Best two tyres. Fit to front or Rear of FWD car.

Best two tyres. Fit to front or Rear of FWD car.

Poll: Best two tyres. Fit to front or Rear of FWD car.

Total Members Polled: 205

Front: 54%
Rear: 46%
Author
Discussion

FreeLitres

6,039 posts

176 months

Sunday 3rd October 2010
quotequote all
I was initially thinking that the best tyres should go on the front, for better braking, steering, etc. That video from VBH (posted above) is an eye-opener though as it clearly showed that the rear should have the best tread in high speed aquaplaning situations. Looking at the poll, it suggests the opinion is bang on 50:50 on PH as to whether they should go in the front or rear.

Do you think that the decision should be based on the TYPE of driving you normally do?

i.e.
Best tyres on front - if you do mainly town driving - gives you better emergency braking and avoidance ability at slower speeds

Best tyres on rear - if you do mainly motorway driving - high speed driving over standing water

What do you think of this theory?


G_T

Original Poster:

16,160 posts

189 months

Sunday 3rd October 2010
quotequote all
FreeLitres said:
I was initially thinking that the best tyres should go on the front, for better braking, steering, etc. That video from VBH (posted above) is an eye-opener though as it clearly showed that the rear should have the best tread in high speed aquaplaning situations. Looking at the poll, it suggests the opinion is bang on 50:50 on PH as to whether they should go in the front or rear.

Do you think that the decision should be based on the TYPE of driving you normally do?

i.e.
Best tyres on front - if you do mainly town driving - gives you better emergency braking and avoidance ability at slower speeds

Best tyres on rear - if you do mainly motorway driving - high speed driving over standing water

What do you think of this theory?
After Kambites very helpful comments this is exactly what I'm thinking.

Think I'll keep the best on the rear of the GFs car in case she hits standing water but also because the timid way she drives means shes unlikely to break traction. Then will rotate them of course.

For my own I'll probably stick the best on the front for any hooning as I'm unlikely to hit standing water at the moment. Then rotate.

In summer though best tyres at the front sounds good to me.



Edited by G_T on Sunday 3rd October 10:40

G_T

Original Poster:

16,160 posts

189 months

Sunday 3rd October 2010
quotequote all
Silent1 said:
rottie102 said:
1) It's been discussed over and over again, please search
Bloody hell when did we turn into a "use the search, idiot" Nazi forum? Rather than tell him to search, how about providing a link?
Find it unlikely he can. Since the search function is down.




Acehood

1,326 posts

173 months

Sunday 3rd October 2010
quotequote all
G_T said:
Silent1 said:
rottie102 said:
1) It's been discussed over and over again, please search
Bloody hell when did we turn into a "use the search, idiot" Nazi forum? Rather than tell him to search, how about providing a link?
Find it unlikely he can. Since the search function is down.
The google search isn't. It works way better than the PH search function too.

Colin 1985

1,921 posts

169 months

Sunday 3rd October 2010
quotequote all
Not sure if this is an exaggeration of what we would see on most cars but Video of breaking distances

Patrick Bateman

12,143 posts

173 months

Sunday 3rd October 2010
quotequote all
weezb said:
Patrick Bateman said:
TheRoadWarrior said:
This topic came up recently on Renaultsport. I've got to agree that putting them on the front is the best thing to do,
the front wheels provide the drive and steering and for a front engine FWD car carry more weight.

- More control over the car due to better grip at the front
- braking in a straight line in the wet; more front tread = shorter stopping distance
- newer tyres = newer rubber and more tread; meaning a blow-out on the front is less likely
- understeer vs oversteer. (Personally) much prefer oversteer at the limit, perhaps for joe public understeer is somehow safer, but if you're pushing-on on a B-road, theres nothing more disconcerting that sudden understeer!
Did you not watch the video posted there?
I watched the video, there are too many variables.

Let me say upfront I don't like Vicky Butler Henderson at all, anyone who describes some bint as a "lucky girl", due to going out with the then Chief of Ferrari, the odious Jean Todt, is worth the watching in my book.

Furthermore, anything, and I really do mean anything, appearing on Channel 5 is questionable. Allow me to illustrate: On the Gadget Show a few years back they were promoting a particular program that was "guaranteed" to obliterate any sensitive data on a hardrive, so that it may never be recovered. This program only worked on FAT32 partition system, which was/is Windows 98 and earlier, it did not work on the NTFS system, which was on the NT/Windows XP and later systems, which they were supposedly using this super program on.

Now beside this, as I said too many variables. I am a Scientist by profession, so factors such as weight distribution in car, cheapo tyres like linglong on back and "good" brand on front, road surface, camber, driver related "nuances" etc all have to be considered. Finally, one data point is never, ever enough to draw a conclusion from. It may suggest better grip on the back is preferable to the front in FWD (in fact any), what it is not is a conclusion.





Edited by weezb on Sunday 3rd October 00:00
Well given the video and the fact that tyre manufacturers like Michelin say to put them on the rear suggests enough for me to stick them on the rear.

Turkey

380 posts

183 months

Sunday 3rd October 2010
quotequote all
After losing the back end on my old Cavalier in slightly damp conditions on a roudabout at around 15mph, I will always make sure the rear tyres are grippy and have a few mm of tread.

This is my experience, and I was lucky I didn't write the car off.


Some good posts from people with well thought out reasons for their preference for best tyres on the front or back.

I do not think town driving really needs the best tyres on the front, as one poster said, as the chances of needing high grip at the front are a lot lower compared to high speed driving, i.e. emergency braking on the motorway. Even in town having poor tyres on the back can cause sudden oversteer, as I found out on the roundabout on my Cavalier. It was mechanically sound as well, and after replacing tyres all round, drove fine for over a year after before I sold it.

On the motorway, having 3mm or more of tread on the front compared to the legal minimum 1.6mm can make 10+ metres difference in stopping distance. However, I wouldn't want to hit a large puddle on a motorway slip road at say 60mph, on a bend, with 1.6mm tyres on the back, and brand new tyres on the front. However, having the tyres the other way around could end in tears if you need to do an emergency stop at 70mph, with barely legal tyres on the front.

So for me it's a case of needing decent tyres all round with at least 2.5mm ideally, but ensuring that the rear ones are not less grippy or a lot lower in tread than the front ones.

Mine needs new front tyres soon, I will put the new tyres on the front, and wear them down a bit, then switch them with the rear ones. The rear tyres are a grippy tyre with about 4mm tread, but if they were well worn I would not leave the new tyres on the front, they would go on the back.


Edited by Turkey on Sunday 3rd October 14:49

heebeegeetee

28,591 posts

247 months

Sunday 3rd October 2010
quotequote all
As discussed recently at length in this thread: http://www.pistonheads.com/xforums/topic.asp?h=0&a...

upon which I posted:
heebeegeetee said:
I don't think (but more than happy to be corrected)that there's a single authority who will support putting the better tyres on the front of an fwd (or rwd too, possibly) and i'm sure all tests will have been done, braking, stopping distances, aquaplaning, understeering, oversteering, the whole kaboosh, I would have thought.

And my understanding of this is that a fwd car is inherently imbalanced with the front axle having far more grip than the rear, and so putting inferior tyres on the rear will exacerbate the imbalance.


Colin 1985

1,921 posts

169 months

Sunday 3rd October 2010
quotequote all
heebeegeetee said:
As discussed recently at length in this thread: http://www.pistonheads.com/xforums/topic.asp?h=0&a...

upon which I posted:
heebeegeetee said:
I don't think (but more than happy to be corrected)that there's a single authority who will support putting the better tyres on the front of an fwd (or rwd too, possibly) and i'm sure all tests will have been done, braking, stopping distances, aquaplaning, understeering, oversteering, the whole kaboosh, I would have thought.

And my understanding of this is that a fwd car is inherently imbalanced with the front axle having far more grip than the rear, and so putting inferior tyres on the rear will exacerbate the imbalance.
I wonder if there is any degree to which they might say this to mitigate any liability on there part, ie. if you fail to break in time its clearly your fault, but if your car randomly lets go at the rear perhaps people are more likely to sue.

As you say it would seem that most official advise is to put the best on the back, but this thread got me into a conversation with my father today and in the last 30 years he has never experienced unexpected oversteer, neither has my mother and in my shorter 7 year I can't say I have. But I most certainly have had to do an emergency stop in cars with and with out ABS, and have been in cars that have had to - where had the braking distance been increased by 10-20% there would have been an accident. I have never found the back to be unstable in these situations though.

It just seems that for me (and my parents with whom I discussed this) had we followed the official advise we would have experienced (possibly minor) accidents, but have had no accidents involving oversteer even though the best tyres where possible go on the front with the intention of reducing braking distance.

Welshbeef

49,633 posts

197 months

Sunday 3rd October 2010
quotequote all
Costco will always fit the new tyres to the rear and put theworn to the front.

I tend to change my tyres at 3mm which following many of the published tests indicate is the much safer limit. Before that I'd run down to 2mm. Not any more - trying to squeeze a few thousand extra miles out of a set of tyres is frankly risking your and other road users lives.

Personally I think the law should be changed and min tread depth increased at least to 2.5 mm with a formal noting on your mot cert if your within .5mm

The tyre is the most important safety item on a car piss about and you can kill.
Next brakes again crucial to be fully functioning. I don't think the % efficiency is adequate I mean 16% efficiency is the pass level..... 16%!!!
Following that suspension.
Those three items in that order save lives. They are not cheap but a set of tyres lasts a good few years unless your a hooner but you may be more than happy to change your shoes every year...


G_T

Original Poster:

16,160 posts

189 months

Sunday 3rd October 2010
quotequote all
Acehood said:
Find it unlikely he can. Since the search function is down.
The google search isn't. It works way better than the PH search function too.
heebeegeetee said:
As discussed recently at length in this thread: http://www.pistonheads.com/xforums/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Cheers for the link. Yes, recently in December 2009...


Thanks for the heads up lads. I wasn't aware I couldn't ask a question to the forum unless it was entirely unique.

Tossers.







G_T

Original Poster:

16,160 posts

189 months

Sunday 3rd October 2010
quotequote all
Welshbeef said:
Costco will always fit the new tyres to the rear and put theworn to the front.

I tend to change my tyres at 3mm which following many of the published tests indicate is the much safer limit. Before that I'd run down to 2mm. Not any more - trying to squeeze a few thousand extra miles out of a set of tyres is frankly risking your and other road users lives.

Personally I think the law should be changed and min tread depth increased at least to 2.5 mm with a formal noting on your mot cert if your within .5mm

The tyre is the most important safety item on a car piss about and you can kill.
Next brakes again crucial to be fully functioning. I don't think the % efficiency is adequate I mean 16% efficiency is the pass level..... 16%!!!
Following that suspension.
Those three items in that order save lives. They are not cheap but a set of tyres lasts a good few years unless your a hooner but you may be more than happy to change your shoes every year...
Agreed, I don't think making regulations more heavy is necessarily the solution though. I'd like to see the stats for accidents caused as a direct proven result of tyres before I inconvenienced millions though.

I was sure the GFs car just passed with 11% rear brake efficiency?

Woeful all the same. Fortunately I've had her insured.




heebeegeetee

28,591 posts

247 months

Sunday 3rd October 2010
quotequote all
G_T said:
Cheers for the link. Yes, recently in December 2009...


Thanks for the heads up lads. I wasn't aware I couldn't ask a question to the forum unless it was entirely unique.

Tossers.
Er, my post above was posted on 1st September this year.

Edited by heebeegeetee on Sunday 3rd October 21:12

Deva Link

26,934 posts

244 months

Sunday 3rd October 2010
quotequote all
heebeegeetee said:
As discussed recently at length in this thread: http://www.pistonheads.com/xforums/topic.asp?h=0&a...

upon which I posted:
heebeegeetee said:
I don't think (but more than happy to be corrected)that there's a single authority who will support putting the better tyres on the front of an fwd (or rwd too, possibly) and i'm sure all tests will have been done, braking, stopping distances, aquaplaning, understeering, oversteering, the whole kaboosh, I would have thought.

And my understanding of this is that a fwd car is inherently imbalanced with the front axle having far more grip than the rear, and so putting inferior tyres on the rear will exacerbate the imbalance.
Mercedes caused consternation in the tyre industry by writing in the W204 (current C Class, RWD, of course) manual that new tyres should go on the front. MB reckons the car's electronics is able to cope with the back-end going so the new tyres would be more useful on the front.

G_T

Original Poster:

16,160 posts

189 months

Sunday 3rd October 2010
quotequote all
heebeegeetee said:
G_T said:
Cheers for the link. Yes, recently in December 2009...


Thanks for the heads up lads. I wasn't aware I couldn't ask a question to the forum unless it was entirely unique.

Tossers.
Er, my post above was posted on 1st September this year.
Well less so you then.

And thank you for posting your links. They were useful.

Welshbeef

49,633 posts

197 months

Sunday 3rd October 2010
quotequote all
My old man never changes his tyres until they are down to the legal limit.... Never had a crash etc. So last time I was there I knew the tyres were getting low near 2mm so I just took the car keys said popping to get some plonk came back with a fresh set of michelins on.

He wasn't happy at all making out he had another x months left in them. I assume he thought I wanted him to pay me back nope.

I ensure everyone I know always change their tyres frequently.
Went camping with a few mates and that evening I was admiring his lovely White Hyundai accent 1.3i (just maindealer serviced) and I found the inside edge of both front tyres was down to the wire literally - I cut my hand having a feel.
Next morning I forced him with me in toe to drive at 20mph for the three miles to the nearest tyre station to get them changed. I'm highly confident I saved an accident there plus on return to campsite I taught him how to simply check with your hand no need for depth guage hand and fingers are fine and it takes half a minute to check.
His car was considered White goods bought brand new for £5k and drives very hard from stone cold etc he didn't care about his car one bit however safety totally.

Comp cars all change at 3mm and are checked very often between services tyre man goes round the car park then notifies fleet of the reg and changes the tyre straight away. Plus it's a formal warning if you do not check your tyres x often

911p

2,331 posts

179 months

Sunday 3rd October 2010
quotequote all


Interesting results! I think that the car would have greater abilities with the stickier tyres on the front - it would turn in better and have more grip on acceleration. However, as the front would have more grip than the rear, you'd experience alot of oversteer if the car was pushed. Where stickier tyres on the rear would be the safer option, sticky fronts would be the 'fun' option. You'd just need to get used to the grip limits of the rear tyres.

heebeegeetee

28,591 posts

247 months

Sunday 3rd October 2010
quotequote all
Colin 1985 said:
I wonder if there is any degree to which they might say this to mitigate any liability on there part, ie. if you fail to break in time its clearly your fault, but if your car randomly lets go at the rear perhaps people are more likely to sue.

As you say it would seem that most official advise is to put the best on the back, but this thread got me into a conversation with my father today and in the last 30 years he has never experienced unexpected oversteer, neither has my mother and in my shorter 7 year I can't say I have. But I most certainly have had to do an emergency stop in cars with and with out ABS, and have been in cars that have had to - where had the braking distance been increased by 10-20% there would have been an accident. I have never found the back to be unstable in these situations though.

It just seems that for me (and my parents with whom I discussed this) had we followed the official advise we would have experienced (possibly minor) accidents, but have had no accidents involving oversteer even though the best tyres where possible go on the front with the intention of reducing braking distance.
I guess we've all had different experiences. I'm 52 and have been driving for over 30 years in a different variety of vehicles inc trucks and artics, and 10 years of road rallying in different formats, and have been doing between 30-50k miles a year.

In cars i've done one heck of a lot of hard cornering and have encountered total and sudden oversteer twice. But emergency *stops*, where i've had to brake in an emergency to an actual stop? I can think of two occasions right now, but that's all. I've never hit another vehicle but I did hit a cow once. rolleyesboxedin.

The two incidents of sudden oversteer both happened not long after fitting 2 new tyres on the front of an fwd car.

N88

1,299 posts

178 months

Sunday 3rd October 2010
quotequote all
kambites said:
On cars where the wheels are the same size, I rotate my tyres so they all need replacing at the same time.
This. It's cheaper that way wink

Dan Friel

3,615 posts

277 months

Sunday 3rd October 2010
quotequote all
Agree with all that's said about having the best on the rear and it's prompted me to buy some new tyres. The main problem with the rotating approach is that you end up swapping the worn fronts onto the rear - same old problem. If you do it, it needs to be done very frequently.