New tyres - rotate or ditch
Discussion
Sheepshanks said:
Exactly how worn are they? I thought the CrossClimates on daughter's car looked pretty worn but when measured there was a shade under 3mm on the front and 4mm on the back (it's FWD but the tyres were rotated).
I had years of battling lease companies on tyres as you'd take the car in with tyres worn flush to the treadwear indicators and the tyre place would measure them as 3mm - once they told the lease company that they'd refuse to authorise new ones.
Michelin say their tyres are good to the legal limit but we live in a fairly rural area and I thought it best not to go into winter with tyres that are fairly worn so I've ordered a set from Costco as they had a minor offer on and delivery will be a month or so.
I need to properly measure but they’re also looking a little worse for wear generally. More worn on the edges too. It’s a fairly heavy vehicle so I think likes to gorge on tyres a bit. I had years of battling lease companies on tyres as you'd take the car in with tyres worn flush to the treadwear indicators and the tyre place would measure them as 3mm - once they told the lease company that they'd refuse to authorise new ones.
Michelin say their tyres are good to the legal limit but we live in a fairly rural area and I thought it best not to go into winter with tyres that are fairly worn so I've ordered a set from Costco as they had a minor offer on and delivery will be a month or so.
Tyres have never been rotated so rears look totally fine. It’s AWD but strongly favours FWD. Newer will definitely go on the rear since that’s how it naturally wears.
Finally got round to looking properly... all are starting to crack. Fronts have most wear on outside edges and have some little chunks coming off the tread. the centre sections are all at least 3 mm. Rears have loads of tread but also cracking... All of them will be 5 years old in March 2024.
![](https://thumbsnap.com/t/srUskHQ6.jpg[/img]</a> <a href="https://thumbsnap.com/NhzFGWmy" Target="_blank" rel="nofollow">[img]https://thumbsnap.com/t/NhzFGWmy.jpg)
Edited by JD82 on Friday 6th October 15:23
I would measure the fronts op - they look like they have a fair bit of life left, and dont forget the last mm lasts longer than the first mm due to tread block flex.
Those cracks are very minor, I wouldn't say they are an immediate worry.
Re front vs rear for new tyres: I did some research into this for work once because its a hotly debated topic and my client wanted an answer.
The first reason to put the new ones at the rear, is that some vehicles wear their rear tyres very slowly compared to the fronts. So you could have a situation where a vehicle, i.e. a light FWD hatchback doing a few miles a year, just isn't wearing the rear tyres out before they get too old. These rear tyres might end up degrading through age and needing to be replaced, even thought they have plenty of tread.
So swapping the rears to the front means the rears will now be at the front and get used up.
The second reason is the idea that you want more grip at the rear so you get understeer, as opposed to oversteer, if you corner too hard. I think this is a bit of a one size fits all approach, perhaps in the same vein as modern cars being set up for understeer.
This is the bit that is debated because a bit of oversteer, rather than understeer can be better (perhaps not in a very short wheelbase car or some other twitchy car). Significant understeer is alarming because of the lack of control but oversteer can be steered into and things dont feel as out of hand
Interestingly the DVSA advise you to put your best tyres on the front axel of your PSV or HGV because they do the most braking and all the steering.
Also as others have said, quite a lot of cars have wider tyres at the rear, so you cant swap them anyway.
Those cracks are very minor, I wouldn't say they are an immediate worry.
Re front vs rear for new tyres: I did some research into this for work once because its a hotly debated topic and my client wanted an answer.
The first reason to put the new ones at the rear, is that some vehicles wear their rear tyres very slowly compared to the fronts. So you could have a situation where a vehicle, i.e. a light FWD hatchback doing a few miles a year, just isn't wearing the rear tyres out before they get too old. These rear tyres might end up degrading through age and needing to be replaced, even thought they have plenty of tread.
So swapping the rears to the front means the rears will now be at the front and get used up.
The second reason is the idea that you want more grip at the rear so you get understeer, as opposed to oversteer, if you corner too hard. I think this is a bit of a one size fits all approach, perhaps in the same vein as modern cars being set up for understeer.
This is the bit that is debated because a bit of oversteer, rather than understeer can be better (perhaps not in a very short wheelbase car or some other twitchy car). Significant understeer is alarming because of the lack of control but oversteer can be steered into and things dont feel as out of hand
Interestingly the DVSA advise you to put your best tyres on the front axel of your PSV or HGV because they do the most braking and all the steering.
Also as others have said, quite a lot of cars have wider tyres at the rear, so you cant swap them anyway.
Chainsaw Rebuild said:
The second reason is the idea that you want more grip at the rear so you get understeer, as opposed to oversteer, if you corner too hard. I think this is a bit of a one size fits all approach, perhaps in the same vein as modern cars being set up for understeer.
This is the bit that is debated because a bit of oversteer, rather than understeer can be better (perhaps not in a very short wheelbase car or some other twitchy car). Significant understeer is alarming because of the lack of control but oversteer can be steered into and things dont feel as out of hand
The concern is the back end just letting go out-of-the-blue in fast (if you watch the videos, it doesn't have to be that fast) wet bends.This is the bit that is debated because a bit of oversteer, rather than understeer can be better (perhaps not in a very short wheelbase car or some other twitchy car). Significant understeer is alarming because of the lack of control but oversteer can be steered into and things dont feel as out of hand
Current car stability control should mostly stop, or even catch, it - but there's still plenty of cars without it and it can't fix everything.
If it was summer I’d just rotate them. Given that the fronts wear faster at some point they’ll be even tread.
If they’re low now then I wouldn’t fancy winter with them getting close to the limit.
These scare stories of uncontrollable oversteer are a bit over the top. Anyone that has driven an RX will know it’s extremely difficult to get to oversteer and even if it did the intrusive esp would stop it quickly.
You could easily get away with just replacing the fronts then replacing all 4 next time.
It’s a 2 tonne SUV, not an M3.
If they’re low now then I wouldn’t fancy winter with them getting close to the limit.
These scare stories of uncontrollable oversteer are a bit over the top. Anyone that has driven an RX will know it’s extremely difficult to get to oversteer and even if it did the intrusive esp would stop it quickly.
You could easily get away with just replacing the fronts then replacing all 4 next time.
It’s a 2 tonne SUV, not an M3.
Sheepshanks said:
The concern is the back end just letting go out-of-the-blue in fast (if you watch the videos, it doesn't have to be that fast) wet bends.
Current car stability control should mostly stop, or even catch, it - but there's still plenty of cars without it and it can't fix everything.
The other thing would be whether you run tyres down to the legal limit or change at 3mm. It's going to be more of a risk if you do the former.Current car stability control should mostly stop, or even catch, it - but there's still plenty of cars without it and it can't fix everything.
Riley Blue said:
It's OK to do what you're suggesting. New tyres should always go on the rear and your half-worn 2019 tyres are safe to go on the front.
Why would new tyres always go on the rear. Especially if the tyres you are putting on the front originally come from the rearit makes little sense to me.
SAS Tom said:
If it was summer I’d just rotate them. Given that the fronts wear faster at some point they’ll be even tread.
If they’re low now then I wouldn’t fancy winter with them getting close to the limit.
These scare stories of uncontrollable oversteer are a bit over the top. Anyone that has driven an RX will know it’s extremely difficult to get to oversteer and even if it did the intrusive esp would stop it quickly.
You could easily get away with just replacing the fronts then replacing all 4 next time.
It’s a 2 tonne SUV, not an M3.
Exactly - what I get mostly is front wheel spin in the wet. If I’m enthusiastic on an incline or junction, which I put down to wearing the fronts. Will likely move less worn to front and buy a new set for the rear, since the current tears are likely to need replacement due to age before tread depth - so May as well wear them out on the front first. There wouldn’t be any issue mixing cross climate 2 on the rear and cross climate 1 on the front would there?If they’re low now then I wouldn’t fancy winter with them getting close to the limit.
These scare stories of uncontrollable oversteer are a bit over the top. Anyone that has driven an RX will know it’s extremely difficult to get to oversteer and even if it did the intrusive esp would stop it quickly.
You could easily get away with just replacing the fronts then replacing all 4 next time.
It’s a 2 tonne SUV, not an M3.
julian64 said:
Why would new tyres always go on the rear. Especially if the tyres you are putting on the front originally come from the rear
it makes little sense to me.
Here are a few links for you:it makes little sense to me.
https://www.edentyres.com/should-i-fit-new-tyres-t...
https://www.uniroyal-tyres.com/gb/en/car/service-k...
https://www.kwik-fit.com/tyres/information/replaci...
https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?...
https://www.theaa.com/driving-advice/safety/tyre-l...
Hopefully you can make up your own mind from these.
MustangGT said:
julian64 said:
Why would new tyres always go on the rear. Especially if the tyres you are putting on the front originally come from the rear
it makes little sense to me.
Here are a few links for you:it makes little sense to me.
https://www.edentyres.com/should-i-fit-new-tyres-t...
https://www.uniroyal-tyres.com/gb/en/car/service-k...
https://www.kwik-fit.com/tyres/information/replaci...
https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?...
https://www.theaa.com/driving-advice/safety/tyre-l...
Hopefully you can make up your own mind from these.
But yes, whatever the drive, Front, Rear or All, best tyres on the rear.
Edited by Pica-Pica on Saturday 7th October 17:52
MustangGT said:
julian64 said:
Why would new tyres always go on the rear. Especially if the tyres you are putting on the front originally come from the rear
it makes little sense to me.
Here are a few links for you:it makes little sense to me.
https://www.edentyres.com/should-i-fit-new-tyres-t...
https://www.uniroyal-tyres.com/gb/en/car/service-k...
https://www.kwik-fit.com/tyres/information/replaci...
https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?...
https://www.theaa.com/driving-advice/safety/tyre-l...
Hopefully you can make up your own mind from these.
Losing the back gives you a chance. Losing the front at 70mph give you no chance apart from watching the scenery change. Obviously the links are with your argument so I guess you are fine, but I won't change.
julian64 said:
MustangGT said:
julian64 said:
Why would new tyres always go on the rear. Especially if the tyres you are putting on the front originally come from the rear
it makes little sense to me.
Here are a few links for you:it makes little sense to me.
https://www.edentyres.com/should-i-fit-new-tyres-t...
https://www.uniroyal-tyres.com/gb/en/car/service-k...
https://www.kwik-fit.com/tyres/information/replaci...
https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?...
https://www.theaa.com/driving-advice/safety/tyre-l...
Hopefully you can make up your own mind from these.
Losing the back gives you a chance. Losing the front at 70mph give you no chance apart from watching the scenery change. Obviously the links are with your argument so I guess you are fine, but I won't change.
Edited by MustangGT on Tuesday 10th October 10:17
julian64 said:
Losing front end grip going though water isn't understeer.
It matches the literal textbook definition of understeer.julian64 said:
Losing the back gives you a chance.
Aquaplaning at the rear first would be pretty exceptional because the rear tyres typically run over the same road that the front tyres have just swept clear. But if you do ever get aquaplaning at the rear there is zero chance that a typical driver will catch it. You may be God's gift to drivers, but advice that is only applicable to the driving gods is bad advice.GreenV8S said:
julian64 said:
Losing front end grip going though water isn't understeer.
It matches the literal textbook definition of understeer.julian64 said:
Losing the back gives you a chance.
Aquaplaning at the rear first would be pretty exceptional because the rear tyres typically run over the same road that the front tyres have just swept clear. But if you do ever get aquaplaning at the rear there is zero chance that a typical driver will catch it. You may be God's gift to drivers, but advice that is only applicable to the driving gods is bad advice.In the same way I'd always have the best tyre with the most tread on the front of a motorcycle, I'd do the same with a car for the same reason
understeer is not your definition. it is the progressive loss of front grip while going around a bend too fast, which leads to the nose falling slowly out of the circle. Understeer is not a term used for what happens when the front loses grip suddenly in response to water, or a man hole cover etc.
In the article pointed to above I can kinda see the logic. If you drive with no ability to counter oversteer or understeer then its better to configure the car for understeer as its a more benign and progressive loss of the car. But it wouldn't be sensible for a motorcycle, and it wouldn't be sensible for any of the other cars I have which are relatively lightweight and sporty.
julian64 said:
Well I don't like to admit it but if that's the standard of driving GOD then I am exactly that. Its relatively car dependant but when I go out in the TVR the back will break away with very little provocation (okay maybe a bit of provocation) and I am well used to catching it. I even do it routinely every time I go out in the car to gauge the grip levels on the road.
In the same way I'd always have the best tyre with the most tread on the front of a motorcycle, I'd do the same with a car for the same reason
understeer is not your definition. it is the progressive loss of front grip while going around a bend too fast, which leads to the nose falling slowly out of the circle. Understeer is not a term used for what happens when the front loses grip suddenly in response to water, or a man hole cover etc.
In the article pointed to above I can kinda see the logic. If you drive with no ability to counter oversteer or understeer then its better to configure the car for understeer as its a more benign and progressive loss of the car. But it wouldn't be sensible for a motorcycle, and it wouldn't be sensible for any of the other cars I have which are relatively lightweight and sporty.
Oh dear!In the same way I'd always have the best tyre with the most tread on the front of a motorcycle, I'd do the same with a car for the same reason
understeer is not your definition. it is the progressive loss of front grip while going around a bend too fast, which leads to the nose falling slowly out of the circle. Understeer is not a term used for what happens when the front loses grip suddenly in response to water, or a man hole cover etc.
In the article pointed to above I can kinda see the logic. If you drive with no ability to counter oversteer or understeer then its better to configure the car for understeer as its a more benign and progressive loss of the car. But it wouldn't be sensible for a motorcycle, and it wouldn't be sensible for any of the other cars I have which are relatively lightweight and sporty.
You can lead a horse to water etc..
MustangGT said:
julian64 said:
Well I don't like to admit it but if that's the standard of driving GOD then I am exactly that. Its relatively car dependant but when I go out in the TVR the back will break away with very little provocation (okay maybe a bit of provocation) and I am well used to catching it. I even do it routinely every time I go out in the car to gauge the grip levels on the road.
In the same way I'd always have the best tyre with the most tread on the front of a motorcycle, I'd do the same with a car for the same reason
understeer is not your definition. it is the progressive loss of front grip while going around a bend too fast, which leads to the nose falling slowly out of the circle. Understeer is not a term used for what happens when the front loses grip suddenly in response to water, or a man hole cover etc.
In the article pointed to above I can kinda see the logic. If you drive with no ability to counter oversteer or understeer then its better to configure the car for understeer as its a more benign and progressive loss of the car. But it wouldn't be sensible for a motorcycle, and it wouldn't be sensible for any of the other cars I have which are relatively lightweight and sporty.
Oh dear!In the same way I'd always have the best tyre with the most tread on the front of a motorcycle, I'd do the same with a car for the same reason
understeer is not your definition. it is the progressive loss of front grip while going around a bend too fast, which leads to the nose falling slowly out of the circle. Understeer is not a term used for what happens when the front loses grip suddenly in response to water, or a man hole cover etc.
In the article pointed to above I can kinda see the logic. If you drive with no ability to counter oversteer or understeer then its better to configure the car for understeer as its a more benign and progressive loss of the car. But it wouldn't be sensible for a motorcycle, and it wouldn't be sensible for any of the other cars I have which are relatively lightweight and sporty.
You can lead a horse to water etc..
I just twigged with your moniker why oversteer would be a more worrying problem for you. I would stick as you are.Gassing Station | Suspension, Brakes & Tyres | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff