New tires to the rear for safety
- Thread starter Merkava_4
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Never in my life would I put the better tires on the rear axle. Even on my car, which is rear-wheel drive and more prone to oversteer than 99.9% of (stock) cars on the road.
Even in the extremely rare cases when oversteer does happen, it's little more than a tiny squirm -- maybe enough to make the driver pucker, but not enough to cause an accident -- and it can almost always be compensated for by the driver.
The only explanation I can imagine for the "new tires in the back" rule is that the tiny chance of a little squirm in the rear end feels worse to the everyday driver than the prospect of not being able to stop in time. I get that, but... sorry, it's stupid.
The rule isn't stupid..."the everyday driver" proves the rule...unfortunate, but true, "...in the extremely rare cases"...and more often than that, sorry to say, in the hydroplane-inducing thunderboomers here in south Florida.
Never in my life would I put the better tires on the rear axle. Even on my car, which is rear-wheel drive and more prone to oversteer than 99.9% of (stock) cars on the road.
Even in the extremely rare cases when oversteer does happen, it's little more than a tiny squirm -- maybe enough to make the driver pucker, but not enough to cause an accident -- and it can almost always be compensated for by the driver.
The only explanation I can imagine for the "new tires in the back" rule is that the tiny chance of a little squirm in the rear end feels worse to the everyday driver than the prospect of not being able to stop in time. I get that, but... sorry, it's stupid.
The rule isn't stupid..."the everyday driver" proves the rule...unfortunate, but true, "...in the extremely rare cases"...and more often than that, sorry to say, in the hydroplane-inducing thunderboomers here in south Florida.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Even in the extremely rare cases when oversteer does happen, it's little more than a tiny squirm -- maybe enough to make the driver pucker, but not enough to cause an accident -- and it can almost always be compensated for by the driver.
You are giving waaay to much credit to an average driver.
Even in the extremely rare cases when oversteer does happen, it's little more than a tiny squirm -- maybe enough to make the driver pucker, but not enough to cause an accident -- and it can almost always be compensated for by the driver.
You are giving waaay to much credit to an average driver.
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Never in my life would I put the better tires on the rear axle. Even on my car, which is rear-wheel drive and more prone to oversteer than 99.9% of (stock) cars on the road.
It blows my mind that all tire shops recommend putting the better tires on the rear axle. Yes, you reduce the chance of oversteer. You also sacrifice braking distances and the ability to steer in bad conditions. Who on earth would think that's a good idea?
That's especially true given that oversteer is essentially nonexistent for virtually all cars on the road, even in bad conditions with badly mismatched tires. Almost all cars are front-wheel drive or all-wheel drive, which are inherently understeer-prone; virtually all cars, even if they're rear-wheel drive, are set up to do nothing but understeer unless they're deliberately and severely provoked. Even in the extremely rare cases when oversteer does happen, it's little more than a tiny squirm -- maybe enough to make the driver pucker, but not enough to cause an accident -- and it can almost always be compensated for by the driver.
By contrast: Braking distances are always important and a lot less forgiving. Bad tire choice always compromises braking, and when you can't stop in time, there's no way around it.
The only explanation I can imagine for the "new tires in the back" rule is that the tiny chance of a little squirm in the rear end feels worse to the everyday driver than the prospect of not being able to stop in time. I get that, but... sorry, it's stupid.
New tires in FRONT for me, always. I've only violated this rule once -- with my old car, which had staggered wheel sizes for its winter wheels and didn't permit tire rotation.
This post is the single strongest argument I have ever seen for making anyone who wants a licence to operate any motor vehicle pass a college-level course in the physics of vehicular motion before getting one! The ignorance is just STUNNING.
Never in my life would I put the better tires on the rear axle. Even on my car, which is rear-wheel drive and more prone to oversteer than 99.9% of (stock) cars on the road.
It blows my mind that all tire shops recommend putting the better tires on the rear axle. Yes, you reduce the chance of oversteer. You also sacrifice braking distances and the ability to steer in bad conditions. Who on earth would think that's a good idea?
That's especially true given that oversteer is essentially nonexistent for virtually all cars on the road, even in bad conditions with badly mismatched tires. Almost all cars are front-wheel drive or all-wheel drive, which are inherently understeer-prone; virtually all cars, even if they're rear-wheel drive, are set up to do nothing but understeer unless they're deliberately and severely provoked. Even in the extremely rare cases when oversteer does happen, it's little more than a tiny squirm -- maybe enough to make the driver pucker, but not enough to cause an accident -- and it can almost always be compensated for by the driver.
By contrast: Braking distances are always important and a lot less forgiving. Bad tire choice always compromises braking, and when you can't stop in time, there's no way around it.
The only explanation I can imagine for the "new tires in the back" rule is that the tiny chance of a little squirm in the rear end feels worse to the everyday driver than the prospect of not being able to stop in time. I get that, but... sorry, it's stupid.
New tires in FRONT for me, always. I've only violated this rule once -- with my old car, which had staggered wheel sizes for its winter wheels and didn't permit tire rotation.
This post is the single strongest argument I have ever seen for making anyone who wants a licence to operate any motor vehicle pass a college-level course in the physics of vehicular motion before getting one! The ignorance is just STUNNING.
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Never in my life would I put the better tires on the rear axle. Even on my car, which is rear-wheel drive and more prone to oversteer than 99.9% of (stock) cars on the road.
It blows my mind that all tire shops recommend putting the better tires on the rear axle. Yes, you reduce the chance of oversteer. You also sacrifice braking distances and the ability to steer in bad conditions. Who on earth would think that's a good idea?
That's especially true given that oversteer is essentially nonexistent for virtually all cars on the road, even in bad conditions with badly mismatched tires. Almost all cars are front-wheel drive or all-wheel drive, which are inherently understeer-prone; virtually all cars, even if they're rear-wheel drive, are set up to do nothing but understeer unless they're deliberately and severely provoked. Even in the extremely rare cases when oversteer does happen, it's little more than a tiny squirm -- maybe enough to make the driver pucker, but not enough to cause an accident -- and it can almost always be compensated for by the driver.
By contrast: Braking distances are always important and a lot less forgiving. Bad tire choice always compromises braking, and when you can't stop in time, there's no way around it.
The only explanation I can imagine for the "new tires in the back" rule is that the tiny chance of a little squirm in the rear end feels worse to the everyday driver than the prospect of not being able to stop in time. I get that, but... sorry, it's stupid.
New tires in FRONT for me, always. I've only violated this rule once -- with my old car, which had staggered wheel sizes for its winter wheels and didn't permit tire rotation.
This post is the single strongest argument I have ever seen for making anyone who wants a licence to operate any motor vehicle pass a college-level course in the physics of vehicular motion before getting one! The ignorance is just STUNNING.
I had a tire replaced with a prorated road hazard warranty. I've got an AWD Subaru, and the said it was within the recommended size difference for a new tire. However, they knee-jerk recommended that the new one should go to the back. I pointed out that it would just increase the difference in tire wear since the fronts wear faster. They did what I asked, but it was clear that they went through their checklist.
If they really feel this, then why don't tire places recommend that rotations not be done in FWD or AWD cars?
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Never in my life would I put the better tires on the rear axle. Even on my car, which is rear-wheel drive and more prone to oversteer than 99.9% of (stock) cars on the road.
It blows my mind that all tire shops recommend putting the better tires on the rear axle. Yes, you reduce the chance of oversteer. You also sacrifice braking distances and the ability to steer in bad conditions. Who on earth would think that's a good idea?
That's especially true given that oversteer is essentially nonexistent for virtually all cars on the road, even in bad conditions with badly mismatched tires. Almost all cars are front-wheel drive or all-wheel drive, which are inherently understeer-prone; virtually all cars, even if they're rear-wheel drive, are set up to do nothing but understeer unless they're deliberately and severely provoked. Even in the extremely rare cases when oversteer does happen, it's little more than a tiny squirm -- maybe enough to make the driver pucker, but not enough to cause an accident -- and it can almost always be compensated for by the driver.
By contrast: Braking distances are always important and a lot less forgiving. Bad tire choice always compromises braking, and when you can't stop in time, there's no way around it.
The only explanation I can imagine for the "new tires in the back" rule is that the tiny chance of a little squirm in the rear end feels worse to the everyday driver than the prospect of not being able to stop in time. I get that, but... sorry, it's stupid.
New tires in FRONT for me, always. I've only violated this rule once -- with my old car, which had staggered wheel sizes for its winter wheels and didn't permit tire rotation.
This post is the single strongest argument I have ever seen for making anyone who wants a licence to operate any motor vehicle pass a college-level course in the physics of vehicular motion before getting one! The ignorance is just STUNNING.
I had a tire replaced with a prorated road hazard warranty. I've got an AWD Subaru, and the said it was within the recommended size difference for a new tire. However, they knee-jerk recommended that the new one should go to the back. I pointed out that it would just increase the difference in tire wear since the fronts wear faster. They did what I asked, but it was clear that they went through their checklist.
If they really feel this, then why don't tire places recommend that rotations not be done in FWD or AWD cars?
Almost all cars are FWD or AWD? When did this happen? I seriously doubt it.
And FWD cars are immune to oversteer? As the owner of an often tracked 1998 Neon R/T I can assure everyone here they WILL OVERSTEER and it is "stunning" when it happens!
I have also put my best tires on the front in FWD's for decades, and for many of the same reasons stated above by various posters. But the rules are there to protect the ignorant, and to keep the lawyers at bay.
We must remember that since most driving is a GROUP experience we have to think in terms of the lowest common denominator, meaning the least skilled drivers out there...
And FWD cars are immune to oversteer? As the owner of an often tracked 1998 Neon R/T I can assure everyone here they WILL OVERSTEER and it is "stunning" when it happens!
I have also put my best tires on the front in FWD's for decades, and for many of the same reasons stated above by various posters. But the rules are there to protect the ignorant, and to keep the lawyers at bay.
We must remember that since most driving is a GROUP experience we have to think in terms of the lowest common denominator, meaning the least skilled drivers out there...
First, everyone has to understand that companies are pretty vulnerable to lawsuits. Even trivial lawsuits can cost some serious $$$, and ones where there is substance - like this topic - can get quite expensive.
So it shouldn't be a surprise that some businesses do things that you disagree with - and don't do things, your think are perfectly fine.
Perhaps you folks will enjoy my recent tribulations with my trailer.
I am moving soon and I needed to drag my trailer out of storage so I can transport my project cars to the new house.
It's a homemade trailer that came with the racecar. It has no suspension, except for the tires. It has P metric tires in an odd size (P215/75R14!) The tires are over 15 years old and completely flat. I needed to get new ones. Only Hankook had P metric tires in that size.
So I went to the local Discount Tire store to order them (I was pretty sure they wouldn't have them in stock.) When they found out it was for a trailer, they balked. They did a lot of calling around to get an approval to do this - keeping in mind, I was going to bring them wheels with P metric tires on them. They did not have to mount them on the trailer, nor were they changing from one type of tire to another.
Plus, they were talking to an expert on the subject and could tell them all the research I had done to make sure everything was OK - and it was: The tires had a load carrying capacity of over 6000# after the 1.1 derating, and the trailer and car weighed less than 5000#. There was nothing about this that was out of bounds.
Nevertheless, they refused to participate. On to plan B - ordering from Tire Rack and going back to the tire lab to get them mounted. (It's nice to have friends!)
I knew this could be an issue for Discount Tire, and I knew there was no arguing with them. They have their procedures and they should do what they think is best.
So I suggest that those who disagree with the idea of putting new tires on the rear - make alternative plans. Personally, I am convinced "new on the rear" is the right choice for a business and for the vast majority of the situations out there - and I don't think "the customer is always right".
So it shouldn't be a surprise that some businesses do things that you disagree with - and don't do things, your think are perfectly fine.
Perhaps you folks will enjoy my recent tribulations with my trailer.
I am moving soon and I needed to drag my trailer out of storage so I can transport my project cars to the new house.
It's a homemade trailer that came with the racecar. It has no suspension, except for the tires. It has P metric tires in an odd size (P215/75R14!) The tires are over 15 years old and completely flat. I needed to get new ones. Only Hankook had P metric tires in that size.
So I went to the local Discount Tire store to order them (I was pretty sure they wouldn't have them in stock.) When they found out it was for a trailer, they balked. They did a lot of calling around to get an approval to do this - keeping in mind, I was going to bring them wheels with P metric tires on them. They did not have to mount them on the trailer, nor were they changing from one type of tire to another.
Plus, they were talking to an expert on the subject and could tell them all the research I had done to make sure everything was OK - and it was: The tires had a load carrying capacity of over 6000# after the 1.1 derating, and the trailer and car weighed less than 5000#. There was nothing about this that was out of bounds.
Nevertheless, they refused to participate. On to plan B - ordering from Tire Rack and going back to the tire lab to get them mounted. (It's nice to have friends!)
I knew this could be an issue for Discount Tire, and I knew there was no arguing with them. They have their procedures and they should do what they think is best.
So I suggest that those who disagree with the idea of putting new tires on the rear - make alternative plans. Personally, I am convinced "new on the rear" is the right choice for a business and for the vast majority of the situations out there - and I don't think "the customer is always right".
Last edited:
I am surprised you opted for a passenger tire over a ST for your trailer. While they work, they do not offer the stability of a ST, especially around corners. Was it because of the lack of trailer suspension?
I just put 4 new Carlisle Sport Trail LH bias on my 18' Jeep/ATV trailer and they've been great so far.
I just put 4 new Carlisle Sport Trail LH bias on my 18' Jeep/ATV trailer and they've been great so far.
Originally Posted By: CapriRacer
- and I don't think "the customer is always right".
1. Yes...rarely is the customer "always right"
2. Putting the better tires on the back follows the "rule" to use the best tires for the worst conditions...
3. The retail adage is really, "The customer always comes first"...and THAT is not in conflict with #2.
- and I don't think "the customer is always right".
1. Yes...rarely is the customer "always right"
2. Putting the better tires on the back follows the "rule" to use the best tires for the worst conditions...
3. The retail adage is really, "The customer always comes first"...and THAT is not in conflict with #2.
I agree with the new tires on the rear for the most part. Common sense would tell me that if the rear tires are not much less that 7/32 I will leave on the rear. The quicker wearing fronts will catch up soon. And what about rear drive cars. The rears are usually worn more than the fronts. Especially high powered rear drive with staggered tires. Within a couple hundred miles the rears can already be half worn. Now What???
Originally Posted By: Traction
I agree with the new tires on the rear for the most part. Common sense would tell me that if the rear tires are not much less that 7/32 I will leave on the rear. The quicker wearing fronts will catch up soon. And what about rear drive cars. The rears are usually worn more than the fronts. Especially high powered rear drive with staggered tires. Within a couple hundred miles the rears can already be half worn. Now What???
That's what got me about my AWD car. They automatically went to their "new tire to the rear, even though the existing front tire had already been worn down about 2/32". I could sense that in short order the circumference would be greater than the .25" difference the manufacturer recommended as a maximum.
Still - I'm not sure it's that critical. I thought that manufacturing variations can often create new tires that are different in circumference, especially from a different batch.
I agree with the new tires on the rear for the most part. Common sense would tell me that if the rear tires are not much less that 7/32 I will leave on the rear. The quicker wearing fronts will catch up soon. And what about rear drive cars. The rears are usually worn more than the fronts. Especially high powered rear drive with staggered tires. Within a couple hundred miles the rears can already be half worn. Now What???
That's what got me about my AWD car. They automatically went to their "new tire to the rear, even though the existing front tire had already been worn down about 2/32". I could sense that in short order the circumference would be greater than the .25" difference the manufacturer recommended as a maximum.
Still - I'm not sure it's that critical. I thought that manufacturing variations can often create new tires that are different in circumference, especially from a different batch.
Quote:
I am surprised you opted for a passenger tire over a ST for your trailer.
I can't speak for CR, but on the RV forums, the fishing tournament guys, and the water ski competitors, trailer tires are a huge problem. ST (special trailer) tires too often are unreliable junk. In 14", I'd get a tire intended for a small, top heavy van such as a VW van (Kumho Radial 857 is one). In 15" the choice isn't great, but an XL (extra load) tire intended for a small pick up works. In 16", the choices are better with a highway rib LT tire, and the steel cord Michelin XPS rib as the pick o' the litter.
Many of the RVers don't balance their tires, the tires are close to overload even with an empty trailer, and may hit curbs or potholes. The fishermen and water skiers, on the other hand, are very careful and still have too many ST failures.
Bias ply trailer tires?...isn't that just a way for some tire makers to get more life out of obsolete tire making equipment? The radial ply tire will run cooler, and heat kills tires.
I am surprised you opted for a passenger tire over a ST for your trailer.
I can't speak for CR, but on the RV forums, the fishing tournament guys, and the water ski competitors, trailer tires are a huge problem. ST (special trailer) tires too often are unreliable junk. In 14", I'd get a tire intended for a small, top heavy van such as a VW van (Kumho Radial 857 is one). In 15" the choice isn't great, but an XL (extra load) tire intended for a small pick up works. In 16", the choices are better with a highway rib LT tire, and the steel cord Michelin XPS rib as the pick o' the litter.
Many of the RVers don't balance their tires, the tires are close to overload even with an empty trailer, and may hit curbs or potholes. The fishermen and water skiers, on the other hand, are very careful and still have too many ST failures.
Bias ply trailer tires?...isn't that just a way for some tire makers to get more life out of obsolete tire making equipment? The radial ply tire will run cooler, and heat kills tires.
Originally Posted By: Ken2
Quote:
I am surprised you opted for a passenger tire over a ST for your trailer.
I can't speak for CR, but on the RV forums, the fishing tournament guys, and the water ski competitors, trailer tires are a huge problem. ST (special trailer) tires too often are unreliable junk. In 14", I'd get a tire intended for a small, top heavy van such as a VW van (Kumho Radial 857 is one). In 15" the choice isn't great, but an XL (extra load) tire intended for a small pick up works. In 16", the choices are better with a highway rib LT tire, and the steel cord Michelin XPS rib as the pick o' the litter.
Many of the RVers don't balance their tires, the tires are close to overload even with an empty trailer, and may hit curbs or potholes. The fishermen and water skiers, on the other hand, are very careful and still have too many ST failures.
Bias ply trailer tires?...isn't that just a way for some tire makers to get more life out of obsolete tire making equipment? The radial ply tire will run cooler, and heat kills tires.
Kumho 857 is a trailer radial, not a passenger. Most 14" trailer offerings are bias (stiffer, arguably stronger sidewalls). I tow across the country with 205/75D14 and would rather run bias over radials in that size any day. I've had radials and the sway they can produce can be scary under certain conditions.
Quote:
I am surprised you opted for a passenger tire over a ST for your trailer.
I can't speak for CR, but on the RV forums, the fishing tournament guys, and the water ski competitors, trailer tires are a huge problem. ST (special trailer) tires too often are unreliable junk. In 14", I'd get a tire intended for a small, top heavy van such as a VW van (Kumho Radial 857 is one). In 15" the choice isn't great, but an XL (extra load) tire intended for a small pick up works. In 16", the choices are better with a highway rib LT tire, and the steel cord Michelin XPS rib as the pick o' the litter.
Many of the RVers don't balance their tires, the tires are close to overload even with an empty trailer, and may hit curbs or potholes. The fishermen and water skiers, on the other hand, are very careful and still have too many ST failures.
Bias ply trailer tires?...isn't that just a way for some tire makers to get more life out of obsolete tire making equipment? The radial ply tire will run cooler, and heat kills tires.
Kumho 857 is a trailer radial, not a passenger. Most 14" trailer offerings are bias (stiffer, arguably stronger sidewalls). I tow across the country with 205/75D14 and would rather run bias over radials in that size any day. I've had radials and the sway they can produce can be scary under certain conditions.
Originally Posted By: The Critic
Easy solution - go buy two more el-cheapo Generals and ask the manager to give you some trade-in credit on the two remaining old tires.
Problem solved.
Funny you should say that because I researched the reviews on the internet for a solid week before making a decision and I couldn't be happier with the quality of the tires.
Easy solution - go buy two more el-cheapo Generals and ask the manager to give you some trade-in credit on the two remaining old tires.
Problem solved.
Funny you should say that because I researched the reviews on the internet for a solid week before making a decision and I couldn't be happier with the quality of the tires.
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Originally Posted By: The Critic
Easy solution - go buy two more el-cheapo Generals and ask the manager to give you some trade-in credit on the two remaining old tires.
Problem solved.
Funny you should say that because I researched the reviews on the internet for a solid week before making a decision and I couldn't be happier with the quality of the tires.
Generals have never been sold as a premium-quality, or top-tier tire in the industry.
Sure, they may be a good bang for the buck, but their products have never competed with the best of each segment.
With that said, you may be perfectly happy with them, but quality issues may take a while to show up.
Originally Posted By: The Critic
Easy solution - go buy two more el-cheapo Generals and ask the manager to give you some trade-in credit on the two remaining old tires.
Problem solved.
Funny you should say that because I researched the reviews on the internet for a solid week before making a decision and I couldn't be happier with the quality of the tires.
Generals have never been sold as a premium-quality, or top-tier tire in the industry.
Sure, they may be a good bang for the buck, but their products have never competed with the best of each segment.
With that said, you may be perfectly happy with them, but quality issues may take a while to show up.
Originally Posted By: Zaedock
I am surprised you opted for a passenger tire over a ST for your trailer.......
Then you must have missed the part about the trailer not having a suspension - or put a different way, the tires are the only suspension. Not to mention, the trailer CAME with P metric tires and all I did was continue the practice - after carefully researching the subject.
BTW, I run the tires at 30 psi. 25 psi is the minimum to carry the load.
At the time, I was not aware of the issues with ST tires: Pre-internet.
I am surprised you opted for a passenger tire over a ST for your trailer.......
Then you must have missed the part about the trailer not having a suspension - or put a different way, the tires are the only suspension. Not to mention, the trailer CAME with P metric tires and all I did was continue the practice - after carefully researching the subject.
BTW, I run the tires at 30 psi. 25 psi is the minimum to carry the load.
At the time, I was not aware of the issues with ST tires: Pre-internet.
No, didn't miss, just confirming. I have seen a few no-spring trailers on Craigslist and it's scary. The stress on the tires when hitting a pothole would make me want a stronger sidewall.
Not sure where you're located, but if you ever get the desire to add a suspension, my shop in Mass does fab work.
Take care.
Not sure where you're located, but if you ever get the desire to add a suspension, my shop in Mass does fab work.
Take care.
Originally Posted By: Traction
I agree with the new tires on the rear for the most part. Common sense would tell me that if the rear tires are not much less that 7/32 I will leave on the rear. The quicker wearing fronts will catch up soon. And what about rear drive cars. The rears are usually worn more than the fronts. Especially high powered rear drive with staggered tires. Within a couple hundred miles the rears can already be half worn. Now What???
How did this thread get switched to trailer tires?
I agree with the new tires on the rear for the most part. Common sense would tell me that if the rear tires are not much less that 7/32 I will leave on the rear. The quicker wearing fronts will catch up soon. And what about rear drive cars. The rears are usually worn more than the fronts. Especially high powered rear drive with staggered tires. Within a couple hundred miles the rears can already be half worn. Now What???
How did this thread get switched to trailer tires?
We have this debate on BITOG every 4 to 6 months.
New tires on the rear is the industry standard. The same arguments are made every single time. The point: that understeer due to an inadvertent hydroplane is easier to control, is debated every single time.
And, every single person who disagrees with the industry standard has the same position: I am better than a standard driver. I can handle oversteer.
Yet, the Tire Rack, using one of their experienced tire testers shows the loss of control with deeper tread on the front even when the driver knew precisely when the oversteer was coming.
They lost control every time because the hydroplaning tire goes to zero traction almost instantly. In every other case of oversteer, snow, dirt, drifting, whatever, there is a slight loss of traction - the change in the coefficient of friction between a sliding tire and a rolling tire on a given surface is slight.
Watch the videos on Tire Rack. The oversteer due to hydroplane is different than the oversteer in snow or drifting. Even when you're ready for it - you're likely to lose control.
If you don't want to follow the industry standard, then you're going to have to find a local guy who knows you well enough to believe that you won't sue him for not following industry standard...then you can put your new pair of tires wherever you want.
Or, open your wallet and mount them in sets of 4. If you've been rotating them, then you've kept the tread depth similar and you really needed 4 anyways...
New tires on the rear is the industry standard. The same arguments are made every single time. The point: that understeer due to an inadvertent hydroplane is easier to control, is debated every single time.
And, every single person who disagrees with the industry standard has the same position: I am better than a standard driver. I can handle oversteer.
Yet, the Tire Rack, using one of their experienced tire testers shows the loss of control with deeper tread on the front even when the driver knew precisely when the oversteer was coming.
They lost control every time because the hydroplaning tire goes to zero traction almost instantly. In every other case of oversteer, snow, dirt, drifting, whatever, there is a slight loss of traction - the change in the coefficient of friction between a sliding tire and a rolling tire on a given surface is slight.
Watch the videos on Tire Rack. The oversteer due to hydroplane is different than the oversteer in snow or drifting. Even when you're ready for it - you're likely to lose control.
If you don't want to follow the industry standard, then you're going to have to find a local guy who knows you well enough to believe that you won't sue him for not following industry standard...then you can put your new pair of tires wherever you want.
Or, open your wallet and mount them in sets of 4. If you've been rotating them, then you've kept the tread depth similar and you really needed 4 anyways...
Nick1994
$100 site donor 2024
Originally Posted By: Astro14
We have this debate on BITOG every 4 to 6 months.
New tires on the rear is the industry standard. The same arguments are made every single time. The point: that understeer due to an inadvertent hydroplane is easier to control, is debated every single time.
And, every single person who disagrees with the industry standard has the same position: I am better than a standard driver. I can handle oversteer.
Yet, the Tire Rack, using one of their experienced tire testers shows the loss of control with deeper tread on the front even when the driver knew precisely when the oversteer was coming.
They lost control every time because the hydroplaning tire goes to zero traction almost instantly. In every other case of oversteer, snow, dirt, drifting, whatever, there is a slight loss of traction - the change in the coefficient of friction between a sliding tire and a rolling tire on a given surface is slight.
Watch the videos on Tire Rack. The oversteer due to hydroplane is different than the oversteer in snow or drifting. Even when you're ready for it - you're likely to lose control.
If you don't want to follow the industry standard, then you're going to have to find a local guy who knows you well enough to believe that you won't sue him for not following industry standard...then you can put your new pair of tires wherever you want.
Or, open your wallet and mount them in sets of 4. If you've been rotating them, then you've kept the tread depth similar and you really needed 4 anyways...
Well I don't drive my cars on a wet slick track often, and when it does rain, I'm driving in asphalt. They should redo these tests on a reasonable surface, this magical stuff called "black top"
We have this debate on BITOG every 4 to 6 months.
New tires on the rear is the industry standard. The same arguments are made every single time. The point: that understeer due to an inadvertent hydroplane is easier to control, is debated every single time.
And, every single person who disagrees with the industry standard has the same position: I am better than a standard driver. I can handle oversteer.
Yet, the Tire Rack, using one of their experienced tire testers shows the loss of control with deeper tread on the front even when the driver knew precisely when the oversteer was coming.
They lost control every time because the hydroplaning tire goes to zero traction almost instantly. In every other case of oversteer, snow, dirt, drifting, whatever, there is a slight loss of traction - the change in the coefficient of friction between a sliding tire and a rolling tire on a given surface is slight.
Watch the videos on Tire Rack. The oversteer due to hydroplane is different than the oversteer in snow or drifting. Even when you're ready for it - you're likely to lose control.
If you don't want to follow the industry standard, then you're going to have to find a local guy who knows you well enough to believe that you won't sue him for not following industry standard...then you can put your new pair of tires wherever you want.
Or, open your wallet and mount them in sets of 4. If you've been rotating them, then you've kept the tread depth similar and you really needed 4 anyways...
Well I don't drive my cars on a wet slick track often, and when it does rain, I'm driving in asphalt. They should redo these tests on a reasonable surface, this magical stuff called "black top"
- Status
