[Copperhead]

While numbers seem impressive, they need to be taken in context. First there is the cost of converting to wide based. I present can get low rolling resistance low pro 22.5 Michelin recaps at $170 a tire. I got 420,000 out of the ones I just took off. These tires are within 10 points rolling resistance of a wide based. Now factor the cost of converting to wide based along with rims, average longevity of the wide based tire and the replacement costs. True, you might possibly pull off a tenth mpg better than me, but that is only about $1000 a year if everything else is perfect. To get to that $11,000 savings in 3 years you quote, you would have to prove that your wide based tires are getting almost .4 mpg better than my low rolling resistance 22.5 Michelin. Not going to happen. And from what I have seen of wide based longevity, most will never realize an over 400,000 mile tire life like I have gotten over the last 3 sets of drives.

While wide based have their place, and if they are part of the original equipment build, they should offer some savings. But as a retrofit compared to low rolling resistance low pro standard tires, the ROI is a lot longer and it may be a wash. If someone wants to run them, I'll never look down at them. But to make grandeos claims of saving $11,000 in 3 years better be backed up by some real hard numbers. To make that claim, you would have had to run the same exact truck for 3 years with standard tires, then run it for 3 years with wide based to make a real solid comparison. Now if one was running something like Bridgestone 726's with a high rolling resistance and went to a wide based with a low rolling resistance, it might be conceivable that if you did everything right you might get that .4 mpg better. But no way you are going to get .4 better than, say that Michelin XDA Energy I mentioned before. At the very best, you might tweak out a tenth better if you are lucky.

[JR OTR]

Lower numbers are better there chief.

On the chart provided the higher numbers are better... note in the description: "For reasons of simplicity and consistency we have opted to reflect rolling resistance by a relative index."

[JR OTR]

While numbers seem impressive, they need to be taken in context. First there is the cost of converting to wide based. I present can get low rolling resistance low pro 22.5 Michelin recaps at $170 a tire. I got 420,000 out of the ones I just took off. These tires are within 10 points rolling resistance of a wide based. Now factor the cost of converting to wide based along with rims, average longevity of the wide based tire and the replacement costs. True, you might possibly pull off a tenth mpg better than me, but that is only about $1000 a year if everything else is perfect. To get to that $11,000 savings in 3 years you quote, you would have to prove that your wide based tires are getting almost .4 mpg better than my low rolling resistance 22.5 Michelin. Not going to happen. And from what I have seen of wide based longevity, most will never realize an over 400,000 mile tire life like I have gotten over the last 3 sets of drives.

While wide based have their place, and if they are part of the original equipment build, they should offer some savings. But as a retrofit compared to low rolling resistance low pro standard tires, the ROI is a lot longer and it may be a wash. If someone wants to run them, I'll never look down at them. But to make grandeos claims of saving $11,000 in 3 years better be backed up by some real hard numbers. To make that claim, you would have had to run the same exact truck for 3 years with standard tires, then run it for 3 years with wide based to make a real solid comparison. Now if one was running something like Bridgestone 726's with a high rolling resistance and went to a wide based with a low rolling resistance, it might be conceivable that if you did everything right you might get that .4 mpg better. But no way you are going to get .4 better than, say that Michelin XDA Energy I mentioned before. At the very best, you might tweak out a tenth better if you are lucky.

To make the comparisons even fairer, we would have to prove that you ran 420k miles on 8 retreaded duals for three sets in a row, something I'm sure you can back up with real hard numbers. Now, I'm not calling BS, mind you, but perhaps some other drivers with similarly durable recaps could show up and back up that data point.

Also, I claimed the $11,000 estimated savings over four years ("I'm just past the third complete year in my lease with super singles and I estimate that by the end of this year").

The numbers I used to come up with my estimate were a 5% fuel savings on fuel (works out to .3 MPG assuming base is 6.0 MPG), a $1,500 cost of changing from factory tread and rims to wide base (my actual cost in 2008), and 300,000 mile intervals on the tires themselves. I used my actual fuel expense for my first three years of operation as the baseline for fuel, realizing that as time goes on the price of fuel will tend to rise and thus the margin between duals and wide base tires moves more and more towards the wide base side.

I'll admit, since I wouldn't consider using recaps for drives I had not considered someone going that route so your per-tire cost would be lower. Assuming your out-of-pocket cost for a full set of such tires would be on the order of $1,800 or so with the dismounting, mounting, balancing and the like the difference would be roughly $8,500 in favor of wide base, again according to the numbers I supply above. If you expect to receive 420k miles of service from your recaps this would save you one set of tires in about 1.26 million miles vs changing out fresh wide base rubber every 300k, for a savings of $1,800, bringing the difference to roughly $6,300.

As far as fuel savings vs relative rolling resistance, according to Michelin you're a lot further away than a tenth of a MPG with the tires you mention... according to their own data on their own site.

Good luck,

Jim

[Orangetxguy]

To make the comparisons even fairer, we would have to prove that you ran 420k miles on 8 retreaded duals for three sets in a row, something I'm sure you can back up with real hard numbers. Now, I'm not calling BS, mind you, but perhaps some other drivers with similarly durable recaps could show up and back up that data point.

Also, I claimed the $11,000 estimated savings over four years ("I'm just past the third complete year in my lease with super singles and I estimate that by the end of this year").

The numbers I used to come up with my estimate were a 5% fuel savings on fuel (works out to .3 MPG assuming base is 6.0 MPG), a $1,500 cost of changing from factory tread and rims to wide base (my actual cost in 2008), and 300,000 mile intervals on the tires themselves. I used my actual fuel expense for my first three years of operation as the baseline for fuel, realizing that as time goes on the price of fuel will tend to rise and thus the margin between duals and wide base tires moves more and more towards the wide base side.

I'll admit, since I wouldn't consider using recaps for drives I had not considered someone going that route so your per-tire cost would be lower. Assuming your out-of-pocket cost for a full set of such tires would be on the order of $1,800 or so with the dismounting, mounting, balancing and the like the difference would be roughly $8,500 in favor of wide base, again according to the numbers I supply above. If you expect to receive 420k miles of service from your recaps this would save you one set of tires in about 1.26 million miles vs changing out fresh wide base rubber every 300k, for a savings of $1,800, bringing the difference to roughly $6,300.

As far as fuel savings vs relative rolling resistance, according to Michelin you're a lot further away than a tenth of a MPG with the tires you mention... according to their own data on their own site.

Good luck,

Jim

I really gotta wonder about those......"Executive" decisions to use recaps on super singles.

How can any "Penny-pincher" come to reasonable conclusion that super-recaps are a value....when they tend to peel off the case (those wonderfully cheap caps) at about 98 degrees and 79,000#'s....doing 65 mph.

I guess since the equipment time (based on thousands of units available) and the driver's time (since no Penny-pincher values a driver anyway) are totally tax deductible, it is worth it...right???




OH....and another thing!! It is a wonderful feeling to be on a narrow two-lane road at 2am and come upon one of those caps laying smack in the center of the lane. Have you noticed how big them things tend to be??

[JR OTR]

I really gotta wonder about those......"Executive" decisions to use recaps on super singles.

The recaps in question were on duals, not wide base tires (according to that poster).

Jim

[no_worries]

On the chart provided the higher numbers are better... note in the description: "For reasons of simplicity and consistency we have opted to reflect rolling resistance by a relative index."

I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about. On the Michelin scale for rolling resistance, lower number reflect lower rolling resistance...which is what you want. The note about using a "relative index" doesn't mean anything related to an ascending or descending scale. It simply means that you can't compare their ratings to another company's because the methodology may be different. The XDA-HT, along with the XDN2 are the worst X-ones in terms of rolling resistance. The X-one XDA Energy is the best drive with a rr of just over 80. If you would bother to go on to their calculator and compare, you would see the substantial savings the Michelin claims you will get by running the XDA energy over the XDA-HT...in either a dual or single configuration.

[JR OTR]

I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about...

You're right. I actually spent a few more minutes tonight perusing the page (and brochure therein linked) and your point is correct.

Jim

[Copperhead]

Well, Jim was right that I was talking about caps on duals. As for the choice because of being a "penny pincher", well I have NEVER thrown a cap in 20 years of using them from the Rio Grande to Yukon Teritory. And is it ok to just spend more because you can write it off on the taxes? Not sure how spending a dollar to save 20 cents in tax is a sound judgement call.

Now back to Jim. I have no doubt you did save money running the SS. But my original point was that compared to a low rolling resistance dual type tire, the difference is not so noticeable. My year round average mpg, with an average 35k plus in the box, counting all idle time (no APU) is around 7.5 mpg. Higher in summer, lower in winter. The retreads I just put on last week were low rolling resistance Michelin XDA2 23 AT. ECM from last week was 8.4 mpg and this week 8.3. Hand calculated, actually came in at 7.8 since I put on the new caps. The problem with stating a definitive mpg increase with SS over a good dual tire, is that once you get into higher mpg territory, any real mpg gains get smaller and smaller. If someone is getting 5 mpg, just about anything new will show a mpg improvement. Once you get near 8 mpg, any mpg gains by changing something gets very small. That is why I disputed a blanket claim that just going to a SS will virtually net a .5 mpg increase. For that 5 mpg truck, it just might. For my setup, highly doubtful, though it might pull off a tenth. In which case, the ROI by doing a complete changeover to SS would be a very long time if ever fully realized.

[Copperhead]

One thing I do like about threads like this is that we can debate the merits of something like SS vs low rolling resistance duals and show some results to others. As I also stated before, I have no problem with SS, just that they may not be the cat's meow for everyone. In fact, even though I stick with low rolling resistance dual tires in my application, I have used SS in the past for other applications. So, it isn't that I hate them as to why I dispute big mpg gains by using them. And considering that I frequently operate on two lane roads with little or no shoulder and weekly have to run the truck over several miles of gravel road, SS would not be my first choice. Not that there is any greater risk of blowout, but the risk of being totally shut down on any one of these roads and posing a safety hazard to someone is not worth any perceived small mpg gain.

Use what works and what you are happy with. Keeping more of what you earn is the object of the game.

Cliff

[Orangetxguy]

Well, Jim was right that I was talking about caps on duals. As for the choice because of being a "penny pincher", well I have NEVER thrown a cap in 20 years of using them from the Rio Grande to Yukon Teritory. And is it ok to just spend more because you can write it off on the taxes? Not sure how spending a dollar to save 20 cents in tax is a sound judgement call.

Now back to Jim. I have no doubt you did save money running the SS. But my original point was that compared to a low rolling resistance dual type tire, the difference is not so noticeable. My year round average mpg, with an average 35k plus in the box, counting all idle time (no APU) is around 7.5 mpg. Higher in summer, lower in winter. The retreads I just put on last week were low rolling resistance Michelin XDA2 23 AT. ECM from last week was 8.4 mpg and this week 8.3. Hand calculated, actually came in at 7.8 since I put on the new caps. The problem with stating a definitive mpg increase with SS over a good dual tire, is that once you get into higher mpg territory, any real mpg gains get smaller and smaller. If someone is getting 5 mpg, just about anything new will show a mpg improvement. Once you get near 8 mpg, any mpg gains by changing something gets very small. That is why I disputed a blanket claim that just going to a SS will virtually net a .5 mpg increase. For that 5 mpg truck, it just might. For my setup, highly doubtful, though it might pull off a tenth. In which case, the ROI by doing a complete changeover to SS would be a very long time if ever fully realized.

There is a huge difference between capping a "standard" ire, and capping a "super-single' tire. When I made my comment, it was not intended for you. I was looking more towards the mega-fleets, which seem to be gloaming onto switching everything over to SS. Super simply will not hold a cap. There is to much scrubbing going on during turns. Add to that the "Nascar Mentality" of so many new drivers today, and you end up seeing the caps for these tires just about every where. Some of the SS tires are so poorly made, they are even throwing their "Original" caps.

Those are the "Penny-pincher's" I was thinking about.

Sorry if I offended you.

[Copperhead]

I stand corrected. None taken.