Shaved tires last longer. Myth, or true?

[Zenmervolt]

I always put the most tread on the front...that's another rule people get backwards. I love when people argue with me about 'best tires on drive wheels' vs 'best tires on front.'

Yeah, getting good traction at the drive wheels is totally of the highest importance on a car that can't steer...

OK, now you're just trolling.

There's a reason that street cars are designed with inherent understeer, and this is the same reason that the best tires should always be on the rear wheels. If a car understeers, the instinctive response of a startled and untrained driver (immediately lifting off the throttle and possibly hitting the brakes) is a relatively safe way to correct the issue and even if the car continues to understeer, it maintains forward direction without spinning. This means that if there is any impact, the car's safety systems are in the best position to work properly; front impacts are generally the best-protected impacts that are possible for most cars.

If you put the best tires on the front axle, even with a FWD car, you substantially increase the potential for oversteer and spinning. If a car starts to slide, the instinctive responses of untrained drivers make the situation worse, not better, and because of the spinning the chances for a rollover or a side impact are vastly greater. It's patently unsafe and the only people who recommend putting the best tires on the front are people who have zero understanding of vehicle dynamics and fundamental safety concerns.

ZV

 

[slugg]

In autocross and similar extreme/competitive driving (the context of this thread), I definitely get more tire wear on my front tires than the rear. I have a dedicated set of tires/wheels just for this, so I know it's not from daily driving. That's my 2 cents. Now stop trolling the thread about unrelated banter.

I had a discussion with some experienced autocrossers today and they agree; nobody has actually seen any hard evidence that shaved tires last longer. There is no published evidence. Not that we can find.

So why doesn't someone do some analysis? Anyone got a few thousand bucks to piss away, for the good of the motorsports community?

 

[phucheneh]

OK, now you're just trolling.

There's a reason that street cars are designed with inherent understeer, and this is the same reason that the best tires should always be on the rear wheels. If a car understeers, the instinctive response of a startled and untrained driver (immediately lifting off the throttle and possibly hitting the brakes) is a relatively safe way to correct the issue and even if the car continues to understeer, it maintains forward direction without spinning. This means that if there is any impact, the car's safety systems are in the best position to work properly; front impacts are generally the best-protected impacts that are possible for most cars.

If you put the best tires on the front axle, even with a FWD car, you substantially increase the potential for oversteer and spinning. If a car starts to slide, the instinctive responses of untrained drivers make the situation worse, not better, and because of the spinning the chances for a rollover or a side impact are vastly greater. It's patently unsafe and the only people who recommend putting the best tires on the front are people who have zero understanding of vehicle dynamics and fundamental safety concerns.

ZV

I quit reading after you said the rear tire thing. LOL, how did I not guess that you would be one of 'those people'?

hurr durr don't wanna spin my tires in the rain, steering is secondary.

Also in case you didn't notice, I meant it when I said I'm done with you. I literally read one sentence of your post. I'd hide them if I knew how.

edit to add, and I don't know why I'm bothering, but RE: understeer-

Oversteer is correctable. Understeer is not. If your front wheels break traction in a turn, you're done. Period. I am seriously amazed you can claim to be such an expert and not understand this.

 

[jlee]

I quit reading after you said the rear tire thing. LOL, how did I not guess that you would be one of 'those people'?

hurr durr don't wanna spin my tires in the rain, steering is secondary.

Also in case you didn't notice, I meant it when I said I'm done with you. I literally read one sentence of your post. I'd hide them if I knew how.

edit to add, and I don't know why I'm bothering, but RE: understeer-

Oversteer is correctable. Understeer is not. If your front wheels break traction in a turn, you're done. Period. I am seriously amazed you can claim to be such an expert and not understand this.

Perhaps you should have continued reading. You might eventually pound some knowledge into that head.

How many competent tire shops will put snow tires just on the front wheels of a car?

 

[exdeath]

 

[phucheneh]

Perhaps you should have continued reading. You might eventually pound some knowledge into that head.

How many competent tire shops will put snow tires just on the front wheels of a car?

I'll confess. I did read it afterwards, and I felt dumber (for having read it). Sorry, there's just no debate on this one. At best, it's an issue of opinion since so many people believe the "best tires on the back of my RWD" theory. But that's just being extremely generous. To say that the best tires belong on the back of a FWD? I think he's the one who's trolling.

On snow- Personally, I think if it's bad enough to need snow tires, you should have four. Chains are a better example, as I could see just carrying a pair for emergencies.

For what? Traction on takeoff. Not cornering ability. You can drive through snow without ever worrying about your front tires breaking loose, if you're careful and know how to drive in it. And your vehicle is vaguely appropriate (no 20" wheels with rubber band summer tires). What you generally cannot avoid is stopping. If you're just running chains on the back of a RWD, it's to get the car moving from those stops.

I just don't see how people can not get this concept. It's usually older guys who heard it a lot when RWD's dominated the road, and that false info is just ingrained in them, I guess.

Allow me to explain this to you.

When you go around a turn, the tendency for a car to go wide is called understeer. The tendency for a car to want to swap ends is called oversteer. These terms can describe the feeling of the car TRYING to do one of those things, or they can describe the actual action. Here, we're talking more about the action. Technically, what happens AFTER the car over/understeers (or 'does it too much,' maybe). We're talking about loss of traction, especially if we're referring to performance in inclement weather.

Even on a RWD, front engine car, the steering tires are more important. I don't see how that can be debated. Especially since he cited 'inexperienced drivers' in his reasoning. Yes, they might not know how to correctly respond to the rear tires breaking loose, be it purely induced by cornering forces or by power-over.

But what I am SURE they CAN'T do, because it is not physically possible, is control a car that does not have traction at the front tires. You're headed wherever the car's inertia was 'aimed,' and turning the steering wheel will do nothing until you either slow to the point where the the tires regain grip, or you hit something solid.

edit: and the fact that your rear tires still have traction has absolutely no effect, other than to maintain a small amount of braking ability. But in snow or rain, braking is probably what caused your problem in the first place. The rear tires may as well be shopping cart wheels once your fronts start sliding.

If you actually THINK about something, rather than just absorbing what you hear, perhaps some of that knowledge in your head will actually be correct and/or useful.

 

[exdeath]

Hmmm I'll go put my Mickey Thompson 315s on my front wheels and the 275 street tires on the rear and see what happens.... great idea!

 

[phucheneh]

Hmmm I'll go put my Mickey Thompson 315s on my front wheels and the 275 street tires on the rear and see what happens.... great idea!

Please read the post. I know you're smarter than this. We are not talking about drag racing, we're talking about driving home from work without killing anyone. I very clearly laid out the difference between needing rear wheel traction for takeoff and needing steering for...everything else.

yet another edit: And I'm pretty sure you fully understand that 'best tires/most tread on front' does not refer to a car with drag tires. Or a car with a staggered tire/wheel setup.

 

[phucheneh]

In autocross and similar extreme/competitive driving (the context of this thread), I definitely get more tire wear on my front tires than the rear. I have a dedicated set of tires/wheels just for this, so I know it's not from daily driving. That's my 2 cents. Now stop trolling the thread about unrelated banter.

I had a discussion with some experienced autocrossers today and they agree; nobody has actually seen any hard evidence that shaved tires last longer. There is no published evidence. Not that we can find.

So why doesn't someone do some analysis? Anyone got a few thousand bucks to piss away, for the good of the motorsports community?

I do apologize for the derail. But I don't think I'm the one that's 'trolling' in the above...debate.

There are a lot of theories in motorsports, and cars in general, that never get tested scientifically. You either choose to believe them or you don't, using your own powers of reasoning and deduction. Case in point located above...

Much like that 'other case,' I think your question has a pretty definite answer. Yes, shaved tires should have a decent bit more grip than a brand new tire. But I think you can achieve the same effect by just driving on the tires until the same amount of tread is worn off.

But I do not see you getting more treadwear just because the tire has been 'trued' to 100% round from what I'd probably call 98 or 99% round (I know 'roundness percentage' is a silly made-up figure, it's just the most analogous way I can come up with to put it). If they're decent tires, they shouldn't have enough runout for it to make a difference, especially at low speeds. You could make a case for increased gas mileage, though, however infinitesimally small the gain may be.

 

[Toastedlightly]

I do apologize for the derail. But I don't think I'm the one that's 'trolling' in the above...debate.

There are a lot of theories in motorsports, and cars in general, that never get tested scientifically. You either choose to believe them or you don't, using your own powers of reasoning and deduction. Case in point located above...

Much like that 'other case,' I think your question has a pretty definite answer. Yes, shaved tires should have a decent bit more grip than a brand new tire. But I think you can achieve the same effect by just driving on the tires until the same amount of tread is worn off.

Well, you are incorrect. The TireRack article pointed it out. Accepting the notion that a shaved tire will give you a better handing tire, you are incorrect that driving a tire down to the same tread depth will result in the same results.

The reason for this is simple; thermal degredation of the tire compound. As the tires get hot, the compounds in the tire degrade. A tire that has degraded to the point to significantly worse performance is coined a "heat cycled" tire.

Now, this is not nearly as prevalent in street tires. The reason being they don't rely as much on unstable compounds to develop their grip. However, the effect is still there. Therefore, wearing a tire to the same point that a shaved tire is at will not result in the same performance.

I quit reading after you said the rear tire thing. LOL, how did I not guess that you would be one of 'those people'?

hurr durr don't wanna spin my tires in the rain, steering is secondary.

Also in case you didn't notice, I meant it when I said I'm done with you. I literally read one sentence of your post. I'd hide them if I knew how.

edit to add, and I don't know why I'm bothering, but RE: understeer-

Oversteer is correctable. Understeer is not. If your front wheels break traction in a turn, you're done. Period. I am seriously amazed you can claim to be such an expert and not understand this.

First off, you are insulting a rather respected member here. It is wise to be sure of yourself before you spout off calling someone an idiot.

You say that understeer isn't correctable. Surely it is. The correction is less steering input or less throttle input. "Overcorrecting" results in minimal adverse effects, such as maybe turning in a bit hard or losing a lot of speed. Neither of these are too big an issue when it comes to every day driving. On a high-performance car or a strict track car, the case may be different.

Now, look at oversteer. The correct to oversteer is similar. Less throttle and keep the steering inputs to a minimum. Tapping the brakes more likely than not causes loss of attitude control.

What happens when you overcorrect oversteer? The oversteer becomes worse. The attitude to the road becomes more uncontrollable. People say controlling oversteer with throttle is the way to drive a car and they prefer a car balanced to oversteer. Well, I would argue they have never broken traction at 70 mph on snow or ice.

Not to appeal to authority (whatever authority is granted to Popular Mechanics), but this sums it up nicely:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/how-to/4243992

 

[thedarkwolf]

I didn't think it was so much longer lasting tread as longer lasting good grip with shaved tires. My last set of autox tires turned into hockey pucks with a good bit of tread left.

 

[phucheneh]

Well, you are incorrect. The TireRack article pointed it out. Accepting the notion that a shaved tire will give you a better handing tire, you are incorrect that driving a tire down to the same tread depth will result in the same results.

The reason for this is simple; thermal degredation of the tire compound. As the tires get hot, the compounds in the tire degrade. A tire that has degraded to the point to significantly worse performance is coined a "heat cycled" tire.

Now, this is not nearly as prevalent in street tires. The reason being they don't rely as much on unstable compounds to develop their grip. However, the effect is still there. Therefore, wearing a tire to the same point that a shaved tire is at will not result in the same performance.



First off, you are insulting a rather respected member here. It is wise to be sure of yourself before you spout off calling someone an idiot.

You say that understeer isn't correctable. Surely it is. The correction is less steering input or less throttle input. "Overcorrecting" results in minimal adverse effects, such as maybe turning in a bit hard or losing a lot of speed. Neither of these are too big an issue when it comes to every day driving. On a high-performance car or a strict track car, the case may be different.

Now, look at oversteer. The correct to oversteer is similar. Less throttle and keep the steering inputs to a minimum. Tapping the brakes more likely than not causes loss of attitude control.

What happens when you overcorrect oversteer? The oversteer becomes worse. The attitude to the road becomes more uncontrollable. People say controlling oversteer with throttle is the way to drive a car and they prefer a car balanced to oversteer. Well, I would argue they have never broken traction at 70 mph on snow or ice.

Not to appeal to authority (whatever authority is granted to Popular Mechanics), but this sums it up nicely:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/how-to/4243992

You're comparing apples to oranges. Power oversteer...loss of grip due to an error in throttle input (which is extremely correctable unless you're just already spinning in circles). Compared to...felt understeer from turning forces, without loss of grip. What?

And sorry, I don't care if Zenmervolt is a mod, he's wrong. He's generally the one who insults me, actually. And no, that's not a 'mod callout,' because, as I just said, it has nothing to do with him being a mod. It's his 'expertise' which he considers irrefutable despite its unreliability. And his obvious attitude toward those he doesn't like.

 

[jlee]

You're comparing apples to oranges. Power oversteer...loss of grip due to an error in throttle input (which is extremely correctable unless you're just already spinning in circles). Compared to...felt understeer from turning forces, without loss of grip. What?

And sorry, I don't care if Zenmervolt is a mod, he's wrong. He's generally the one who insults me, actually. And no, that's not a 'mod callout,' because, as I just said, it has nothing to do with him being a mod. It's his 'expertise' which he considers irrefutable despite its unreliability. And his obvious attitude toward those he doesn't like.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you've probably never driven in snow. Or on anything where tires really matter, anyway.

I'll confess. I did read it afterwards, and I felt dumber (for having read it). Sorry, there's just no debate on this one. At best, it's an issue of opinion since so many people believe the "best tires on the back of my RWD" theory. But that's just being extremely generous. To say that the best tires belong on the back of a FWD? I think he's the one who's trolling.

On snow- Personally, I think if it's bad enough to need snow tires, you should have four. Chains are a better example, as I could see just carrying a pair for emergencies.

For what? Traction on takeoff. Not cornering ability. You can drive through snow without ever worrying about your front tires breaking loose, if you're careful and know how to drive in it. And your vehicle is vaguely appropriate (no 20" wheels with rubber band summer tires). What you generally cannot avoid is stopping. If you're just running chains on the back of a RWD, it's to get the car moving from those stops.

I just don't see how people can not get this concept. It's usually older guys who heard it a lot when RWD's dominated the road, and that false info is just ingrained in them, I guess.

Allow me to explain this to you.

When you go around a turn, the tendency for a car to go wide is called understeer. The tendency for a car to want to swap ends is called oversteer. These terms can describe the feeling of the car TRYING to do one of those things, or they can describe the actual action. Here, we're talking more about the action. Technically, what happens AFTER the car over/understeers (or 'does it too much,' maybe). We're talking about loss of traction, especially if we're referring to performance in inclement weather.

Even on a RWD, front engine car, the steering tires are more important. I don't see how that can be debated. Especially since he cited 'inexperienced drivers' in his reasoning. Yes, they might not know how to correctly respond to the rear tires breaking loose, be it purely induced by cornering forces or by power-over.

But what I am SURE they CAN'T do, because it is not physically possible, is control a car that does not have traction at the front tires. You're headed wherever the car's inertia was 'aimed,' and turning the steering wheel will do nothing until you either slow to the point where the the tires regain grip, or you hit something solid.

edit: and the fact that your rear tires still have traction has absolutely no effect, other than to maintain a small amount of braking ability. But in snow or rain, braking is probably what caused your problem in the first place. The rear tires may as well be shopping cart wheels once your fronts start sliding.

If you actually THINK about something, rather than just absorbing what you hear, perhaps some of that knowledge in your head will actually be correct and/or useful.

Ah, a keyboard warrior. How much seat time do you have in...say, a race car? Or maybe an emergency vehicle in conditions so bad the general population was advised to stay home?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2008/1102-two_new_tires__safety_on_a_budget.htm
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/techpage.jsp?techid=52
http://www.michelinman.com/tires-101/buying-tires/how-to-choose/mixing-tires.page

Look at what I drive. I know oversteer. Power oversteer is different than losing your ass end in a turn on a snowy road because your rear tires are lacking grip. Better to plow into a snowbank than to swap ends in the middle of the road.

 

[slugg]

This derailment is pathetic. Much thanks to everyone who tried to contribute to the original topic. I'll talk about this elsewhere.

 

[phucheneh]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you've probably never driven in snow. Or on anything where tires really matter, anyway.



Ah, a keyboard warrior. How much seat time do you have in...say, a race car? Or maybe an emergency vehicle in conditions so bad the general population was advised to stay home?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2008/1102-two_new_tires__safety_on_a_budget.htm
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/techpage.jsp?techid=52
http://www.michelinman.com/tires-101/buying-tires/how-to-choose/mixing-tires.page

Look at what I drive. I know oversteer. Power oversteer is different than losing your ass end in a turn on a snowy road because your rear tires are lacking grip. Better to plow into a snowbank than to swap ends in the middle of the road.

I apologize if being able to explain the rationale behind my position (and that of pretty much any good mechanic I know, with the exception of a few older guys, as expected) makes me a 'keyboard warrior.'

You seem to have gone the 'google warrior' route.

I've stated my opinion. And my opinion that that opinion is actually a hard fact and something that keeps the roads safer by making sure people with two good tires and two terrible tires (as is an extremely common sight) are able to steer their car. I'm not going to change it. So let me just clarify my thoughts and then be done.

We are not talking about racing. At least, some of us aren't. I didn't mean to go that way, but we seemed to be discussing both track and street tires, and I made is apparent that I was talking about street cars and safety, not racecars and superior handling characteristics.

I will acknowledge that your argument about snow is valid, though, given a car even remotely prone to oversteer NOT involving too much applied power (and it can be a mix, but in snow you just basically shouldn't be using either pedal during any kind of hard turning). At that point we're splitting hairs, because basically I'd say understeer is better if the outside of the turn is safer, but that kind of rules out right turns on roads with opposing traffic (assuming you're driving on the right). On a left turn, you're basically just deciding which end you'd rather have hit stuff on the outside of the corner. Or if you want to play with the oncoming traffic.

If you actually use studded tires on just the rear though, you're going to be encouraging the understeer even more. So it's just hard to recommend.

Done. Let's be done.

 

[MagickMan]

I quit reading after you said the rear tire thing. LOL, how did I not guess that you would be one of 'those people'?

hurr durr don't wanna spin my tires in the rain, steering is secondary.

Also in case you didn't notice, I meant it when I said I'm done with you. I literally read one sentence of your post. I'd hide them if I knew how.

You need to stop talking as much and do more listening, you'd learn that he's right.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

This derailment is pathetic. Much thanks to everyone who tried to contribute to the original topic. I'll talk about this elsewhere.

As OP perhaps you should report it. Howard or Eli might be able to shed some light.

 

[JCH13]

Slugg,

The long and short is that tire shaving will extend the useful top-performance life of a race tire. Thicker tires overheat more easily because their thicker tread creates more heat than a thinner tread when it's flexed, thus thicker tires can't be worked to their full potential on top of being heavier than shaved tires. If you wear a full-tread tire down to shaved thickness you've put many heat cycles through the tires, hardening the tire compound and reducing their grip.

IMO this is huge overkill for the casual auto-x racer. If you were competing in a national-level SCCA event, sure, get shaved tires. For a local event I bet you could have good shot at fastest time in your class with some R-Comp take-offs from a spec Miata. I've heard of FTDs being set on old spec Miata take-offs or other road-racing take-offs from used race tire stores.

If you were going to use a street tire to auto-x with too, like StarSpecs, RS3s, etc, they will be much less sensitive to heat cycling than a serious R-Comp. I would just go full tread depth and run them until they go bald and not worry about the tiny bit of performance loss.

 

[slugg]

Slugg,

The long and short is that tire shaving will extend the useful top-performance life of a race tire. Thicker tires overheat more easily because their thicker tread creates more heat than a thinner tread when it's flexed, thus thicker tires can't be worked to their full potential on top of being heavier than shaved tires. If you wear a full-tread tire down to shaved thickness you've put many heat cycles through the tires, hardening the tire compound and reducing their grip.

IMO this is huge overkill for the casual auto-x racer. If you were competing in a national-level SCCA event, sure, get shaved tires. For a local event I bet you could have good shot at fastest time in your class with some R-Comp take-offs from a spec Miata. I've heard of FTDs being set on old spec Miata take-offs or other road-racing take-offs from used race tire stores.

If you were going to use a street tire to auto-x with too, like StarSpecs, RS3s, etc, they will be much less sensitive to heat cycling than a serious R-Comp. I would just go full tread depth and run them until they go bald and not worry about the tiny bit of performance loss.

THANK YOU for the useful info. My StarSpecs are nearly bald (you can still see and feel the tread, but you can't measure it in some spots) and still grip in the dry. They were worn naturally (autocross only) from the full tread depth. So yea, I had a hard time believing that shaved street tires would last longer.

This just in (more useful information): a good friend of mine who really knows his stuff gave me a very good answer to one of my questions. This is just his speculative opinion.

Q: If shaved tires are so good, why don't manufacturers just shave them or manufacture them with less tread to begin with?

A: An extreme performance, purpose-built autocross street tire (Toyo R1R, Hankook RS-3, etc), comes with "full" tread depth to give the buyer an option for wet traction, where deeper tread is an advantage. Otherwise, if all the tires came shaved, none of them could possibly perform well in wet conditions. For optimal dry traction, shave the tire.


All is practical and useful knowledge. So the best conclusion I can make regarding durability of shaved tires is that there seems to be a common misconception. People talk about shaved tires lasting longer, when it seems that they don't. What does seem to be true is that you get a longer interval of optimal traction versus a full tread tire, but you'll definitely get more ultimate "mileage" out of the full tread.

Seems like this is mainly marketing, save for a few extreme situations (like JCH said.)

 

[Arkaign]

Slugg,

The long and short is that tire shaving will extend the useful top-performance life of a race tire. Thicker tires overheat more easily because their thicker tread creates more heat than a thinner tread when it's flexed, thus thicker tires can't be worked to their full potential on top of being heavier than shaved tires. If you wear a full-tread tire down to shaved thickness you've put many heat cycles through the tires, hardening the tire compound and reducing their grip.

IMO this is huge overkill for the casual auto-x racer. If you were competing in a national-level SCCA event, sure, get shaved tires. For a local event I bet you could have good shot at fastest time in your class with some R-Comp take-offs from a spec Miata. I've heard of FTDs being set on old spec Miata take-offs or other road-racing take-offs from used race tire stores.

If you were going to use a street tire to auto-x with too, like StarSpecs, RS3s, etc, they will be much less sensitive to heat cycling than a serious R-Comp. I would just go full tread depth and run them until they go bald and not worry about the tiny bit of performance loss.

JCH wins the thread

As for putting new tires on front vs. rear, I actually like to put tires on the front, but my reasoning is a little different. On my Focus, which I don't drive a whole lot any more, it went through front tires at least 4x faster than rears, or maybe avg. 10-15k miles for fronts vs. 40k+ easily on rears.

I actually took my car in to Discount and asked for new front set, and they refused to put them on the front. My rears were almost totally unworn (still had some of the new-tire stubby things on them, less than 10k miles old, excellent condition, and my fronts were almost completely bald, but the ass*oles at the shop refused to install them on the front citing some dumbass policy that they must install new tires on the rear. So they moved the rears to the front and put the brand new ones on the back. Given that the rears already had 10k of use, they didn't last as long as brand new ones doing front duty, and within 5k miles I rotated them again, but by the time I put them on the rear they were fairly worn down, so I replaced those.

Bah. I do understand the reasoning, but sometimes it's idiotic. I've never had traction problems with the rear on the Focus, but do notice easily when my fronts are worn. Braking, turning, and accelerating are much more difficult. No traction control either.

 

[phucheneh]

You need to stop talking as much and do more listening, you'd learn that he's right.

He is not. So let it go. If you want to have your own silly opinion, that's fine, but quit spreading misinformation to the general public.

Aren't you guys supposed to be enthusiasts? Rather than grumpy old men stuck in the sixties? Holy crap, I bet most of you do actually believe that setting a stored battery on a piece of wood keeps it charged.

Arkaign, it's good to know that I should never do business with Discount tire. I've never heard of that anywhere in my life. Perhaps the policy has to do with new tires often being a little 'slick' on the outside surfaces compared to a tire with a little wear, and the fact that they might have a little grease and grime on them from installation...and sometimes people don't even remove the damn stickers. But then, logically, you'd have to infer that by their rule, a car should never get four new tires, and obviously that's silly.

I guess all the shops in my city are just dumb, backwater, misguided hillbillies, because none of them have a policy like that and they all believe that 'best tires on front' is a means of protecting themselves from liability, in case someone crashes; since, as already stated numerous times, front tire grip is what allows you to do silly things like turn and brake, and those two actions (and loss of control of the front of the vehicle associated with them) are usually involved in collisions.

I've heard 'I couldn't brake fast enough' or 'I couldn't control (steer) the car,' but I can't ever recall hearing someone's description of a normal, everyday traffic accident including 'I swapped ends and backed into him.'

It is quite obnoxious to explain something so clearly, and not have a SINGLE person refute it with anything other than LOL UR DUMB ZEMNERVOLT IS ALWAYS RIGHT. And a little bit of LOL LEARN2READ even though they appear to be completely unable of comprehending anything I write (or thinking analytically about something someone else wrote).

edit to add: Remember, your average, everyday driver does not ever intentionally push their car to the limits of grip while cornering. Even then, I still disagree, as I'd rather try and correct a loss of rear grip than a loss of front grip. But I'll let people feel however they want on that.

But for things like panic braking, or swerving to attempt to avoid a collision...you want the grip at the front.

I'm really trying to be civil here, guys, and I don't really appreciate that no one can speak their disagreement with anything other than a trite, insulting one sentence post. Just be clear-

Given an extreme scenario- two bald 'basketball' tires, two new-ish tires. It's raining. Where do you want the new tires at? Would you rather have the front tires unable to she water adequately or the rears? Which end it going to make you more likely to wreck if it hydroplanes at speed?

 

[phucheneh]

And I apologize that I'm long-winded. I'm simply trying to explain something that, from all I can tell, no one seems to even remotely be picking up on. If someone wanted to acknowledge the merits of my argument and respecfully disagree, I'd be a lot more amiable and would not feel the need to keep going at it. You wouldn't change my mind, but I'd be a lot more likely to admit that we're both entitled to think how we want. But it's a two-way street (figuratively).

Also, I kinda feel like I already said what JCH said...his post was more concise and comprehensive, though. But doesn't his info agree with me saying you have more grip purely because you have less tread, i.e. driven-on tires are going to have the same effect as 'shaved' tires? You're getting down to stickier rubber and decreasing tread squirm (later is moot with slicks, though). The 'truing' of the tire really has no effect on tread-life, which I thought was the crux of the original question.

 

[JCH13]

He is not. So let it go. If you want to have your own silly opinion, that's fine, but quit spreading misinformation to the general public.

Aren't you guys supposed to be enthusiasts? Rather than grumpy old men stuck in the sixties? Holy crap, I bet most of you do actually believe that setting a stored battery on a piece of wood keeps it charged.

Arkaign, it's good to know that I should never do business with Discount tire. I've never heard of that anywhere in my life. Perhaps the policy has to do with new tires often being a little 'slick' on the outside surfaces compared to a tire with a little wear, and the fact that they might have a little grease and grime on them from installation...and sometimes people don't even remove the damn stickers. But then, logically, you'd have to infer that by their rule, a car should never get four new tires, and obviously that's silly.

I guess all the shops in my city are just dumb, backwater, misguided hillbillies, because none of them have a policy like that and they all believe that 'best tires on front' is a means of protecting themselves from liability, in case someone crashes; since, as already stated numerous times, front tire grip is what allows you to do silly things like turn and brake, and those two actions (and loss of control of the front of the vehicle associated with them) are usually involved in collisions.

I've heard 'I couldn't brake fast enough' or 'I couldn't control (steer) the car,' but I can't ever recall hearing someone's description of a normal, everyday traffic accident including 'I swapped ends and backed into him.'

It is quite obnoxious to explain something so clearly, and not have a SINGLE person refute it with anything other than LOL UR DUMB ZEMNERVOLT IS ALWAYS RIGHT. And a little bit of LOL LEARN2READ even though they appear to be completely unable of comprehending anything I write (or thinking analytically about something someone else wrote).

edit to add: Remember, your average, everyday driver does not ever intentionally push their car to the limits of grip while cornering. Even then, I still disagree, as I'd rather try and correct a loss of rear grip than a loss of front grip. But I'll let people feel however they want on that.

But for things like panic braking, or swerving to attempt to avoid a collision...you want the grip at the front.

I'm really trying to be civil here, guys, and I don't really appreciate that no one can speak their disagreement with anything other than a trite, insulting one sentence post. Just be clear-

Given an extreme scenario- two bald 'basketball' tires, two new-ish tires. It's raining. Where do you want the new tires at? Would you rather have the front tires unable to she water adequately or the rears? Which end it going to make you more likely to wreck if it hydroplanes at speed?

If you don't believe any forum members, at least believe TireRack and Michelin, people who do tires for a living:

"However when tires are replaced in pairs, the new pair of tires (assuming the vehicle is equipped with the same size tires all of the way around) should always be installed on the rear axle and the existing partially worn tires moved to the front axle."

This is done to prevent oversteer during hydroplaning, which is far more dangerous than understeer for reasons already mentioned. Also note that in these low-traction situations (wet stopping distances are nearly double that of dry) weight transfer is greatly reduced, thus the old addage "70% of your braking force comes from the front" no longer holds true. In low-traction situations braking force comes much more evenly from the front and rear.

Also, it is possible that stories of "my car hydroplaned and spun" are rarely heard because these drivers are frequently killed in the resulting accident from going sideways off of the interstate or into oncoming traffic.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I will always put fresh pairs of tires on the rear of my car.

 

[phucheneh]

If you don't believe any forum members, at least believe TireRack and Michelin, people who do tires for a living:

"However when tires are replaced in pairs, the new pair of tires (assuming the vehicle is equipped with the same size tires all of the way around) should always be installed on the rear axle and the existing partially worn tires moved to the front axle."

This is done to prevent oversteer during hydroplaning, which is far more dangerous than understeer for reasons already mentioned. Also note that in these low-traction situations (wet stopping distances are nearly double that of dry) weight transfer is greatly reduced, thus the old addage "70% of your braking force comes from the front" no longer holds true. In low-traction situations braking force comes much more evenly from the front and rear.

Also, it is possible that stories of "my car hydroplaned and spun" are rarely heard because these drivers are frequently killed in the resulting accident from going sideways off of the interstate or into oncoming traffic.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I will always put fresh pairs of tires on the rear of my car.

And that's how you give a civilized response. Thanks, and we can just agree to disagree.

All I'll mention is that, well, interstates are usually straight. At least the ones in my city are; I know on some terrain they can wind a little more. You're not typically under the forces that would make the car spin- the intertia is pointed forward. Therefore, I would still have to say that I would prefer to feel the back end 'float' a little rather than temporarily lose the ability to make steering corrections.

Normally, I would accept information from a very old, very large tire manufacturer as true; but I simply think that in this particular case, it is based on some engineer's 'calculations' regarding handling performance rather than real world problems. There's just not anything that would make ME feel more comfortable with bad front tires than bad rear tires. Perhaps the latter does have more potential to cause a catastrophic accident for 'most' drivers (meaning...bad drivers). I'm just surprised that so many people who assumably know how to handle themselves pretty well are so worried about completely losing control because of oversteer.

A proposed test: take two pairs of those plastic crates that companies use to ship soda to convenience stores. Put one pair under the rear wheels of a FWD. Put the other under the front wheels of a RWD. Observe which one is easier to control. edit: this is best demonstrated in the rain, since your 'sliding' axle won't have so much friction against the ground.

 

[Toastedlightly]

And that's how you give a civilized response. Thanks, and we can just agree to disagree.

All I'll mention is that, well, interstates are usually straight. At least the ones in my city are; I know on some terrain they can wind a little more. You're not typically under the forces that would make the car spin- the intertia is pointed forward. Therefore, I would still have to say that I would prefer to feel the back end 'float' a little rather than temporarily lose the ability to make steering corrections.

Normally, I would accept information from a very old, very large tire manufacturer as true; but I simply think that in this particular case, it is based on some engineer's 'calculations' regarding handling performance rather than real world problems. There's just not anything that would make ME feel more comfortable with bad front tires than bad rear tires. Perhaps the latter does have more potential to cause a catastrophic accident for 'most' drivers (meaning...bad drivers). I'm just surprised that so many people who assumably know how to handle themselves pretty well are so worried about completely losing control because of oversteer.

A proposed test: take two pairs of those plastic crates that companies use to ship soda to convenience stores. Put one pair under the rear wheels of a FWD. Put the other under the front wheels of a RWD. Observe which one is easier to control. edit: this is best demonstrated in the rain, since your 'sliding' axle won't have so much friction against the ground.

I do have to ask, given the response about "straight" roads, have you ever driven in snow?

I'll admit, I have only been driving for 8 years. In those 8 years, I have driven rear wheel drive w/o traction control for 4 of them. 2 of them I drove front wheel drive, the last two I have had some variety of 4x4 or AWD.

On a straight road, an incidental tap of the brakes would spell disaster. Especially if the fronts had more braking force than the rears (typical). The more braking force that the rears have, the less the propensity for the car to spin.

Your comment about engineering makes me think that you are just trolling. If you really felt that way about engineering, I think you would have to have a pretty low level of intelligence or low level of technical understanding.

Here is a test showing what people have been saying about the new tires on the rear:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--Hb5kQCaTg