Age old question: Pair of new tyres, fit on front or rear?

Terminal_Boy said:
Why move the rears that are in good shape with plenty of tread left to the fronts and fit new to the rears on an FWD vehicle?

I’ve always avoided tyre rotation on all the regular family cars I’ve owned as the one time I did this on any old Vectra, I ended up having to replace all 4 tyres at once high seemed a false economy.
Click to expand...

I made a list of reasons above - I'm going new on rear now.

Sounds like the rear tyres on your vehicle are really old then, which is also dangerous, rubber perishes after a few years & become weathered, if not worn.

Moving the rears to the front means I'll wear them out faster.

Traction isn't 'essential' i.e. starting out / accelerating the vehicle isn't the main aim, safety is - if it was a race car, then yes, traction, its a van and 99% of what I drive on I can accelerate very easily, once in motion, its essential the van keeps its motion predictable and true - i.e. the rears must hold the van steady as I drive.

If I'm on a surface that I cannot move the van from (very deep mud or snow), then a couple of extra mm of tread on the front tyres would not make any difference anyway - id need mud tyres, in my case I carry snow chains anyway if I'm in that situation.
 
Lot of big brained posters itt arguing against all the evidence posted by much better posters with sourced evidence. The tyres on the rear are more important than the front according to every study ever conducted OP.
 
FWD - New ones onto the Back, Back ones moved to the front.
Done that each and every time over my past previous x number of cars - only had one fitter question my request.
One and only time different is when I needed to replace all 4.
 
Conscript said:
Here's a video highlighting how it can quickly become an issue when the tyres on the rear aren't unsafe, and no one's driving like a tool.

EDIT: It seems you can't embed videos to start at a timestamp - go to 1:38 to see the demonstration.

It's perfectly possible to have all 4 tyres on the car deemed to be "safe", ie, good condition, good quality and with decent tread depth (they state "half worn", so that's about 4mm...a tyre still well within it's serviceable life).
But comparatively, if the rears have less tread depth, are the most likely to be the first to lose their ability to shift any given amount of water on the pavement, and the result is the car quickly becomes unstable.

Watch until you see the cars driving side by side, at the same speed, on the same corner. The only difference is tyre placement, yet the one with the worn bias toward the rear quickly becomes squirrelly, and then loses control, when driving at moderate speeds on a gentle corner. The advice is purely about trying to balance the probability so that it's always your front tyres which give up first, so you can feel it and do something about it.
Click to expand...
Yet the law states a minimum of 1.6mm on either the front or rears. I have no doubt that it can happen but for all you know there may be a bit of oil on the roads that has caused the lack of traction, or just a poor quality of tyre. Many variables that could have caused that.
 
Doobedoo said:
Yet the law states a minimum of 1.6mm on either the front or rears. I have no doubt that it can happen but for all you know there may be a bit of oil on the roads that has caused the lack of traction, or just a poor quality of tyre. Many variables that could have caused that.
Click to expand...

Sorry...but have you misunderstood what my post was about? Because I'm not sure that response makes sense in the context of what I said.
- You said oversteer should never be an issue unless your rear tyres are unsafe, or you're driving like a tool.
- I've provided an example of how it can be an issue even if you are driving normally, and your rear tyres are safe, but if they are "less safe" than your fronts (by virtue only of having less tread depth, even if they are still well above the legal minimum).

So what is the relevance of citing the legal minimum? The narrator of the video said they were testing half worn tyres. I'm taking that as 4mm (most new tyres have ~8mm AFAIK), so by your own admission, if 1.6 is the legal minimum, then surely 4mm wouldn't be enough to deem them "unsafe", would it?

Obviously do as you wish, as you say, there are probably variables which have a greater impact in day to day driving. I'm just making the point that one, easily controlled and specifically tested variable, does have a demonstrable impact even for a safe driver in a well maintained car. If there's oil on the road, then relative tread depths are going to be the least of your worries :p
 
I think I have always fitted a set of 4 tyres as I always swap front to rear when half worn.

I get the arguments for doing it both ways, but generally I would put them on the front. Assuming the rear tyres are of a decent quality and some tread left it's hardly going to be stepping out the back end because of it.
 
Conscript said:
Sorry...but have you misunderstood what my post was about? Because I'm not sure that response makes sense in the context of what I said.
- You said oversteer should never be an issue unless your rear tyres are unsafe, or you're driving like a tool.
- I've provided an example of how it can be an issue even if you are driving normally, and your rear tyres are safe, but if they are "less safe" than your fronts (by virtue only of having less tread depth, even if they are still well above the legal minimum).

So what is the relevance of citing the legal minimum? The narrator of the video said they were testing half worn tyres. I'm taking that as 4mm (most new tyres have ~8mm AFAIK), so by your own admission, if 1.6 is the legal minimum, then surely 4mm wouldn't be enough to deem them "unsafe", would it?

Obviously do as you wish, as you say, there are probably variables which have a greater impact in day to day driving. I'm just making the point that one, easily controlled and specifically tested variable, does have a demonstrable impact even for a safe driver in a well maintained car. If there's oil on the road, then relative tread depths are going to be the least of your worries :p
Click to expand...
It’s an extreme case scenario. We know this because it’s not a normal occurrence, I’ve never heard of story after story of people losing the back end because they put new tyres on the front rather than the rear. If it was such a big issue the law would be changed.

In an everyday scenario you would need the most grip on the front axle, the axle that does all the work. That’s why the fronts wear quicker than the rears.

I agree if your driving on an skid pan or very heavy rain you want new tyres on the rear, better still just slow down, but for everything else you want better tyres on the front.
 
Why do people think newer tyres have more grip? They don’t.

Newer tyres have more tread. Hence can move standing water better. So with a lighter axle you need to out new tyres on the back

all the tyre manufacturers recommend this. Quite why people think they know better on the internet than experts I don’t know, internet hey.
 
If you think that driving in heavy rain is somehow an extreme case and not representative of a what a British driver might regularly experience, I'm not really sure I've got much else to say. Personally, aquaplaning is one of the scariest things I've ever had happen to me while driving, and I don't think it's that uncommon. So I'll just stick with the advice as given and leave it at that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom