Need new Front tyres - Rears are fine..
Need new Front tyres - Rears are fine..
Author
Discussion

HannsG

Original Poster:

3,135 posts

165 months

Sunday 29th September 2013
quotequote all
Hmmm. Bit of a wierd one here..

Rears on the Saab are fine (Hankook Ventus V12). The fronts have had it though, terrifyingly bad in the wet. We have just had a newborn so I am looking for new fronts.

I have only one tyre in mind and thats Rainsport 2's. Tempted to change just the front two and keep the Hankooks on the rear. I have ALWAYS had the same four brand on all four beforehand on all other cars.

And now with a newborn laddie, god knows why I am considering to go against what I normally do.

Do you think I'm being a bit of a fairy here? Or do you think I should just shell out for all four Rainsports?

Could not live with myself If summat happened and it was cos of different tyres.

Disco You

3,749 posts

211 months

Sunday 29th September 2013
quotequote all
This may start a debate, but it's better to have more grippy tyres on the back. Understeer being less likely to chuck you into a hedge than oversteer, and all that.

MG CHRIS

9,322 posts

198 months

Sunday 29th September 2013
quotequote all
Get 2 new tyres that need replacing then swap them to the back wear the front ones down then replace with the same tyres big heavy fwd car will always wear tyres quicker on the front.

Then when the 2 front tyres need replacing swap with identical tyres as the back then swap back round. If that makes sense you will end up with all 4 tyres which will wear down more equally.

MysteryLemon

4,968 posts

222 months

Sunday 29th September 2013
quotequote all
Swap the good rear tyres to the front and stick the new ones on the back.

Regardless whether this is better for grip, it's better to have the older set of tyres wear out quicker than the newuns. If all you ever do is replace the fronts, the rears could last years and years and eventually become dangerous from age.

Patrick Bateman

13,210 posts

205 months

Sunday 29th September 2013
quotequote all
What are BMW owners meant to do when we need front tyres only?

davepoth

29,395 posts

230 months

Sunday 29th September 2013
quotequote all
Disco You said:
This may start a debate, but it's better to have more grippy tyres on the back. Understeer being less likely to chuck you into a hedge than oversteer, and all that.
Agree. Head first in to something is much better than sideways.

jon-

16,534 posts

247 months

Sunday 29th September 2013
quotequote all
Rainsport 3 has just come out. If you can wait a few weeks it will be in the shops.

S. Gonzales Esq.

2,559 posts

243 months

Sunday 29th September 2013
quotequote all
Patrick Bateman said:
What are BMW owners meant to do when we need front tyres only?
Exactly the same thing - new tyres on the rear.

kambites

71,599 posts

252 months

Sunday 29th September 2013
quotequote all
As above, put the tyres with better tread on the back. Grip levels on dry or damp roads shouldn't be significantly different but on standing water you really don't want the rears to lose contact with the road before the fronts.

TheLordJohn

5,746 posts

177 months

Sunday 29th September 2013
quotequote all
HannsG said:
Hmmm. Bit of a wierd one here..

Rears on the Saab are fine (Hankook Ventus V12). The fronts have had it though, terrifyingly bad in the wet. We have just had a newborn so I am looking for new fronts.

I have only one tyre in mind and thats Rainsport 2's. Tempted to change just the front two and keep the Hankooks on the rear. I have ALWAYS had the same four brand on all four beforehand on all other cars.

And now with a newborn laddie, god knows why I am considering to go against what I normally do.

Do you think I'm being a bit of a fairy here? Or do you think I should just shell out for all four Rainsports?

Could not live with myself If summat happened and it was cos of different tyres.
Depending where you are I'm the country - I can probably get you the RainSports at the best price smile

Thanks, Stuart.

pti

1,866 posts

175 months

Sunday 29th September 2013
quotequote all
S. Gonzales Esq. said:
Patrick Bateman said:
What are BMW owners meant to do when we need front tyres only?
Exactly the same thing - new tyres on the rear.
Staggered fitmenet so wouldn't work.

Although this sort of scenario is irrelevant to RWD cars as they wear both fronts and backs more eveny (in terms of time) than FWD.

Patrick Bateman

13,210 posts

205 months

Sunday 29th September 2013
quotequote all
I've certainly not found or heard that.

The rears have always worn much faster than the fronts for me.


RobM77

35,349 posts

265 months

Sunday 29th September 2013
quotequote all
pti said:
S. Gonzales Esq. said:
Patrick Bateman said:
What are BMW owners meant to do when we need front tyres only?
Exactly the same thing - new tyres on the rear.
Staggered fitmenet so wouldn't work.

Although this sort of scenario is irrelevant to RWD cars as they wear both fronts and backs more eveny (in terms of time) than FWD.
yes I'm on my 5th BMW and they've all worn fronts and rears evenly, so I just change all four when they need doing. When I've owned less well balanced cars I've swapped the fronts and rears every so often to ensure the wear is even and then changed all four at once. The only problem with this philosophy is something like my 2-Eleven or the Elise I used to own, which aren't very well balanced but also run different sizes front and rear.

In summary I'd change all four each time (swapping front and rear if necessary; i.e. on a FWD car). If that's not practical then change them when they need doing, but definitely run the same make and model of tyre front and rear.

ETA: The BMW tyre wear front/rear thing does depend how you drive of course. If you drive in a balanced way then the wear is usually pretty much identical front/rear; at least for the BMWs that I've owned anyway.

Patrick Bateman

13,210 posts

205 months

Sunday 29th September 2013
quotequote all
Seems odd, all I've ever heard is the rear tyres wearing faster.

From my experience it seems to be around a 2:1 ratio. The fronts can last for ages.

vikingaero

13,483 posts

200 months

Sunday 29th September 2013
quotequote all
Can I horrify you lot and say that I disagree with new tyres on the rear? I think they should go on the front.

Why? For the normal driver lift off oversteer accidents rarely occur. For PHers that may be different. The vast majority of accidents are the frontal into another car/object. By having worn tyres at the front you have less grip and tread in the wet and are more likely to suffer from accident when you aquaplane.

Cars tend to be better sorted these days and lift off oversteer has been muted. Partly I see it as an opportunity for the tyre industry to sell more tyres over the life of a car.

kambites

71,599 posts

252 months

Sunday 29th September 2013
quotequote all
vikingaero said:
Why? For the normal driver lift off oversteer accidents rarely occur.
The purpose of putting them on the rear isn't to avoid lift-off oversteer. It's to make sure the front aquaplanes before the rear.

Zad

13,022 posts

267 months

Sunday 29th September 2013
quotequote all
Patrick Bateman said:
Seems odd, all I've ever heard is the rear tyres wearing faster.

From my experience it seems to be around a 2:1 ratio. The fronts can last for ages.
scratchchin

Can you possibly imagine why a BMW M5 might wear out it's rear tyres, and a Saab might wear out it's front ones? Nope, can't think why.

On a more positive note, I would go with the new tyres on the back too. If it still doesn't feel safe in the wet then lay out for 2 more, and maybe get the suspension geometry checked. Worn dampers or bushes starting to degrade might well make it feel a bit floaty, especially in marginal conditions.

Patrick Bateman

13,210 posts

205 months

Sunday 29th September 2013
quotequote all
Zad said:
scratchchin

Can you possibly imagine why a BMW M5 might wear out it's rear tyres, and a Saab might wear out it's front ones? Nope, can't think why.
My response was in reply to RWD cars normally having even tyre wear front to back.

vikingaero

13,483 posts

200 months

Sunday 29th September 2013
quotequote all
kambites said:
vikingaero said:
Why? For the normal driver lift off oversteer accidents rarely occur.
The purpose of putting them on the rear isn't to avoid lift-off oversteer. It's to make sure the front aquaplanes before the rear.
So if the new fronts have cleared a channel then there is less risk of the rears aquaplaning first. If the worn fronts aquaplane then the rears still could. I'd rather have the first option.

Or put it this way. Motorway comes to a standstill in the wet. You stamp on the brakes. Would you rather have 8mm of tread on the front or 1.6mm? (And assuming you're not a 24/7 driving God than avoids all dodgy scenarios).

kambites

71,599 posts

252 months

Sunday 29th September 2013
quotequote all
vikingaero said:
Or put it this way. Motorway comes to a standstill in the wet. You stamp on the brakes. Would you rather have 8mm of tread on the front or 1.6mm? (And assuming you're not a 24/7 driving God than avoids all dodgy scenarios).
I'd want the tread on the back because if I had 8mm on the front and 1.6mm on the back, the back would quickly become the front anyway and then I've have neither braking nor control.

It's less of an issue in a RWD car in a way because at least they usually have some weight over the rear, but in a FWD car there's no way I'd want less tread on the back.