YACT: Tires

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Which is exactly what it's supposed to do. Keep them wearing at the same rate. What kind of car, BTW?

The Mark VIII.

Can't rotate the tires on the 944, they don't match front to rear and they're directional. Plus, the 944 doesn't see the mileage for me to worry about them. The tires on that are a disposable commodity, like the tires on most cars that see track time.

ZV

Yeah, don't think too many folks with Porsches are worried about tire life.
The Mark is RWD, so it's normal for the rears to wear more. If your fronts were wearing more, you'd have an alignment problem. (or inflation, but I know you keep yours right)

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: spidey07
you don't rotate your tires enough.

talk all you want but if you care about your rubber then you rotate your tires religously.

Actually, I do. But each rotation has the rears slightly more worn than the fronts. This, of course, means that I'm wearing the rears faster, but the rotation allows them to average out to about the same total wear.

ZV

Which is exactly what it's supposed to do. Keep them wearing at the same rate. What kind of car, BTW?

Your tires will wear at different rates and different parts of the tire depending on the location on your car.

If you continually wear the outside of the tire it will only get worse and shorten the life of the tire. rotating does "even out the wear" so to speak...and as I said before the results can be amazing.

I've burned up tires in 10K
I've burned up tires in 20K
I've burend up tires in 7K

When I religously rotate the tires burning them up in under 20K is hard to do. I'm also used to super high performance summer tires.

Just food for thought. Good tires should last 40K, even high performance ones as long as they aren't Z rated or super soft.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Which is exactly what it's supposed to do. Keep them wearing at the same rate. What kind of car, BTW?

The Mark VIII.

Can't rotate the tires on the 944, they don't match front to rear and they're directional. Plus, the 944 doesn't see the mileage for me to worry about them. The tires on that are a disposable commodity, like the tires on most cars that see track time.

ZV

Yeah, don't think too many folks with Porsches are worried about tire life.
The Mark is RWD, so it's normal for the rears to wear more. If your fronts were wearing more, you'd have an alignment problem. (or inflation, but I know you keep yours right)

meh, 1000 bucks+ for a full set make me pay attention.

<---not a porsche owner but still need a full set after 20K on my new car. But that's the life of that tire and completely normal. Some have seen 10K or less without rotating properly.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: spidey07 Some have seen 10K or less without rotating properly.

Dude, I've been in the car business all my life. I can tell you stories about stupid crap people have done to their cars for days.
I know why rotation is key. You're preaching to the choir.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Yeah, don't think too many folks with Porsches are worried about tire life.
The Mark is RWD, so it's normal for the rears to wear more. If your fronts were wearing more, you'd have an alignment problem. (or inflation, but I know you keep yours right)

Remember that the 944 is worth less than a new Kia. Love that series, sweet handling and a nice low entry price. It's the designated fun car though, so I don't worry too much about preserving the rubber.

As for the Mark (and my other cars too), I rarely follow the inflation stickers, instead using them as a guide and tuning from there. Something unsettling about inflating the tires to only 28 PSI on a 3,800 pound car. I've found that it feels best at about 32 front and 34 to 36 rear and my wear pattern hasn't had adverse effects.

ZV

 

[mchammer]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
ZV, I understand what you're saying, but a rear blowout isn't any more likely to cause an accident than a front. Front's, IMO, are more likely, because they will immediately affect steering. Your average person will likely overcompensate, and have a higher risk of a crash.

Either way, we're talking an extreme circumstance. My professional advice is: Forget about potential for a blowout. That is very unlikely from just being worn. If your tire is so worn that you have cause to be worried about a blowout, then it is unsafe to be on the front OR the rear. Get a new damn tire.
Blowouts aside, you are better off in all other aspects to keep your best tires on the front. That's where all the weight is, and that's where all the stress on the tires is. FWD just increases the burden placed on the tires.

I think the reason for the tires with the most tread to be on the back was because they would resist hydroplaning better, and it is safer for the front to hydroplane before the rears. So for those of us who did not rotate, we should have the deepest tread on the back.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: mchammer
I think the reason for the tires with the most tread to be on the back was because they would resist hydroplaning better, and it is safer for the front to hydroplane before the rears. So for those of us who did not rotate, we should have the deepest tread on the back.

Real unlikely that the rears will hydroplane before the front. Remember, the rears are following the fronts. They leave a trough for the rears to roll through.
What's more dangerous: having your rear fishtail, or losing your steering? The latter is what will happen if your fronts hydroplane.

Again, bottom line: If your tires are worn that badly, you need new tires.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: spidey07 Some have seen 10K or less without rotating properly.

Dude, I've been in the car business all my life. I can tell you stories about stupid crap people have done to their cars for days.
I know why rotation is key. You're preaching to the choir.

yeah, I'm starting to see that. Here's a beer while I remove the big soap box I'm standing on.
:beer:

 

[olds]

I didn't read the thread so this may have already been answered.
I just replaced the tires on my motorhome because they were 5 years old. They still had lots of good tread on them. But, ozone weakens and checks sidewalls, blow outs are the result. 5 years is the recommended life for RVs, I wouldn't think cars would be any different.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
You ALWAYS want the best two tires on the front. The front tires on a FWD car especially are under a lot more stress than the rear. That's the reason you NEVER EVER put retreads on the front of a big rig. Because they're under more stress, it would rip the tread away fairly quickly.

No. On a car you put the good tires on the rear for the reasons that people have already mentioned. A car is not a semi tractor.

The reason that retreds are not put on the front two tires of a semi is because of the increased total failure (i.e. blowout) rate of retreds and the lack of redundancy on the front tires. There are two rear axles on the tractor, each with two tires per side. If one rear tire blows on a semi tractor, there are 3 others to shoulder the load until the truck limps to a stop, this is not the case with the steering tires. Furthermore, the front two tires on a semi are the most lightly-loaded and least stressed (which is how they get away with only having two of them as opposed to the 8 tires in the rear). Your guess about the reasoning is very far off.

ZV

I'll keep my best tires on the front.

 

[huesmann]

It's only a problem if they've been exposed to ultraviolet radiation. If you kept your tires in the basement they should be fine.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: huesmann
It's only a problem if they've been exposed to ultraviolet radiation. If you kept your tires in the basement they should be fine.

Protect your wiper blades and window seals too... just put the whole car in the basement.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: huesmann
It's only a problem if they've been exposed to ultraviolet radiation. If you kept your tires in the basement they should be fine.

Protect your wiper blades and window seals too... just put the whole car in the basement.

I soak all of my cars' rubber in sun tan lotion.

 

[Banana]

Here's

Here's an
illustration
of why new tires go on the rear axle.

 

[huesmann]

I still don't see how putting the new ones on the rear is better. If you hydroplane, your rears may not go outta whack, but you're still gonna have zero control over the front.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Banana
Here's

Here's an
illustration
of why new tires go on the rear axle.

I understand the reasoning... it's just my opinion that it's one of those things that sound good in theory, but doesn't make sense in the real world.

Yes, losing a rear tire will create an oversteer condition, and losing a front will create an understeer condition. Personally, I'd be less comfortable not being able to steer the car then having it turn too easily. I'd also prefer to lose 20% of the total braking power of the car rather than 30%.

You can "but" and "what if" this scenario to death. I'll still always have the best tires on the front of my front wheel drive car.

So here's a "what if" argument for those of you who think it's better to have the best tires on the rear of a front wheel drive car.

You're driving on a rainy day... going too fast for road conditions. You come to a curve and your front wheels begin to hydroplane because the tread isn't as good on your old front tires and the car keeps going straight. Now your old tires have increased lateral forces on them. So you turn the wheel more to try to get it to turn. It doesn't do the trick. So you let off the gas and weight shifts to the front of the car, increases the forces on your front tires. The car still isn't turning, and the natural panic reaction for most people is to step on the brakes to slow down so the car turns and you don't run off the road. So you shift more weight to the front of the car, further increasing the forces on your old tires. Now you finally gain traction... you have the wheels cranked pretty good from trying to turn... maybe the sidewalls on your old tires aren't as strong as they used to be and one gives way... or the bead separates from the sidewall. (happened on a set of tires I had a while back) Now your braking is reduced by roughly 30%... you can't steer the car again, but at least you're not fishtailing... right?

 

[StageLeft]

That illustration is prudent.

However, you have to weigh the benefits of steering against braking. Personally I've never come close to losing control around a corner except when I was driving too fast, but I have had to brake quickly and normally it's the fault of those in front of me (like cut off or somebody jumps a light or something). In such a situation with straight braking the good tires on the front will offer better stopping power.

 

[huesmann]

The only time you will have a problem with hydroplaning is if you're braking. I'd rather have the good tires on the front where they will do the most good braking.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: huesmann
The only time you will have a problem with hydroplaning is if you're braking. I'd rather have the good tires on the front where they will do the most good braking.

Not true... hydroplaning happens when you're going so fast, and through deep enough water, that the tread isn't capable of channeling the water away fast enough to keep the tire on the road. The tire begins to ride on water, not making contact with the road. In a less severe case, the load isn't all being placed on the road, and when you try to turn or brake, there's not enough traction and you either can't turn, or can't stop.

 

[olds]

Originally posted by: huesmann
The only time you will have a problem with hydroplaning is if you're braking.

Wrong
edit
Should have read one more post dowm

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Banana
Here's

Here's an
illustration
of why new tires go on the rear axle.

That is a ridiculous scenario. Who is going to go fast enough IN A TURN IN THE RAIN for the rear to hydroplane?
And who is going to have tires so badly worn that they are a risk to hydroplane in that turn under normal conditions?
Completely ridiculous. And it ignores that the rear tires are following in the trough left by the fronts.
If they are so worn that they STILL lose traction, then twol things come to mind:
1. Slow the f#@k down.
2. Get some new tires and get those bald-ass piles of crap off your car.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: huesmann
It's only a problem if they've been exposed to ultraviolet radiation. If you kept your tires in the basement they should be fine.

No, they'd still dry rot eventually. It's the curing process....it never stops.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
That illustration is prudent.

However, you have to weigh the benefits of steering against braking. Personally I've never come close to losing control around a corner except when I was driving too fast, but I have had to brake quickly and normally it's the fault of those in front of me (like cut off or somebody jumps a light or something). In such a situation with straight braking the good tires on the front will offer better stopping power.

Ding, Ding!! Here's your winner!
All this theoretical crap about extreme situations is just that: Crap.

You are better off to have your best tires in the front, period, end of story. Front wheel drive, or rear wheel drive.
Most of your stopping power is in the front. All of your steering control is in front. On the majority of cars today, all of your traction is in the front.

These extreme situations people keep coming up with are ridiculous.
1. Who puts tires on the car that are so worn that you're worried about a blowout?
Answer: Stupid situation all around. Shouldn't even be a sample scenario because if your tires are that bad, you should replace them, period.
2. Who is worried about hydroplaning in the rear?
Answer: Who cares? The rain would have to be SEVERE for this to happen. I mean HARD rain. Torrential. And if it's raining like that, WTF are you doing going that fast, anyway? Again, not a relevant situation....if your rear hydroplanes, you are going too fast for the conditions.
3. Who says that a vehicle loses control easier with a rear blowout than a front one?
Answer: Nobody that's ever had both happen to them before.
Remember the Firestone tire recall, and the resulting Explorer rollovers that were supposedly caused by them blowing out? Remember the news or auto mag that rigged an Explorer so the rear tire could be instantly deflated, simulating a blowout so they could see how it handled?
Okay, remember how easily it lost control and wrecked? No?
That's because IT DIDN"T. They deflated the tire, left rear, IIRC, and the driver stopped the car, no problem.
It was really easy. They did it multiple times, and this was on a vehicle, remember, that was supposed to be "not stable" and "prone to rollover".
This was all proved, BTW, to be pretty much driver error and neglect. People that don't know how to drive will probably wreck anyway, and nearly all the tires that supposedly blew out from defect were underinflated.

If you need to stop quickly you're MUCH better off having 2 intact front tires and only one in the rear, because the fronts are taking most of the stopping power anyway.
I'd rather have my rear a bit loose than lose control of the front anyday.

So my suggestion is, let's forget all these extreme hypotheticals and stick with normal conditions, and under normal conditions, you are always better off with the best tires in the front.

 

[Apex]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: Skoorb
That illustration is prudent.

However, you have to weigh the benefits of steering against braking. Personally I've never come close to losing control around a corner except when I was driving too fast, but I have had to brake quickly and normally it's the fault of those in front of me (like cut off or somebody jumps a light or something). In such a situation with straight braking the good tires on the front will offer better stopping power.

Ding, Ding!! Here's your winner!
All this theoretical crap about extreme situations is just that: Crap.

You are better off to have your best tires in the front, period, end of story. Front wheel drive, or rear wheel drive.
Most of your stopping power is in the front. All of your steering control is in front. On the majority of cars today, all of your traction is in the front.

These extreme situations people keep coming up with are ridiculous.
1. Who puts tires on the car that are so worn that you're worried about a blowout?
Answer: Stupid situation all around. Shouldn't even be a sample scenario because if your tires are that bad, you should replace them, period.
2. Who is worried about hydroplaning in the rear?
Answer: Who cares? The rain would have to be SEVERE for this to happen. I mean HARD rain. Torrential. And if it's raining like that, WTF are you doing going that fast, anyway? Again, not a relevant situation....if your rear hydroplanes, you are going too fast for the conditions.
3. Who says that a vehicle loses control easier with a rear blowout than a front one?
Answer: Nobody that's ever had both happen to them before.
Remember the Firestone tire recall, and the resulting Explorer rollovers that were supposedly caused by them blowing out? Remember the news or auto mag that rigged an Explorer so the rear tire could be instantly deflated, simulating a blowout so they could see how it handled?
Okay, remember how easily it lost control and wrecked? No?
That's because IT DIDN"T. They deflated the tire, left rear, IIRC, and the driver stopped the car, no problem.
It was really easy. They did it multiple times, and this was on a vehicle, remember, that was supposed to be "not stable" and "prone to rollover".
This was all proved, BTW, to be pretty much driver error and neglect. People that don't know how to drive will probably wreck anyway, and nearly all the tires that supposedly blew out from defect were underinflated.

If you need to stop quickly you're MUCH better off having 2 intact front tires and only one in the rear, because the fronts are taking most of the stopping power anyway.
I'd rather have my rear a bit loose than lose control of the front anyday.

So my suggestion is, let's forget all these extreme hypotheticals and stick with normal conditions, and under normal conditions, you are always better off with the best tires in the front.

You're right, the front tires do the vast majority of the work when braking. However, all cars have at least a slight front brake bias for safety. This makes the front tires lock up before the rears do, given the stock proportionality of front/rear grip. This gives most cars an attitude of mild understeer during hard braking, which tends to be easier to control. If the rears lock first, snap oversteer can happen, especially since the rear end is so unloaded because of the forward weight transfer.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: huesmann
The only time you will have a problem with hydroplaning is if you're braking. I'd rather have the good tires on the front where they will do the most good braking.

guess you've never really hydroplaned before???? Brakes have nothing to do with hydroplaning. zero...they will do nothing. You are skiing at this point.

When you do hydroplane you have zero control other than desparately trying to make small steering adjustments. You have no throttle, you have no brake.