Tyre noise

That's contentious - it is claimed that it is better to know that front wheels are slipping rather than have better grip at the front.

This claims that understeer is preferable to the chance of having enough front grip to steer away from a problem.

It also claimed that it's more difficult to control a car with a damaged rear tyre. Particularly with front wheel drive I would doubt that.

Both claims seem counter-intuitive - I've had a tyre fail on the rear (on a dry road, with front wheel drive) and found that the car was easy to steer and bring to a safe stop. Apart from the strange noise I would not have known there was anything wrong. I really doubt whether that would have been possible if a front tyre had failed.

There is always the chance of something bizarre happening, and that is when you will find out how important grip is (whether it is for stopping or swerving), even the most attentive, cautious driver can get caught out.

[...]

Your view is different to both the police and the road safety organisations then.

Chris

I too once doubted this advice, but the weight of evidence is overwhelming in favour.

Chris

So what? It stands to reason that if you keep proper distance, then there is more chance of getting out of trouble. But all too often somebody pops in and steal that space.

Ditto - I've had two rear tyre failures. Well, one was a failure, one was discovering the tyre on the car wasn't lumpy.

The first was me noticing while being a passenger in the back that there was a regular ticking noise from the back wheel. Pull over, inspect tyre, tread is coming off. Well, the tyre did cost a whole fiver :-) Replace, carry on - driver hadn't noticed anything untoward.

The second was more recent. The new (to me) car had a vibration at certain speeds, so I decided to play wheel swapping to get to the bottom of it. When I moved the offending tyre to the front, I got scared at

20mph, it was misbehaving that much. Felt fine at 70+ on the back.

I'm more inclined to believe the thing about grip and understeer, but damage? Nah.

Yes, but why put them on the tyre ?

so that purchasers can know what they are buying by a standardised number system that can be visually confirmed

While I don't doubt the advice but something often repeated on the Internet is not an overwhelming weight of evidence. It needs to backed up with reference to the experimental evidence.

I believe Michelin did the most testing. Summary of results on different vehicles here:

It depends who is repeating it.

Google, and you will find all the tyre manufacturers have done significant research, and concluded overall, new on rear is best.

The same is true of the AA, and ADAC. (The much-respected German motoring organisation.)

Chris

I'm not sure if these have been offered so far but also quite interesting (and demonstrate why you should have the 'better' (tread depth) tyres on the rear, if for no other reason than resisting aquaplaning):

And this is some skid pan!

Now, during 'other conditions' when you have had a blowout or are on snow I'm not sure you are really talking about the same thing, the issues that can occur when ordinary people are driving ordinary cars on ordinary roads in the wet and one end or the other 'goes light'.

For the same logic, if you are doing a track day *in the dry* you might want the new tyres on the back and the bald (= slicks) on the front as again, more people can deal with under than over-steer, especially on a FWD car.

YMMV etc. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

IMHO, If you always drive within safe limits and allow for road conditions, talk of rear end break away is academic. If you don't always drive safely, you shouldn't be driving.

Its not the way you drive its avoiding others who are not driving safely . Its the avoiding that's the issue, you need to take sudden avoiding action because the numbly in the left lane does something stupid your relying on the grip of the rear tyres

As you say, IYHO. ;-)

So, you have just traveled 500 miles along all sorts of roads in the rain and you come round a long sweeping corner on a dual carriageway where there just happens to be an unpredictably large amount of standing water on the road and you then test the 'front or back' theory.

Or are you saying you would be able to predict that happening just there?

So by 'driving safely' in the above scenario would either mean having a crystal ball fitted in your car (ok as long as it's hands free ) or driving sufficiently slowly over the entire 500 miles *in case* you came across such a situation?

How many people drive though say a heavily wooded / forest area at such a speed that they could *guarantee* to stop in the event of something running out in front of them?

How many motorcyclists take every corner or roundabout at such a speed that they could *guarantee* they could stay upright, even if there was a diesel spill?

How many people drive sufficiently slowly that they could *guarantee* to never be caught out by a pothole full of water?

How many people drive sufficiently slowly along the motorway to

*guarantee* to be able to avoid the artic crossing the central reservation?

Now, in (your) theory you could drive sufficiently slowly to be able to *guarantee* you could avoid most of those instances (you won't avoid a piano falling off a lorry from a bridge above you for example) but I think you would be run off the road long before you left your town. ;-(

I'm not saying the status-quo is right of course, but ITRW etc.

Cheers, T i m

LOL! Funny you should mention a piano falling from a bridge...

I know, luckily you upgraded your crystal ball that same morning. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Last December I was pleased to have a set of possibly the best tyres available (Michelin Alpin winter tyres) on my Focus when a van coming from the opposite direction drifted off the road and into a wall, the van shot into the air, landed on its side and, roof toward me, slid onward, I swerved off to the left up a verge and only received a clip from the top of his roof as he went past. Braking would have planted me heavily in his roof. No-one could have predicted that crash would happen, and I am one of the first to blame myself for not foreseeing something about to transpire, but thanks to a responsive car, quick reactions honed in banger driving and good tyres we practically speaking got away with it. It seems the driver was on his phone. No prosecution for him, just a driver alertness course.

Did it happen in slomo Dave?

Ok.

Quite, and these things do happen and in many cases nothing short of a crystal ball could help.

Yup and had any of those things been less than they were (inc tyres) the outcome could have been very different.

In spite of the fact that it was only you that avoided it potentially being much (much) worse than it was.

I'm not sure where I stand on that ... when people say 'Luckily no one got killed' when in some cases 'luck' had little to do with it but I guess you can't charge people for what might have happened (although everyone done for using their mobile non-hands free whilst driving normally or being over the drink limit is being treated that way).

I had a similar experience in the Sierra estate and it didn't end in tears for similar reasons to yours, but the only reason the other party 'got away with it' was because of me.

The real frustrating ones are when that sort of thing happens, you save the day and the other driver gives *you* the finger! It's at times like that I wish I was driving a tank or had a rail gun ... ;-)

Cheers, T i m