His point was and proven by my experience you are better off loosing a tire in the rear rather than a tire in the front. In an emergencey condition? ok I can choose blowout on the front or blowout on the rear, which do you choose? rear for me no ifs ands or buts dot period end!
Sorry, my friend, but I don’t agree with your theory. Assuming no irregular wear the total amount of rubber you use up over the life of the vehicle will be exactly the same whether you rotate or not. Your theory only applies to one tire, not the aggregate of the four.
I’ve versed in the theory of having the better tires on the rear, and have even seen the videos from Michelin’s testing grounds on this subject. Not rotating tires does not prevent one from putting the better pair on the rear when the time comes to replace a pair.
Disability prohibits me from rotating my own tires any more, but I’m not considering that in the decision.
My last paragraph was to publicly emphasize that you should never try to get the maximum out of your tires anyway due to the safety tradeoff, and if you choose not to rotate (as I do) then it’s even more critical.
I also wanted to make the point that if you buy whatever tire is available or convenient every time you should rotate such that you replace them in sets of four. It is important IMHO to maintain some consistancy in traction and handling characteristics front to rear. I know what your response is going to be, you’re going to tie that in with rotating. I’ll save you tha typing. I don’t believe that the handling of a specific tire deteriorates that dramatically over the first 70% of its life.
The Official Answer: I “Rotate” My Tires Every Time I drive!
The only time that I “revolve” them is when I put a new fresh pair on the front. Then the front ones go to the rear (FWD). Oh my gosh, He’ll be killed! We have driven over 100,000 miles on some pairs and in 4 plus decades of driving in excess of 2 or 3 million miles, have never had the rear try to pass the front or whatever.
We drive heavier Detroit Iron with longer wheel-bases and more gravity. We don’t drive too fast for conditions. Maybe that’s the part that makes sense. I have better things to do than screw around switching tires all over. What for? Reading all these theories made me think, but I’m not seeing it.
Besides, I like to “read” my tires. That’s how I know if I need an alignment.
I’ll keep on doing it my way (or the highway) and save time and money (I’m bull-headed and thrifty). Too fast for conditions? Remember, “There are old drivers and bold drivers, but no old, bold drivers.”
Where’d W Jay Field Go? He Must Either Be Having His Tires Rotated Or Seeking Counseling!
I see we are in agreement …“same mountain bike”
The math is … (tires do wear at a faster rate as they wear).
Your tires increase traction on dry pavement as they wear to the point of loosing all tread; at that point they have maximum traction. So, if all you do is drive on dry roads, you still have an imbalance traction to the “front” and now your best traction is on the front.
Your traction in rain, snow and on loose surfaces begins to “deteriorate” as soon as you drive out the door. That you car “handles” OK on bare roads has little to do with how the car will behave during a sudden maneuver when the lateral load exceeds the coefficient of friction, which is just a comparative measurement relative to tread/road contact surface. Lowering your tire pressure on ice and increasing it in snow (Humvee) would each have positive effects on traction…that’s how “fickled” it is to design a tire…always an engineering trade off.
Wear/traction changes continuously as you drive.
Again, like you, I do very little car work myself anymore and feel that a balance of $$$$$ spent to rotate is a worthwhile consideration. I just remember, that my car will loose traction more readily and handle worse in emergency situations with that imbalanced tread. It’s a choice we make to slow down.
That’s why I would argue, and will continue to do so, that balanced traction on all four wheels, regardless of how it’s arrived at (tire maintenance, driving technique and drive train choice) is ALWAYS safest.
I really don’t give a damn that others “rotate or not their tires”. I don’t rotate them as much as I should either…but I’m not going to deny that it isn’t safer to do.
Agree on traction decreases with wear in rain, and snow; but not on dry pavement. You need tread depth to give rain water somewhere to go. Otherwise at higher speeds the water can lift the tread off the pavement, hydroplaning. You need tread depth to get maximum grip in snow also.
On dry pavement extra tread depth deforms slightly and can actually reduce traction, not much but somewhat. That’s why racing tires for dry tracks are made with a few cuts but are pretty much “slicks” compared to racing rain tires.
In the real world we need traction more in lousy weather conditions; as a rule more tread depth is better than less.
A single tire as its rolling circuference gets smaller with wear will, I agree, theoretically wear more for a given distance traveled (with some factor for the difference in the squirm of new tread). However, the aggregate total of the material on all four tires used up over the life of the car will be the same whether you rotate or not. The myth that you’ll get better tire wear overall is, I argue, a myth.
Disspation of water and bite in snow are definitely better with more tread. So Cf (can’t figure out how to subtexts on this site) is definitely better in those conditions.
While we may argue these details, I think we’re both in agreement that anyone waiting to get to the wear bars is pushing their luck and that having the better tires on the rear helps prevent spinout.
I know folks who run their tires to the carcass. In my opinion whether they’re on the front on the rear the driver is on the hairy edge of an accident.
Thanks for the chuckles CSA.
In 45 years of driving, I have yet to have a blowout. I have had a couple of flats, but with lots of time to take care of them. On a trip to Mexico we ran over some metal that dropped out of a truck in front of us, it did cause about six inches of tread to come off. but it did not blow (early 60’s on a Corvair.
[b] So how many of you have ever had a blowout and what were the results. [/b]
I suspect that blowouts are very rare these days.I am on the same page, but we are shirley the minority.
TSM, No Problemo.
Glad you enjoyed it.
“A single tire as its rolling circuference gets smaller with wear will, I agree, theoretically wear more for a given distance traveled (with some factor for the difference in the squirm of new tread). However, the aggregate total of the material on all four tires used up over the life of the car will be the same whether you rotate or not. The myth that you’ll get better tire wear overall is, I argue, a myth.”
“the same mountain bike”…
Here goes…that the circumference gets smaller implies that the rate of wear increases. If the rate is not constant, than the wear over time is not linear but a curve. (from Calculus; anti derivative not linear) and can be represented by an exponential function (or other) over the interval in miles, from purchase to a change of tires is needed.
The greater the distance that any two of the tires spend on the function to the right as the rate increases, the greater the effect on the overall average of the four tires. Two of the tires are subject to this influence for more miles having a greater affect on the overall average than the two other non rotated and less stressed tires …
So…if it were linear, you’re right, it would be a myth and the over all average would remain the same in both cases. It isn’t linear, and the advise to rotate based on wear is indeed correct.
Also, as tires rotate faster, more heat is generated, also increasing wear. Again, two of the tires are subject to this added influence for more miles having a greater affect on the overall average than the two other non rotated and less stressed tires …
Easy to demo on a graghing calculator…(love a TI 89)
Sorry to bore.,
Bottom line, don’t re invent the “wheel”. All car and tire manufacturers say we should rotate our tires…gee, there has to be a reason. This is it in part.
That we agree that tire imbalance is important, is the point.
If better tires must be on the rear of the car, then why is this not posted as a warning in owner’s manuals? The difference in safety is very slight, in my view, between better tires on the back vs front. The main purpose for better tires on the back, however slight an advantage, fends off second guessing trial lawyers who may know nothing about cars but will take advantage of any opening to siphon money out of the system.
An inconsistency related to better or newer tires on the rear is that when you rotate tires and maybe you don’t but I do, the better tires go to the front as fronts wear faster than rears. This is conveniently ignored by all who insist that better tires must be on the rear of the car.
I need to regularly rotate tires on our front drive cars to minimize scalloping of rear tires which, if ignored, will become noisy. It happened to our cars when I postponed rotation.
As Stated Earlier, I Too Put The New Tires Up Front, And Move Front to Rear.
I buy tires in pairs. Also stated, I “read” the tires. It’s part of my frequent walk-around inspections.
From where I stand, uneven wear on front tires (rare for me) calls for a front alignment. Scalloping or uneven wear on the rear (although very rare for me), calls for a 4-wheel alignment. That’s my “read”. It works for me. Sometimes the difference in cost between a “front only” and a “4-wheel” alignment is not that great.
A poorly done alignment is just a total waste of money. Be able to trust a quality alignment pro.
“The main purpose for better tires on the back, however slight an advantage, fends off second guessing trial lawyers who may know nothing about cars but will take advantage of any opening to siphon money out of the system.”
May you never need one…If you do, he will become your best friend quickly. He and his kind are all that separates us from tyranny.
…
“An inconsistency related to better or newer tires on the rear is that when you rotate tires and maybe you don’t but I do, the better tires go to the front as fronts wear faster than rears. This is conveniently ignored by all who insist that better tires must be on the rear of the car.”
…
So how about this?: If your tires are more than 1/32nd of an inch different in depth, then they can be considered the same and rotated without regard to the rule about having the best tires on the rear. However, if the tires are more than 1/32nd of an inch different in tread depth, the best tires should go on the rear.
I don’t know about you, but it’s hard to remember the long version!
Your logic is more than shaky.
One axle loses traction before the other almost ALWAYS. Oversteer = rear first. Understeer = front axle first.
Hydroplaning and slippery weather traction happen almost ALWAYS. Fastidious REPLACEMENT of worn tires reduces this problem. Rotation is not relevant.
Getting a torque wrench (a huge and expensive tool) is analogous to locking the barn door after the horse got out. If your rotors are ruined by the clown with an air hammer, how will you fix them with a torque wrench? True you can use the new wrench to torque the wheel bearings after you replace the rotors. Or,simply patronize a shop that uses a torque wrench for the final tightening.
The ancillary benefits of using a reliable shop include getting free rotations and not getting your hands dirty.
As an aside. I have also heard new tires should go on the rear because a tire is more likely to fail due to manufacturing defects early in its life. Thus the slightly worn tires should be on the steering wheels and the new ones aft. The probability of a tire failure is pretty small as long as the pressure is checked regularly.
The general opinion on this discussion of those who favor “best on rear” acknowledges that and, as you have stated, minor rotational differences are negligible. The real problem is, new tires on front, old on back or snows on front and not on back. Significant differences are the problem.
Remember that bald tires have better traction on dry pavement than new treads, giving you a worse case scenerio in emergency on dry with worn on front.
Balanced traction as much as possible is best…
OK, I’ll break it down this way, the basic premise is tires wear faster on the front than the rear, if they did not why rotate? Wear patterns develop in tires and making the grand leap the front tire wear is not due to alignment issues etc. take my scenario
- rotate and replace all 4 at 40 k
- No rotate and replace fronts at 50k then at 70k when the rears are worn out move fronts to rear and new fronts.
1 gets 160k total miles for 4 tires combined
2 gets 200k total miles for 4 tires combined
Plus you save the cost of rotation(if it is not free) and less risk to having your rotors warped by a lugnut with a tourque wrench (as happened at 16k and not covered under toyota warranty) I still agree with having the best tires on front, and don’t drive in a fashion that tread in the rear if still within safety standards is going to cause me to spin out. Besides so many front wheel drive cars would make this scenario seem more optimal. Caviot this does not apply to awd or all the time 4wd vehicles.
Why don’t you “make up” #2 replace fronts at 100k…just make up anything.