Discussion
JuniorD said:
Come autumn I make a point of putting the best tyres on the front of her car in the hope that it might just give her the edge next time she nearly rear-ends someone.
Then you might like my recommendation of Vredestein Quatrac 3 tyres:www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=15...
JuniorD, have you ever dared diplomatically raising the subject of driving with your other half? Do you know what she thinks of her own driving?
reddragon said:
New fronts also preferred by me. Fronts hit standing water first, they do most of the braking and I would prefer to control a slide with the rears breaking traction then understeer into the curb/tree/pedestrian.
Tyre company/official advise is new tyres on rear, for the same reason most new cars are designed to understeer - safer for most people, but we, as pistonheads readers are 'superior' drivers!
I think you're highlighting there that it's a personal preference thing more than one being 'better' than the other. For me, trying to control 'lift-off' oversteer when cornering in a FWD car, or fighting for control of a 'loose' back end in a straight-line braking situation have never been sources of driving pleasure. But then, we're all different, and I'm sure some people enjoy those characteristics in a car. I found in the past that putting new tyres on the front of a 'neutral' FWD car introduced both of those particular traits, making it unpleasantly unpredictable. On another FWD car which was already quite tail-happy, I found it went from being 'challenging' to downright dangerous and had to swap the wheels after just a couple of days. Tyre company/official advise is new tyres on rear, for the same reason most new cars are designed to understeer - safer for most people, but we, as pistonheads readers are 'superior' drivers!
Presumably, those who advocate fitting new tyres to the front have such an aversion to understeer that they're not likely to be in a wrong-wheel drive car anyway, so my FWD experiences are likely to be irrelevant for them. But I know what I like, and I will now always fit new tyres to the back if I can't afford to change all four at the same time.
I rotate my tyres too, but would make sure that I have at least 3mm on the rear ones if I have a new set on the front. If you're going to run a pair of tyres down to the legal limit, have them on the front once they're below 3mm, and run tyres with more tread on the back.
Understeer or loss of grip on the front end is a lot easier to manage that oversteer on a FWD car, so once you notice the performance is not enough with the low tread tyres on the front, you can get them changed. If they were on the back, the chance of binning it is a lot higher, so it might be more than new tyres you will need to shell out for.
So basically I wouldn't worry about have more worn tyres on the rear, as long as they have enough tread for decent aquaplaning resistance (3mm in my mind). If you have different makes on the front and rear, this can make things more complex. You don't want grippy tyres on the front and ditchfinders on the back, as this could catch you out and cause sudden oversteer when you don't want it, when the front end of the car still feels planted.
Understeer or loss of grip on the front end is a lot easier to manage that oversteer on a FWD car, so once you notice the performance is not enough with the low tread tyres on the front, you can get them changed. If they were on the back, the chance of binning it is a lot higher, so it might be more than new tyres you will need to shell out for.
So basically I wouldn't worry about have more worn tyres on the rear, as long as they have enough tread for decent aquaplaning resistance (3mm in my mind). If you have different makes on the front and rear, this can make things more complex. You don't want grippy tyres on the front and ditchfinders on the back, as this could catch you out and cause sudden oversteer when you don't want it, when the front end of the car still feels planted.
Edited by Turkey on Friday 20th August 22:54
I understand what Michelin and others are saying regarding putting best on the rear but can't help thinking that most times you're likely to lose grip or need grip to be at it's maximum it's with the front tyres (ie most emergency stops). But can understand how losing rear grip typically will have more severe consequences (hence the professional opinion of changing the rears) though.
Turkey said:
If you have different makes on the front and rear, this can make things more complex. You don't want grippy tyres on the front and ditchfinders on the back, as this could catch you out and cause sudden oversteer when you don't want it, when the front end of the car still feels planted.
But if you have the ditchfinders on the front this could catch you out and cause sudden plough-on understeer when you don't want it, with no way to pull it back except backing off the throttle, causing lift-off oversteer which is harder to catch than the initial slide would have been with the ditchfinders on the rear... 
Where it does get complex is having mismatched tyres that give one end more grip in the dry and the other end more grip in the wet
just have to remember which is which!Point is you could make an argument for it either way, so understand the effect and choose the way that suits your own driving but don't expect everyone else to agree with you.
FWIW I had some (kingstar) ditchfinders first on the front and then the rear of an MX5 for a while and it was much more pleasant, balanced and enjoyable with them on the rear - an MX5 should not get 2nd gear power understeer in the wet!
Edited by GravelBen on Monday 23 August 07:17
Any depth measurements for the "old" tyres?
Personally if the rears are OK, I leave them there.
Some cars wear tyres oddly and can be sensitive to road camber.
Putting oddly worn rear tyres to the front can cause more problems. Plus new front tyres are immediately seen as an improvement, in most cases steering effort is reduced making the whole car feel easier to manouvre.
I never get to 3mm, change them before the wear bars are level, though most fwd cars will scrub them unevenly.
Personally if the rears are OK, I leave them there.
Some cars wear tyres oddly and can be sensitive to road camber.
Putting oddly worn rear tyres to the front can cause more problems. Plus new front tyres are immediately seen as an improvement, in most cases steering effort is reduced making the whole car feel easier to manouvre.
I never get to 3mm, change them before the wear bars are level, though most fwd cars will scrub them unevenly.
I've found myself in a rather awkward position, whereby I have two good (i.e. 6-7mm tread) tyres on the right-hand side, and two not-so-good (3mm) on the left! Mostly because of a puncture and also when purchased, it was apparent that in order to save money, only one rear tyre was replaced, not both. I feel I may swap them around, but then it's a case of where to put the good rubber. My previous FWD car had decent Goodyears on the front that I fitted, and fairly average rubber on the back (but with plenty of tread) - it still understeered when pushed, so I never the benefit of fitting better rubber to the rear. I'd rather have the stopping distance as I tend to brake in a straight line for bends.
Finally, and I always mention this when this topic comes up: yes, it would be nice to have more grip at the back, but I do feel that you should not drive in such a way that the difference in grip front-to-back becomes important to whether you make it round the corner or not. Drivnig to the limit point (the most enthusiastic road driving approach I can maintain whilst still adhering to IAM principles) I've always had plenty of grip in reserve - useful when you do meet that tractor around the bend and need to brake sharply. Naturally I understand that you can have extreme cases, and you can have a car that becomes very difficult to control very quickly. I also recall (according to an AA report IIRC) a disturbingly large number of drivers have incorrect tyre pressures around the car (and IIRC a large proportion are more than 10psi out), which really sets the cat among the pigeons.
Finally, and I always mention this when this topic comes up: yes, it would be nice to have more grip at the back, but I do feel that you should not drive in such a way that the difference in grip front-to-back becomes important to whether you make it round the corner or not. Drivnig to the limit point (the most enthusiastic road driving approach I can maintain whilst still adhering to IAM principles) I've always had plenty of grip in reserve - useful when you do meet that tractor around the bend and need to brake sharply. Naturally I understand that you can have extreme cases, and you can have a car that becomes very difficult to control very quickly. I also recall (according to an AA report IIRC) a disturbingly large number of drivers have incorrect tyre pressures around the car (and IIRC a large proportion are more than 10psi out), which really sets the cat among the pigeons.
GravelBen said:
Turkey said:
If you have different makes on the front and rear, this can make things more complex. You don't want grippy tyres on the front and ditchfinders on the back, as this could catch you out and cause sudden oversteer when you don't want it, when the front end of the car still feels planted.
But if you have the ditchfinders on the front this could catch you out and cause sudden plough-on understeer when you don't want it, with no way to pull it back except backing off the throttle, causing lift-off oversteer which is harder to catch than the initial slide would have been with the ditchfinders on the rear... Where it does get complex is having mismatched tyres that give one end more grip in the dry and the other end more grip in the wet
just have to remember which is which!Point is you could make an argument for it either way, so understand the effect and choose the way that suits your own driving but don't expect everyone else to agree with you.
FWIW I had some (kingstar) ditchfinders first on the front and then the rear of an MX5 for a while and it was much more pleasant, balanced and enjoyable with them on the rear - an MX5 should not get 2nd gear power understeer in the wet!
Edited by GravelBen on Monday 23 August 07:17
I am with you on your point about mismatched tyres though, and also think that matched pressures are very importsnt.
I agree, it's a decision that should be taken depending on your driving style, and also the car in question, but for 90%+ of drivers, I agree with the majority verdict that the best tyres should be on the rear, in a FWD car.
id rather have the decent (new) tyres on the back, but thats driving a rwd car where i have accidentally lost the back end off a wet roundabout.
So much so, i actually built in understeer to prevent it happening again - got some new, but nasty kaisers on the front which are no where near as grippy on bridgestones on the rear.
However, after running this for a few months and getting bored of ploughing straight through roundabouts, ive decided this was a silly idea. I now think i'll be buying decent part worn tyres - id rather start with 4-5mm of brigdestone tread than 7mm of budget tread.
i dont think it matters what end you put the new tyres on if they're crap to begin with.
So much so, i actually built in understeer to prevent it happening again - got some new, but nasty kaisers on the front which are no where near as grippy on bridgestones on the rear.
However, after running this for a few months and getting bored of ploughing straight through roundabouts, ive decided this was a silly idea. I now think i'll be buying decent part worn tyres - id rather start with 4-5mm of brigdestone tread than 7mm of budget tread.
i dont think it matters what end you put the new tyres on if they're crap to begin with.
brillomaster said:
I'd rather have the decent (new) tyres on the back
What's to say the new ones are the decent ones? Just had two new tyres on the back of my car, they're terrible. Back end is now quite slithery, I can feel it coming wide at the rear just driving around, yet my car has never naturally oversteered like this before, its a FWD diesel hatch. Lift off oversteer when pressing on, yes, but it's now like its got rear wheel steer. The grippiest tyres are clearly the ones on the front.I've always been confused by this. From what I can work out through reading this thread, the decision to put the best tyres on the rear of a car is based purely on the assumption that oversteer is more likely to cause an accident than understeer. Is that right? That seems odd to me for a mundane car (most interesting cars such as 911s, M cars, Astons etc have different tyres front/rear, so this conversation is really about the Fiestas and Micras of this world! Clio 182s and Fiesta STs have different suspension setups to mundane versions - I really am talking about the average Nissan Micra). I'm not involved in accident investigation like StressedDave is, and I don't know the stats, but surely oversteer is a minor cause of accidents in mundane unmodified cars these days? I would have thought most accidents in Micras, Yarises and the like were rear ending in wet weather, lane changing accidents on motorways, things like that. Having driven a variety of mundane FWD cars on road and track, oversteer is a rare delight for me, and the result of setting the car's balance up for a corner carefully and deliberately with knowledge of car handling, and not something I can see your average person getting, even in an emergency. Surely most modern FWD hatchbacks just understeer doggedly unless someone like me gets in and actually tries hard to oversteer them?
Personally, I always get four new tyres for my cars each time. Being rear wheel drive, the wear is spread out a bit better, and having had experiences with mismatched tyres I feel a lot more comfortable going for four new tyres each time. Besides, both my current cars use different tyres front and rear, so I've no front/rear option
However, my girlfriend's just learnt to drive, is on a very tight budget, and her '07 Yaris has the same size tyres front and rear and she recently had a pair of new front tyres replaced, and we had them put on the front... My reasoning for leaving them there was that if most of the wear on the car is at the front (after all, the fronts wore out first!), then that's where the grip is needed. 
This is because the brake bias of a FWD hatchback is a long way forward, the weight distribution is a long way forward, the steering is done by the front wheels and the drive is done by the front wheels. Is all that work really best done by three year old worn tyres, whilst brand new rubber follows along at the back?
This post isn't a criticism, it's just genuine confusion based on the rarity of oversteer in a modern mundane FWD hatchback and the amount of work done by the front tyres compared with the rears.
edited to add: the best handling front wheel drive car I've ever driven was my old Metro Cup race car. In that car, multiple measures were employed to increase front grip and reduce rear grip. That wasn't because I like my cars oversteerey - far from it, it was just to get the thing neutral enough to do a tidy lap. Our setup tweaks are shared by other FWD racing cars such as BTCC cars. Both the weight distribution and the drive were at the front, plus from memory we ran about 75% brake bias to the front as well. Surely that points to the front doing most of the work, and therefore needing the best tyres? If my race setup was reversed (effectively like putting worn tyres on the front and new ones on the back), the car would be a deathtrap - probably locking the fronts everywhere and understeerey dangerously on each bend. I know it's a race car, but because it's driven on the limit every corner and every braking zone is an exploration of the worst case scenario on a public road. In actual fact, the latest thing in the BTCC in mixed wet/dry conditions is to put wets on the front and slicks on the back. This isn't about the reactions and car control of a racing driver, it's about keeping the car pointing in the direction of travel. There's no point saying understeer is safer when you've got both front wheels lock heading for a pedestrian, or a hedge, or a tree.
As I say, I'm not making a statement here, I'm just really confused by this "put them on the rear" philosophy with FWD hatchbacks.
Personally, I always get four new tyres for my cars each time. Being rear wheel drive, the wear is spread out a bit better, and having had experiences with mismatched tyres I feel a lot more comfortable going for four new tyres each time. Besides, both my current cars use different tyres front and rear, so I've no front/rear option
However, my girlfriend's just learnt to drive, is on a very tight budget, and her '07 Yaris has the same size tyres front and rear and she recently had a pair of new front tyres replaced, and we had them put on the front... My reasoning for leaving them there was that if most of the wear on the car is at the front (after all, the fronts wore out first!), then that's where the grip is needed. This is because the brake bias of a FWD hatchback is a long way forward, the weight distribution is a long way forward, the steering is done by the front wheels and the drive is done by the front wheels. Is all that work really best done by three year old worn tyres, whilst brand new rubber follows along at the back?This post isn't a criticism, it's just genuine confusion based on the rarity of oversteer in a modern mundane FWD hatchback and the amount of work done by the front tyres compared with the rears.
edited to add: the best handling front wheel drive car I've ever driven was my old Metro Cup race car. In that car, multiple measures were employed to increase front grip and reduce rear grip. That wasn't because I like my cars oversteerey - far from it, it was just to get the thing neutral enough to do a tidy lap. Our setup tweaks are shared by other FWD racing cars such as BTCC cars. Both the weight distribution and the drive were at the front, plus from memory we ran about 75% brake bias to the front as well. Surely that points to the front doing most of the work, and therefore needing the best tyres? If my race setup was reversed (effectively like putting worn tyres on the front and new ones on the back), the car would be a deathtrap - probably locking the fronts everywhere and understeerey dangerously on each bend. I know it's a race car, but because it's driven on the limit every corner and every braking zone is an exploration of the worst case scenario on a public road. In actual fact, the latest thing in the BTCC in mixed wet/dry conditions is to put wets on the front and slicks on the back. This isn't about the reactions and car control of a racing driver, it's about keeping the car pointing in the direction of travel. There's no point saying understeer is safer when you've got both front wheels lock heading for a pedestrian, or a hedge, or a tree.
As I say, I'm not making a statement here, I'm just really confused by this "put them on the rear" philosophy with FWD hatchbacks.
Edited by RobM77 on Thursday 26th August 18:50
i've changed my mind... put the best tyres on the driven wheels, surely? Most rear wheel drive cars are more powerful than fwd cars, so put the decent tyres on the back to optimize traction in the wet, and minimise the risk of oversteer.
conversly, for fwd cars, put the decent tyres on the front, again to optimise traction, and minimise understeer. there are only a handful of fwd drive cars that would lift of oversteer dangerously anyways - 205, 306 to name two - and lift of oversteer is fairly easily cured with throttle.
however, oversteer is a whole different ballgame, which isnt cured by either backing off or powering on - so for most drivers of rwd its a case to be avoided wherever possible i'd say. id say rwd cars tend to understeer less than fwd cars due to better weight distribution, so wouldnt worry about it so much.
however, i cant argue that when braking you want better tyres at the front, as they nearly always do most of the braking work.
from a purely safety point of view, maybe it should be decent tyres on front if you drive on straight roads, and on the back if you like the twisty stuff?
conversly, for fwd cars, put the decent tyres on the front, again to optimise traction, and minimise understeer. there are only a handful of fwd drive cars that would lift of oversteer dangerously anyways - 205, 306 to name two - and lift of oversteer is fairly easily cured with throttle.
however, oversteer is a whole different ballgame, which isnt cured by either backing off or powering on - so for most drivers of rwd its a case to be avoided wherever possible i'd say. id say rwd cars tend to understeer less than fwd cars due to better weight distribution, so wouldnt worry about it so much.
however, i cant argue that when braking you want better tyres at the front, as they nearly always do most of the braking work.
from a purely safety point of view, maybe it should be decent tyres on front if you drive on straight roads, and on the back if you like the twisty stuff?
RobM77 said:
In actual fact, the latest thing in the BTCC in mixed wet/dry conditions is to put wets on the front and slicks on the back.
Correct me if I am wrong but I am sure in the BTCC they fit slicks on the front and wets on the rear. In fact here is an article which says James Thompson did just that http://racecars.co.uk/2009/05/17/dynamics-thompson...Speedy11 said:
RobM77 said:
In actual fact, the latest thing in the BTCC in mixed wet/dry conditions is to put wets on the front and slicks on the back.
Correct me if I am wrong but I am sure in the BTCC they fit slicks on the front and wets on the rear. In fact here is an article which says James Thompson did just that http://racecars.co.uk/2009/05/17/dynamics-thompson...racecarscouk said:
Thompson made the unusual decision to start with slicks on the front of his car and wets on the rear whilst all the other runners opted to race on a full set of wets.
Dave^ said:
racecarscouk said:
Thompson made the unusual decision to start with slicks on the front of his car and wets on the rear whilst all the other runners opted to race on a full set of wets.
link 1 "so I made a decision to put slick tyres on the front ..... But I left wet weather tyres on the rear wheels"
link 2 "The front wheel drive cars was in a mix, slicks at the front and wets on the back"
link 3 "wet start to sunday Race 1 gave us a tyre choice which ended up being slick front and wet rear. Slicks all round was the right choice but our target was race finishes so slicks on a wet track with my lack of BTCC experience meant the "safe" option was the right choice"
All this shows that it would not be a "deathtrap" as Rob said in fact the opposite ie the safer option
Edited by Speedy11 on Saturday 28th August 18:36
I think it's too easy for car enthusiasts, a minority, to get involved in the minutiae of this.
Tyre companies are concerned with the majority.
Their tests have suggested that the majority of drivers will be better served with the newer tyres on the rear.
The tyre companies have to consider their responsibilities from a legal perspective too.
Therefore, I doubt they would recommend without facts to back that up.
Enthusiasts are probably, as far as tyre companies are concerned, welcome to plough their own furrow.
So, if you are happy in your choice of tyre wear fitment, carry on.
Tyre companies are concerned with the majority.
Their tests have suggested that the majority of drivers will be better served with the newer tyres on the rear.
The tyre companies have to consider their responsibilities from a legal perspective too.
Therefore, I doubt they would recommend without facts to back that up.
Enthusiasts are probably, as far as tyre companies are concerned, welcome to plough their own furrow.
So, if you are happy in your choice of tyre wear fitment, carry on.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff