advertisement


Tyres.

Funk said:
You would simply move the part-worn rears to the front and put new ones on the rear. Ultimately you're spending exactly the same amount of money, just spread out. It seems to be a very 'American' thing to rotate tyres, I don't know of any other country that talks about it.

The only exception to this rule is cars like BMWs where they have staggered wheelsizes front/rear.
Click to expand...

I rotate the rubber. Logic being that lateral and longitudinal grip and therefore breakaway, degrades evenly, so you end up replacing 4 tyres at a time.

As mentioned, maybe moot with modern esp systems.

But the prime argument for best tread on front, is that is is easier for most folk to control high speed understeer, than it is to contain high speed oversteer of the tank slapper variety. This is most particular on the motorway or in high speed aquaplaning scenarios.

Of course sliding off a b road front first plough on understeer can also be very terminal, but understeer is generally easier for the driver and any esp system to reign in than high speed sNap oversteer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
PS I am all Michelin in house now. ps4S 's on mine, Cross Climate + on other car.

Cross Climates are surprisingly good in the summer, and tread life seems good
 
Moving wheels was a thing when tyres were poor, suspension control was poor and tyres wore oddly. Moving them around evened it all up and meant that you didn't knock the corners off nefore the whole thing was well used. These days things are better and most tyres wear evenly. Shifting the part worns to the front seems like a good idea on FWD cars for recuced wear rate and keeping the best to the rear to retain stability. As others have said, front wheel washout is easier to deal with than rear for most drivers, as instinctively you take your foot off, so increasing front grip, and steer inwards, so compensating for the washout. It's the opposite of being on a bike, if a bike washes out a front wheel the first thing you know about it is that it slides out from under you and drops you on your face. If the back slides out you apply opposite lock and wait for the thing to stand back upright. Just don't apply too much oppo or it will stand up VERY quickly and spit you over the bars.
 
guest said:
I rotate the rubber. Logic being that lateral and longitudinal grip and therefore breakaway, degrades evenly.

As mentioned, maybe moot with modern esp systems.

But the prime argument for best tread on front, is that is is easier for most folk to control high speed understeer, than it is to contain high speed oversteer of the tank slapper variety. This is most particular on the motorway or in high speed aquaplaning scenarios.

Of course sliding off a b road front first plough on understeer can also be very terminal, but understeer is generally easier for the driver and any esp system to reign in than high speed sNap oversteer.
Click to expand...

You seem to have muddled this up then; controlling understeer IS easier, hence you would want the most grip at the rear (ie. the tyres with the most tread) in order to induce understeer before oversteer (as realistically we'll be talking about wet conditions - anyone with accidental understeer in dry conditions is already driving far too quickly, although the remedy - backing off the throttle - remains the same). If you rotate the tyres so that, quote "..the grip and breakaway is even.." then you would still have an equal risk of oversteer as you do of understeer - arguably it could even be higher as in most cars, the weight distribution is front-biased rather than 50:50 which would cause the vehicle to want to pivot around the engine.

Every tyre manufacturer recommends the newest tyres go on the rear, that really should tell us what we need to know...
 
Funk said:
It seems to be a very 'American' thing to rotate tyres, I don't know of any other country that talks about it.
Click to expand...

They still put it in the car manuals as part of the regular maintenance schedule. Including my car, which was made in Germany.
 
Funk said:
then you would still have an equal risk of oversteer as you do of understeer - arguably it could even be higher as in most cars, the weight distribution is front-biased rather than 50:50 which would cause the vehicle to want to pivot around the engine.
.
Click to expand...
You can get some surprises. I used to have a Caterham 7 and a Volvo 440. The extreme cheapness of the Volly allowed me to spend stupid amounts of money on a toy. One week I chose to commute in the 7 - great fun. Zipping through the lanes of Northumberland. After a few days of this I was back in the Volvo, can't remember why. While idly toodling home one evening I went into a corner at Caterham speed and the Volvo stepped out. No complaining front end, just a classic rear end waltz. No real drama but it was surprising behaviour for a very conventional FWD car.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
We'll not be 'avin any of them Continentals round 'ere now we've Brexited. Innit.

Not sure whether Continental as a brand is different for the US, but over here it's very much premium, alongside Michelin, Pirelli, Bridgestone, etc. I've used, and liked, Contis for several years, but I switched to (considerably less expensive) Avons a few years back and have not been disappointed.
Click to expand...

As far as I know our Continentals are the same as yours. My last three cars have come with them as the factory fit. I'm not impressed. As I've done in the past, I'll replace my present set with Michelins when the time comes.

Avons are the preferred fit for the Caterham Seven, aren't they? (...except maybe for some of the extreme "track day" models.)
 
Yank said:
As far as I know our Continentals are the same as yours. My last three cars have come with them as the factory fit. I'm not impressed. As I've done in the past, I'll replace my present set with Michelins when the time comes.

Avons are the preferred fit for the Caterham Seven, aren't they? (...except maybe for some of the extreme "track day" models.)
Click to expand...
Depends. There is an Avon standard issue tyre that is used, I think the 322 (?) on some 7s. However most users fit Yokohama 048 (used to be 032, or 021, but 021 are no longer street legal IIRC) or Avons that resemble the Yokohamas, being basically a cut slick that grips like a bionic blacksmith once warm but is not to be messed with on cold greasy days, and which will wear out in 5000 miles.

Edit - the Avon CR 322 is the control tyre in the Caterham Academy racing series. It's a standard road tyre AFAIK, chosen because it's relatively inexpensive and suitable for all weathers, so a good starter racing tyre. The fact that all the cars are using them controls costs as the only time you replace them is when they wear out.
 
I went from Potenzas to Avon ZV's on my Civic Type R, practically identical ride and noise, enough grip(so far!) in the wet and a shed load cheaper too.
 
Funk said:
You seem to have muddled this up then; controlling understeer IS easier, hence you would want the most grip at the rear (ie. the tyres with the most tread) in order to induce understeer before oversteer (as realistically we'll be talking about wet conditions - anyone with accidental understeer in dry conditions is already driving far too quickly, although the remedy - backing off the throttle - remains the same). If you rotate the tyres so that, quote "..the grip and breakaway is even.." then you would still have an equal risk of oversteer as you do of understeer - arguably it could even be higher as in most cars, the weight distribution is front-biased rather than 50:50 which would cause the vehicle to want to pivot around the engine.

Every tyre manufacturer recommends the newest tyres go on the rear, that really should tell us what we need to know...
Click to expand...

Au contraire, you may be the muddled one. Or I wasn’t clear. Or we are saying same thing.

Sudden breakaway (at high speed is caveat) is easier for most to handle at the front than the rear. On that we agree. So, therefore yoid want the end that has most degraded grip to break away first and sooner, but gradually otherwise it’s terminal and fast. With me? Good. A massive difference between front and rear in tread depth cannot do anything to even out breakaway. You don’t want baldy fronts and loadsa tread up rear, because if you do get into a rear losing grip eventually (which it will) but then doing so with far more energy, than the more gradual relative to fronts. You still do want front to give up first but not to point where rear grip is going to impede fronts finding some grip once you get off the throttle. Balance F/r is everything.

So yer cooking fwd hatch is better having it’s built in design undetsteer played with eight degree of rear slippage.

But to the point, if you have to have a hight speed moment at motorway speeds, short term loss of front end bite is preferable to rear loss. But at same time A big differntial in grip can give rise to the equivent motorcycle highsiding tank slapper, usually disastrous for the hapless.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
I agree with Mike Reed and Steve G that the advice about rear punctures being easier to control is both counterintuitive, and contrary to my own experience.
Click to expand...

Many many years back I used to have a Citroen BX estate with their air suspension and when I got a rear puncture on it the only thing I noticed was some mild oversteer on a corner. The suspension on that was amazing.
 
I'm liking what I'm hearing about the Cross Climate+'s - pretty sure I'll go that route for my C-class estate. Probably stick with Michelin Pilot Sports for the SLK though.
 
Crossclimates on my Skoda Octavia 1.6 diesel. Very happy with them, you could see the effect on tread pattern when turning on our gravel driveway. Not had the weather to fully test the winter grip but any brief cold spells have shown the benefits.
 
guest said:
Au contraire, you may be the muddled one. Or I wasn’t clear. Or we are saying same thing.

Sudden breakaway (at high speed is caveat) is easier for most to handle at the front than the rear. On that we agree. So, therefore yoid want the end that has most degraded grip to break away first and sooner, but gradually otherwise it’s terminal and fast. With me? Good. A massive difference between front and rear in tread depth cannot do anything to even out breakaway. You don’t want baldy fronts and loadsa tread up rear, because if you do get into a rear losing grip eventually (which it will) but then doing so with far more energy, than the more gradual relative to fronts. You still do want front to give up first but not to point where rear grip is going to impede fronts finding some grip once you get off the throttle. Balance F/r is everything.

So yer cooking fwd hatch is better having it’s built in design undetsteer played with eight degree of rear slippage.

But to the point, if you have to have a hight speed moment at motorway speeds, short term loss of front end bite is preferable to rear loss. But at same time A big differntial in grip can give rise to the equivent motorcycle highsiding tank slapper, usually disastrous for the hapless.
Click to expand...

With respect, if you're advocating for new tyres anywhere other than on the rear you're incorrect. Bottom line is most issues with lack of grip (at either end of the car) occur in the wet which is down to the tyres' inability to clear water efficiently. In order to have a car which has inherent understeer characteristics when grip is lost the accepted recommendation is to put the tyres with the most tread on the rear of the vehicle. This prevents the rear from aquaplaning before the fronts do which would result in a spin. Aquaplaning at the front results in the car maintaining the exact same trajectory it was on until the speed decreases and the aquaplaning stops.

Literally every tyre manufacturer says this is the best solution. Newest tyres go on the rear.
 
Funk said:
With respect, if you're advocating for new tyres anywhere other than on the rear you're incorrect. Bottom line is most issues with lack of grip (at either end of the car) occur in the wet which is down to the tyres' inability to clear water efficiently. In order to have a car which has inherent understeer characteristics when grip is lost the accepted recommendation is to put the tyres with the most tread on the rear of the vehicle. This prevents the rear from aquaplaning before the fronts do which would result in a spin. Aquaplaning at the front results in the car maintaining the exact same trajectory it was on until the speed decreases and the aquaplaning stops.

Literally every tyre manufacturer says this is the best solution. Newest tyres go on the rear.
Click to expand...

Whatever etc. But’most’ manufacturers also makes quotes geared to cover the lowest common denominators - in thus case, the volume of cars out there withoutESP systems.

I don’t mind being incorrect in your view. My brother works for Michelin. Inside line is whilst they would still say put new tyres on rear, they do not like a massive delta in f/r tread depths for reasons explained, and it's preferable to replace all 4 tyres at same time, taking into account tyre ages, variances in batch manufacture of 'same' tyres over time. Not forgetting Michelin profits of course.

YMMV
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Funk said:
With respect, if you're advocating for new tyres anywhere other than on the rear you're incorrect. Bottom line is most issues with lack of grip (at either end of the car) occur in the wet which is down to the tyres' inability to clear water efficiently. In order to have a car which has inherent understeer characteristics when grip is lost the accepted recommendation is to put the tyres with the most tread on the rear of the vehicle. This prevents the rear from aquaplaning before the fronts do which would result in a spin. Aquaplaning at the front results in the car maintaining the exact same trajectory it was on until the speed decreases and the aquaplaning stops.

Literally every tyre manufacturer says this is the best solution. Newest tyres go on the rear.
Click to expand...
I suppose the added benefits of rotation are having average newer tyres on the car and being able to get the wheel off at the roadside in the event of a puncture. I have not heard of people doing this rotation for many years.
 
Funk said:
With respect, if you're advocating for new tyres anywhere other than on the rear you're incorrect. Bottom line is most issues with lack of grip (at either end of the car) occur in the wet which is down to the tyres' inability to clear water efficiently. In order to have a car which has inherent understeer characteristics when grip is lost the accepted recommendation is to put the tyres with the most tread on the rear of the vehicle. This prevents the rear from aquaplaning before the fronts do which would result in a spin. Aquaplaning at the front results in the car maintaining the exact same trajectory it was on until the speed decreases and the aquaplaning stops.
Click to expand...
The focus of the arguments seems to be on recovering stability in the event of a partial loss of control, ie aquaplaning (rare in the UK, AFAICT, but more common in Germany where Autobahn speeds are higher), or understeer/oversteer. So, aquaplaning aside, you've already overcooked something in the circumstances where this recommendation makes sense.

But what about the more careful or more skilled driver who hasn't overcooked it? I think for them, there's an equally valid argument for having the newest tyres on the front, and it's to do with the ability to deal with emergency situations. If something happens suddently in front of you, you may need to brake hard and/or steer to avoid whatever it is. Newer tyres with better tread give you more grip, which equates to better braking, better steering, and greater braking effort before ABS kicks in. So, overall, an increased chance of avoiding an accident.

That's my rationale for putting the new tyres on the front, because I don't push the car to understeer in the dry, and I moderate my speed accordingly in the wet. And if there's heavy rain or standing water, I moderate it for that too, and look far enough ahead to hopefully spot standing water that might be an issue, so reducing my risk of aquaplaning. So I've already reduced my risk of the issues for which new tyres on the rear are recommended, but I can do less about the risk of unexpected situations, so I'll improve my risk there by having the best tyres to help me deal with incidents if they arise.

Also, I tend to replace tyres at around 3mm of tread, so degradation in grip hasn't reached the significant levels it has at the legal limit. So the difference between front and rear grip in an understeer/oversteer scenario is reduced anyway.
 
And still the recommendations will be new tyres on the rear. If only to make the fryers last much longer.
 
I put new tyres on the axle that requires new tyres whether that is front or rear.

I find it difficult to imagine any situation where this would cause any issues in day to day driving,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top