Just fit winter tyres to the drive wheels?

[Mr Gearchange]

Plus it's not just about driving in the snow.

The compound of a winter tyre is designed to work better - to offer more grip - in cold and damp conditions.

Having significant differences in the grip levels between axle's irrespective of there being snow on the ground is not a good idea.

[matchmaker]

Munter said:

matchmaker said:

My experience of it is that it is OK. I fitted them to the front of my FWD car for traction. When driving in snow I'm not going to corner or brake hard.

You're not intending to.

Mind you I'm not intending to have a crash either so I don't actually need insurance...

You don't actually know what other road users will force you to do, and knowingly impairing your ability to control the vehicle is a tricky stance to take.

Say you are approaching a T junction where you'll have to give way. No problems you've planned to slow gently to a stop. Then one of the parked cars starts to pull away from the kirb in front of you. If you don't brake hard you'll crash in to them. So you brake hard, the back wheels start to overtake the front and smack into a parked car. You've now hit an "innocent" persons car rather than the guilty party. That's a claim against you, as the guilty party will flock off in to the distance unaffected.

The problem with driving in snow is that too many people don't have a clue about how to drive in it. Last winter I covered 150 miles down the A9 in heavy snow - the road was closed shortly after we passed over Drumochter Summit. I drove carefully, keeping a safe distance from the car in front, and avoided harsh braking, steering or acceleration. I (plus my family) got home in one piece.

I was on standard road tyres. The thing I worried about was stopping on an up gradient, as getting started again would have been a lottery.

[edc]

Munter said:

matchmaker said:

My experience of it is that it is OK. I fitted them to the front of my FWD car for traction. When driving in snow I'm not going to corner or brake hard.

You're not intending to.

Mind you I'm not intending to have a crash either so I don't actually need insurance...

You don't actually know what other road users will force you to do, and knowingly impairing your ability to control the vehicle is a tricky stance to take.

Say you are approaching a T junction where you'll have to give way. No problems you've planned to slow gently to a stop. Then one of the parked cars starts to pull away from the kirb in front of you. If you don't brake hard you'll crash in to them. So you brake hard, the back wheels start to overtake the front and smack into a parked car. You've now hit an "innocent" persons car rather than the guilty party. That's a claim against you, as the guilty party will flock off in to the distance unaffected.

If the back tyres give way then won't the front tyres (if on the same rubber as the back) give way to, so the 'crash' would have happened anyway?

[Mr Gearchange]

But they aren't the same tyres back and front. That is the point of the thread.

[rallycross]

Munter said:

[

Say you are approaching a T junction where you'll have to give way. No problems you've planned to slow gently to a stop. Then one of the parked cars starts to pull away from the kirb in front of you. If you don't brake hard you'll crash in to them. So you brake hard, the back wheels start to overtake the front and smack into a parked car. You've now hit an "innocent" persons car rather than the guilty party. That's a claim against you, as the guilty party will flock off in to the distance unaffected.

What you are saying sounds quite plausibe, buts its simply not the the case.
Of course I would recommend having four fitted, but if you did just put 2 on it will be fine.

Otherwise how do you explain the fact our family has done 1,000's of miles with this set up over the past 15 years since moving up there without any incidents?

Mabye I am the only person on this thread who actually has experience of driving with them on the front and regular tyres on the rear (usually Bridgestone or Pirelli on the rear). We've been doing it for years (Nov - April) and its been fine, I dont need a link to you tube to tell me otherwise!

And the car is fine in the cold/damp its not turned into some wildly (lift of) overstearing beast! It brakes fine as well.

If you find a snowey road where there is no traffic coming you can have a bit of fun with lift of oversteer but its not dramatic, and we know how it will behave because we chose to have that set up.

And no, I am not writing this from a ditch whilst waiting to be recovered due to having spun wildly off the road!

[BeeRoad]

Mr Will said:

Not being able to stop in snow causes more accidents than not being able to set off in snow.

Seems logical as it's impossible to hit anyone if you fail to make the car move.

[Munter]

edc said:

Munter said:

matchmaker said:

My experience of it is that it is OK. I fitted them to the front of my FWD car for traction. When driving in snow I'm not going to corner or brake hard.

You're not intending to.

Mind you I'm not intending to have a crash either so I don't actually need insurance...

You don't actually know what other road users will force you to do, and knowingly impairing your ability to control the vehicle is a tricky stance to take.

Say you are approaching a T junction where you'll have to give way. No problems you've planned to slow gently to a stop. Then one of the parked cars starts to pull away from the kirb in front of you. If you don't brake hard you'll crash in to them. So you brake hard, the back wheels start to overtake the front and smack into a parked car. You've now hit an "innocent" persons car rather than the guilty party. That's a claim against you, as the guilty party will flock off in to the distance unaffected.

If the back tyres give way then won't the front tyres (if on the same rubber as the back) give way to, so the 'crash' would have happened anyway?

Exactly. But the crash would have been into the guilty party and the claim against their insurance. Not into an innocent party and the claim against your insurance due to NOT having the same rubber on the back.

The point being if you lose control of a vehicle (and going sideways would be considered a loss of control) and hit something/somebody you would otherwise not have hit. You're likely to be found partly or wholly liable. Even if the only reason you lost control was someone else's fault.

[oldcynic]

There are of course pages of debate about this subject in other recent threads - opinion is divided:

1. Don't do it. Think of the children/hedgehogs/other drivers.

2. I do this every winter and it works great for me.

The youtube video (if it's the one I've seen before - can't check this from work) demonstrates that if you drive a car like it's on warm dry tarmac but happen to be traversing an ice rink at the time then you'll have problems. But nowhere near as badly as driving on summer/all season tyres only.

My opinion: 4 Winters are better than 2, 2 Winters are better than none. If it's snowy or icy then slow down - regardless of what tyres you've fitted.

[matchmaker]

rallycross said:

Common sense from someone who has tried it.

[SWH]

Only ever fitted them to the front of our old 850 T5, never had a problem.... that includes steep icy lanes (up and down) to our old house, I could barely walk up or down the road; various snowy motorways; evasive action on several occasions and driving to the Alps (Italy side) to go skiing - frozen autoroutes with wheel tracks in the slush was a fair test... discovering that the first push of the brakes does nothing (due to icing/steam) was my only alarming moment, and that's got sod all to do with tyres. Six winters, so several thousand miles - driving to the conditions is way more important.

No experience of RWD and winter tyres, I just skidded my way around carefuly (mostly!) when I had RWD motors; however I'd probably go for all four in that instance.

Not fitted them to either of our current daily motors.

Edited by SWH on Friday 26th November 14:24

[Munter]

rallycross said:

Munter said:

[

Say you are approaching a T junction where you'll have to give way. No problems you've planned to slow gently to a stop. Then one of the parked cars starts to pull away from the kirb in front of you. If you don't brake hard you'll crash in to them. So you brake hard, the back wheels start to overtake the front and smack into a parked car. You've now hit an "innocent" persons car rather than the guilty party. That's a claim against you, as the guilty party will flock off in to the distance unaffected.

What you are saying sounds quite plausibe, buts its simply not the the case.
Of course I would recommend having four fitted, but if you did just put 2 on it will be fine.

Otherwise how do you explain the fact our family has done 1,000's of miles with this set up over the past 15 years since moving up there without any incidents?

Mabye I am the only person on this thread who actually has experience of driving with them on the front and regular tyres on the rear (usually Bridgestone or Pirelli on the rear). We've been doing it for years (Nov - April) and its been fine, I dont need a link to you tube to tell me otherwise!

And the car is fine in the cold/damp its not turned into some wildly (lift of) overstearing beast! It brakes fine as well.

If you find a snowey road where there is no traffic coming you can have a bit of fun with lift of oversteer but its not dramatic, and we know how it will behave because we chose to have that set up.

And no, I am not writing this from a ditch whilst waiting to be recovered due to having spun wildly off the road!

I bet you buy fully comp car insurance though don't you. Even after 1000's of miles driving without a claim against you. So using the "I've been fine so far" logic, really you only need 3rd party fire and theft because you have proved you don't crash.

Millions of people drive around with years and years of no claims and x00,000 miles under their belts. They still buy fully comp insurance. And with good reason. The same reason people who consider it don't usually fit 2 summer and 2 winter tyres. Not because it WILL be a problem. But because it COULD be a problem.

[Steve_F]

I've been thinking of doing this too. My ideal option is to get all 4 winters but that's going to cost around £500 which is a big hit around December.

I can see the arguments about the rears non gripping as well as the fronts but in a front wheel drive car these are the tyres that apply the power, steering and most of the braking.

It's probably not relevant at all but in wet to drying races you will often see cars with a mix of slicks/semis or semis/full wets on and they don't tend to die.

Just seems logical to me that having winter tyres on the front of a FWD car will have better grip than having four non-winter tyres on it.

I'd never be intenting to be going round a corner quick enough to get lift-off oversteer in those conditions anyway and would guess if it was that slippy a car with four non-winter tyres would have left the road anyway.

Seems to be a bit of an attitude that winter tyres = ability to corner at dry summer speeds.....

[Munter]

Steve_F said:

It's probably not relevant at all but in wet to drying races you will often see cars with a mix of slicks/semis or semis/full wets on and they don't tend to die.

Wets on the rear of a FWD car to heat up to working temps (when a slick wouldn't), in order to give the closest grip levels front and rear. As soon as the wets give up on the drying surface it's sideways in every corner.

I'm not sure the 2 scenarios are really comparable, and if they are I think it supports getting the grip levels as close as possible front and rear...

[busta]

selwonk said:

Ocean said:

You tube search and it will tell you.

Shocking video of a test of exactly this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cBSWEhimdA

That video is a load of cock. It's produced by a tyre manufacturer for a start. The clip of him hitting the balls head on is clearly a different take to the one of the car understeering off line slightly, and they have fitted the winter tyres to the rear of a fwd car, which nobody with any sense would do. He's driving faster than you sensibly would in the conditions anyway. When he oversteers on the slalom he clearly uses a bit of a Scandinavian flick to unsettle the car.



If fitting 2 winter tyres is the difference between getting off the drive or being snowed in then surely it makes a lot more sense than none at all. I don't buy the argument that the car will be imbalanced and dangerous compared to a car on 4 non winter tyres. A car on matched all season tyres can easily understeer and oversteer in the snow if you are going too quick and it won't always hold a straight line under braking. A car on two winter tyres would be no worse in any of the same situations, and have the benefit that you can actually achieve some forward motion at times when regular tyres would leave you stranded.

[Munter]

busta said:

selwonk said:

Ocean said:

You tube search and it will tell you.

Shocking video of a test of exactly this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cBSWEhimdA

That video is a load of cock. It's produced by a tyre manufacturer for a start. The clip of him hitting the balls head on is clearly a different take to the one of the car understeering off line slightly, and they have fitted the winter tyres to the rear of a fwd car, which nobody with any sense would do. He's driving faster than you sensibly would in the conditions anyway. When he oversteers on the slalom he clearly uses a bit of a Scandinavian flick to unsettle the car.



If fitting 2 winter tyres is the difference between getting off the drive or being snowed in then surely it makes a lot more sense than none at all. I don't buy the argument that the car will be imbalanced and dangerous compared to a car on 4 non winter tyres. A car on matched all season tyres can easily understeer and oversteer in the snow if you are going too quick and it won't always hold a straight line under braking. A car on two winter tyres would be no worse in any of the same situations, and have the benefit that you can actually achieve some forward motion at times when regular tyres would leave you stranded.

They put the winters on the front summers on the back later in the vid.

Or try this one from the canadian gov at about 1:45
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdtAm7RsTmE

A mix will not make you crash. But it will make the car harder to control on the limit of grip. A limit which you don't know you need to use...until you do.

[busta]

Munter said:

busta said:

selwonk said:

Ocean said:

You tube search and it will tell you.

Shocking video of a test of exactly this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cBSWEhimdA

That video is a load of cock. It's produced by a tyre manufacturer for a start. The clip of him hitting the balls head on is clearly a different take to the one of the car understeering off line slightly, and they have fitted the winter tyres to the rear of a fwd car, which nobody with any sense would do. He's driving faster than you sensibly would in the conditions anyway. When he oversteers on the slalom he clearly uses a bit of a Scandinavian flick to unsettle the car.



If fitting 2 winter tyres is the difference between getting off the drive or being snowed in then surely it makes a lot more sense than none at all. I don't buy the argument that the car will be imbalanced and dangerous compared to a car on 4 non winter tyres. A car on matched all season tyres can easily understeer and oversteer in the snow if you are going too quick and it won't always hold a straight line under braking. A car on two winter tyres would be no worse in any of the same situations, and have the benefit that you can actually achieve some forward motion at times when regular tyres would leave you stranded.

They put the winters on the front summers on the back later in the vid.

Or try this one from the canadian gov at about 1:45
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdtAm7RsTmE

A mix will not make you crash. But it will make the car harder to control on the limit of grip. A limit which you don't know you need to use...until you do.

Yes they changed them but they where still daft to have them on the rear in the first place.

It's all about how you drive the car. If you fit 2 winter tyres and expect to be able to do 100mph everywhere then you will come unstuck. If you fit them to allow you to make progress where you otherwise couldn't, but still drive at a sensible speed you are better off than with none at-all.

Both those videos compare 2 winter tyres against 4 winter tyres. Find some comparing 2 winter tyres to no winter tyres and then you will have a relevant argument.

[busta]

It's the same argument with snow chains. Ok, they aren't the most dynamically balanced solution, nor are they something you'd use any more than you had to. But they are a damn site better than freezing to death.

[selwonk]

But you take snow chains off when you are not driving on snow.

[oldcynic]

selwonk said:

But you take snow chains off when you are not driving on snow.

And the argument against mixing winters & summers relates to driving on snow!

[selwonk]

It doesn't for me. If I'm driving on snow, regardless of whether I've fitted winter tyres to 2 or 4 corners, I doubt if I'd ever approach the limit of cornering grip.

Winter tyres are not just for snow though, and could be kept on for a good few weeks. It's when it's *not* snowing that I'd be more worried about end to end variance in grip!