LOL yes but it’s not so much about “2 wheels” (which I’ve experienced sereval time just last month), it’s about 7000-8000 lbs on tires dropped to 24psi and rolling in sharper objects than mall curbs.
There is a lot more benefit in E tire construction than just the resulting load rating. Just one example is my lr3 at 80 mph on a canyon interstate curve where 40-42 psi on xl tires would simply suck ass for handling stability.
My point about the bmw wheels is getting knocked against rocks or root balls off-road is probably not so good for them. I doubt they’d have any issue on highways. They look good too.
Look, I understand all of what you are saying and I’m not saying you’re wrong. I do, however, have counter points.
I live in Utah and commute in the mountains. I have driven my LR3 at 80 on canyon interstates. The weight rating of the tires is not the weak link in the handle of equation.
I destroyed 3 tires in the month of July, 2 on the same day/trail (although one doesn’t REALLY count because it was an ill prepared spare). A poorly chosen line will destroy ANY wheel and/or tire fast, regardless of the name printed on it.
24psi on any tire that’s not underrated for the LR3 is hardly bulging.
I get that cross articulation will put the majority of weight on 2 wheels, but all the weight?
If you are loading your 3 to 8000 ponds, you have now exceeded the weight the designers have rated the vehicle to handle.
Given that he stated he’s a light wheeler, which you probably don’t claim, I’m pretty sure the rims are adequate.
It's also about the amount when in extreme side load even if only 30% per tire which could then be 2100 lbs but in a force direction not intended. I'm not a fan of using much of anything at or beyond it's actual designed rating - except for the rover itself LOL The worst case though on the GVWR is the bushings and struts will be shot sooner or could even simply explode. 
