1. Home
  2. Automotive Technologies
  3. Re: Camry tire questions (tires stolen from Chicago park district lot!)

Re: Camry tire questions (tires stolen from Chicago park district lot!)

Brent P wrote:

> OK, so now he's spreading the insult around because the average wrench > doesn't agree with his armchair theorizing.

Only saying the ones you visit are obviously unknowledgable. Ask somebody who knows tires instead of some HS drop out who just installs tires.

> for a living and they will say in the front. However an experienced shop >> guy who actually does some thing like autocross with his cars and is > First clue.. the OP didn't ask about autoxing his Camry.

Another sign you're totally ignorant on the subject, the basics of handling are the same regardless.

>
formatting link
> ... driver more easily maintain control on wet roads because new, deeper>> treaded tires are more capable of resisting hydroplaning." > More bullshit garnered from the web.

Major tire retailer that does it's own testing etc and so forth.... of course you trust the kid at the tire chain store. Why don't you call them up and ask if you don't like being on the web.

Do you even actually drive? Ask > someone aruond you (like in real-life) where they experienced a loss of > traction.

Loss of traction in the front... easy to deal with. Loss of traction in the rear... not fun.

In these parts, it is on the ice and snow. Get it? The white > stuff that we had on the ground until last week? It is stupid to > intentionally reduce the traction on the front which does most of the > braking and all the steering, for the situations which you encounter > the most often.

That's exactly why you put the good tires on the rear. Because the fronts do the steering and most of the braking. If you put the worse tires on the rear, your fronts still have grip and the rear end lets go when you are steering and braking.... what happens then? You spin.

Not throwing the vehicle around wet surfaces like > you're trying to prove something to the mom in the minivan behind you > or the UPS driver.

Put the worn tires on the rear of your car... just don't crash into anyone else when you spin.

Moreover, the fronts wear faster. Putting the worn tires on the front > ensures you'll be left with bald tires there 10k miles later, while > you're busy thinking you have auto-x traction, and slam the brakes on > to avoid plowing into someone in front.

They have these nifty things called wear-bars in the tires. I also mentioned that the tires on the front wear faster (sans rotation) on a FWD car on the initial post. The OP can get two more new tires, put them on the rear and hopefully they will be close enough in wear that normal rotation can resume. If it's a big deal, buy 4 new tires.

> You want me to x-post this over to rec.autos.driving and rec.autos.tech > Hahahaha... it's you and your amchair buddies arguing. Hardly the stuff > that would agree with someone who install 100 tires a day.

I am sure that 16 year old at pep boys really knows his stuff!

And you asked for it.

Reply to
Brent P
Loading thread data ...

That's just silly, for both FWD and RWD.

Reply to
clifto

Most drivers would let up on the gas and straighten the wheel when their front tires lose traction. This puts more weight on the front tires and reduces the slip angle and results in more traction.

Most drivers may try to do the same thing when their car fishtails, but by letting up on the gas, there's less weight on the rear tires, which makes the problem worse.

Reply to
Arif Khokar

huh? letting up on the gas makes the car weigh less in the rear?

Reply to
barbie gee

weight transfer due to acceleration. When accelerating the weight transfer is to the rear. Weight transfer to the front when braking/slowing.

Reply to
Brent P

but how significant is that? how fast do you have to be going for it to be significant?

Reply to
barbie gee

Enough to regain or lose control once one end has lost traction.

Reply to
Brent P

ummm... yes, yes it does.

nate

Reply to
Nate Nagel

It's not a matter of how fast you're going, but how hard you're accelerating. Heck, if you've got enough power and enough traction, you can pull the front wheels off the ground from a standing start, in which case you'd have 100% of the car's weight on the rear tires. (and some difficulty steering, but you've got a limited slip rear end, right?)

It's even more significant on braking, as most cars are able to generate more wheel torque from the brakes than from the engine.

nate

Reply to
Nate Nagel

Once you're on the edge of traction, *everything* is significant.

-- C.R. Krieger (Been there; taught that)

Reply to
Motorhead Lawyer

That's why dragsters never burn rubber on fast acceleration.

Reply to
clifto

I'm not following you here... of course they *try* not to burn rubber but sometimes it happens, what does that have to do with weight transfer? All that means is that there's more torque presented to the rear wheels than the available traction at that particular instant.

nate

Reply to
Nate Nagel

I'm just thinking that the more torque, the heavier the rear end, and the heavier the rear end, the harder the tires are pressed to the road surface. So the more torque, the more traction.

Reply to
clifto

kinda sorta. The weight transfer comes from the *acceleration* of the vehicle, combined with the height of the center of gravity from the pavement. Also there's little tricks that racers use to "plant" the rear tires on a shock load, like traction bars, etc. but discounting those, the faster you are accelerating, the more traction you have, thus you can actually *increase* your rate of acceleration as more weight transfers, at least up until the point where your front wheels come off the ground.

nate

Reply to
Nate Nagel

ummmm...not that I have been paying attention but I see "camry" and then I see talk about traction and rear ends. Huge difference between RWD and FWD.

what gives?

also modern suspension systems pretty much negate front and rear ends dipping and causing handling issues...which of course takes all the fun out of driving.

Reply to
kenji

Nothing, when we're talking about weight transfer and acceleration. Only difference is that on a FWD car you're unloading the drive wheels rather than loading them.

That's true, but that only mitigates the weight transfer effect a little (removing the component caused by the physical body motion) it is still there, honest. You just don't get a graphic demonstration of it due to the anti-dive geometry in the modern front end.

nate

Reply to
Nate Nagel

did you notice where I said new cars are no fun to drive?

All that kinda shit has been weeded out so that anyone's grandmother can drive just about 99.9% of all new cars out. Turn the key, step on the gas, steer with just an index finger, stomp the brake and you won't even skid.

Reply to
kenji

That's not all bad; with an independent suspension, squat or dive also translates into unwanted camber changes. Higher limits are good, it's just too bad that IMHO most drivers today just assume that because they have a good car that they'll be safe at all times - which can be dangerous when they're presented with an emergency type situation.

nate

Reply to
Nate Nagel

If you're lookin' for fun, you won't find it in a Camry. Might I suggest a couple of other vehicles? Like say ... a Camaro or Firebird?

heck, even my Subaru wagon is fun to drive in the slush.

maybe you're just doing it wrong. ;)

Reply to
Ray

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.