Newest tyres front or rear (RWD)?

[GravelBen]

Deva Link said:

GravelBen said:

For sure (because they're kingstars) oversteer is now very easy to provoke in the wet, but thats fine because I'm expecting it and can drive the car accordingly. Happy to accept its not for everyone though, you do have to be awake if you have a heavy foot.

Hmmm...perhaps you're a driving God, but for more ordinary drivers it's not often that the space exists on public roads to correct oversteer, epecially if it occurs halfway around a bend on a single carriageway road with traffic coming the other way.

I never said it happens unpredictably, or at speed. Its easy to provoke at low speed with the right foot when you want to, which you only do with the necessary space. And its really not hard at all to correct low-speed (1st/2nd gear) oversteer in an MX5. Driven sensibly its neutral with much higher limits than the understeer caused by putting the kingstars on the front.

The kingstars are interesting tyres actually - fine in the dry, and even in the wet give decent lateral grip but lose much more longitudinal grip, hence making it easy to break traction at low speed.

O/T, whats with the sarcastic 'driving god' comments on PH these days for anyone who admits to having competent car control?

[GravelBen]

Funk said:

Newest tyres should always go on the rear.

And we should always steer with the 'shuffle' technique, separate braking and gearchanges and never, ever exceed the speed limit or posted advisory speed for a corner.

Oh, and we should never think for ourselves either...

who me, sarcastic?

ETA: Not directed at you personally but at the general pervasive attitude that if an authority says something is a reasonable, safe solution for the majority of (uninterested) people it must therefore be absolute truth and unilaterally applied to everyone, with no exceptions.

Edited by GravelBen on Tuesday 22 September 14:39

[Nick_F]

Under what circumstances, other than in standing water or snow, will worn (2mm tread) tyres give less grip than new ones?

[Deva Link]

GravelBen said:

O/T, whats with the sarcastic 'driving god' comments on PH these days for anyone who admits to having competent car control?

Your post reads as if you think you could unquestionably deal with oversteer in any circumstances that might arise. There are too many variables on the road to be able to say that.

[kambites]

B'stard Child said:

When not faced with staggered widths I normally manage my tyres by rotation so that they are all worn out at the same time and I buy a set of four

That's the proper solution. I've never replaced two tyres without the others except on the Elise where they're different sizes.

Edited by kambites on Tuesday 22 September 14:44

[Dracoro]

Nick_F said:

Under what circumstances, other than in standing water or snow, will worn (2mm tread) tyres give less grip than new ones?

On many cars, the tyre compound is such that at low tread depths, it is harder. Coupled with less tread block movement means less heat can be generated and thus less grip. Or something like that

[kambites]

Nick_F said:

Under what circumstances, other than in standing water or snow, will worn (2mm tread) tyres give less grip than new ones?

My feeling was that it should only make a difference on standing water, but I have been told of test which prove the newer tyres are better even in the dry. Not sure whether I believe it or not...

[GravelBen]

Deva Link said:

GravelBen said:

O/T, whats with the sarcastic 'driving god' comments on PH these days for anyone who admits to having competent car control?

Your post reads as if you think you could unquestionably deal with oversteer in any circumstances that might arise. There are too many variables on the road to be able to say that.

Perhaps you're reading too much into it? In the same sense your post could read as if you think oversteer is fundamentally uncontrollable and understeer will never cause any problems. If you're far enough over the limit for oversteer to take you into the path of oncoming traffic regardless of driver inputs then understeer would also take you there, and the problem lies not with the car or tyres but the driver.

I'm not sure why preferring oversteer to understeer should be taken as a claim to driving godliness. If I said I was always balanced perfectly between those states perhaps...

[kambites]

Over-steer caused by significant aquaplaning of the rear end on a corner is damned nearly uncontrollable. I can happily drift my Elise on damp roads, but if the back end steps out of line more than a foot or so on standing water I'd have absolutely no chance of catching it.

[Funk]

GravelBen said:

Funk said:

Newest tyres should always go on the rear.

And we should always steer with the 'shuffle' technique, separate braking and gearchanges and never, ever exceed the speed limit or posted advisory speed for a corner.

Oh, and we should never think for ourselves either...

who me, sarcastic?

ETA: Not directed at you personally but at the general pervasive attitude that if an authority says something is a reasonable, safe solution for the majority of (uninterested) people it must therefore be absolute truth and unilaterally applied to everyone, with no exceptions.

Edited by GravelBen on Tuesday 22 September 14:39

Most people can't drive. Understeer is inherently safer than oversteer. It's not an illogical conclusion to have the newest tyres at the rear.

[GravelBen]

For most people, I agree and have said that all along - its the everyone/always comments that I disagree with.

[zakelwe]

The thing is that if you have uncontrollable understeer not only can you go a lot further than with oversteer (because the wheels are more pointed in the direction of travel)but also oversteer on left hand bends and roundabouts will have you pointing away from traffic whereas understeer you will be pointing at traffic.

So as well as ability to control it should also be taken into consideration the results. I still think the "experts" views fails to take into account road conditions such as slush or snow at all.

Regards
Andy

[977]

Brand new tires have that nasty moulding release agent on them though don't they... so surely you should put a new pair on the wrong end for the first 250 miles/few heat cycles...?

I don't worry too much on the car because I get through them at such a rate, but on the motorbike, where significant oversteer nearly always equates to falling off, I hate driving with new tires.

[havoc]

Funk said:

Most people can't drive. Understeer is inherently safer than oversteer. It's not an illogical conclusion to have the newest tyres at the rear.

First, I agree with Ben's comments underneath your post, but:-

- MOST rwd cars now come with TC/DSC/ESP etc.
- MOST people who buy a rwd car without that (assuming it's not a 10y.o. MX-5 or 3-series) are probably interested in driving, which puts them ahead of 90% of the population

...ergo, if someone is actually ASKING about tyres for a rwd on a car-forum, then:-
- If TC exists, it doesn't matter so much what's on the rear, so put the best tyres on the front to clear water from the path of the rear tyres;
- If TC doesn't exist, they're more likely to be (a) mechanically sympathetic when driving and (b) have a clue what to do in the event of oversteer.


So, while mine and Ben's answers might not be ideal for everybody on here, they're probably suitable for most. I'd recommend the same advice to my wife (likes her cars from an image perspective more than outright performance, not a PH-style 'driver' but nonetheless competent), if that makes a difference!?!

[Deva Link]

kambites said:

Over-steer caused by significant aquaplaning of the rear end on a corner is damned nearly uncontrollable. I can happily drift my Elise on damp roads, but if the back end steps out of line more than a foot or so on standing water I'd have absolutely no chance of catching it.

Perhaps you need lessons from GravelBen?

[havoc]

Deva Link said:

kambites said:

Over-steer caused by significant aquaplaning of the rear end on a corner is damned nearly uncontrollable. I can happily drift my Elise on damp roads, but if the back end steps out of line more than a foot or so on standing water I'd have absolutely no chance of catching it.

Perhaps you need lessons from GravelBen?

Perhaps he needs to go slower in the wet?!? If there's standing water I don't drive the car hard, full stop!

[GC8]

Not this crock of sh*te again? New tyres to the rear is the most ill-thought out piece of advice Ive ever seen (given obviously, by touchy feely motoring organisations to those without the wit to know better). Your front wheels provide most of the cars braking effort and their wet grip whilst braking and through standing water is of paramount importance. The supposed arguement for placing new tyres on the rear is that thatll stop the car from oversteering..... Who subscribes to this crap; and who really thinks that this 'risk' is greater?

[Deva Link]

GC8 said:

Not this crock of sh*te again? New tyres to the rear is the most ill-thought out piece of advice Ive ever seen (given obviously, by touchy feely motoring organisations to those without the wit to know better). Your front wheels provide most of the cars braking effort and their wet grip whilst braking and through standing water is of paramount importance. The supposed arguement for placing new tyres on the rear is that thatll stop the car from oversteering..... Who subscribes to this crap; and who really thinks that this 'risk' is greater?

One of the motoring TV shows (I forget which one) did some demos a few years ago on this. They used a FWD hatchback and showed that even on that was much easier to lose the backend with new tyres on the front. The whole balance of the car changes.

I do, as previously mentioned, have issues with it in that the argument falls apart if tyres of very different characteristics are used.

These rules are only ever generalisations - designed for the average person, with average ability in the average car using aveage tyres. YMMV.

[GC8]

Theres an argument for: I certainyl concede that, but it doesnt outweight the far greater arguments against. Its these which always seem to be ignored when the advice is given.

If the tyres were adequate on the rear before, then theyre adequate still too: smething else thats often overlooked. Also, if the new higher cornering speed allowed by the improved fronts gets the driver into an oversteering situation: then they were driving too fast!

This is akin to to lowering all NSL speed limits on roads that have corners which you cant safely traverse at 60mph. It is completely missing the the point.

[Deva Link]

GC8 said:

If the tyres were adequate on the rear before, then theyre adequate still too: smething else thats often overlooked.

No. It's complicated and I don't fully understand it, but it changes the dynamics of the car.

I know it seems odd, but driven at the same speed in the same conditions with worn tyres all round and then with new tyres on the front, the car will be more likely to oversteer with the new tyres. Same thing happens if you mess around with tyre pressures.