Bad tires---front or back

Page 6 of 7  

On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 10:38:52 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03

There are more factors involved in driving safety, and tire utilization, than simply hydroplaning. IF Hydroplaning was the only, or even MAJOR factor involved in tire safety I'd agree with the "experts" - but it just ain't so for the vast majority of drivers.
When you adopt a narrow enough view on life, all kinds of things can "make sense", and not necessarily always be right.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sep 7, 6:55 pm, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

What did I say that makes you think that I think hydroplaning is the only factor involved in tire placement?
What makes you think that hydroplaning is the only factor considered by just about everyone one else who says that the best tires should go on the rear?
As I'm sure you know, based on your considerable driving experience, both competitive and "normal" that there are lots of other conditions that can cause a tire to loose traction.
Are you saying that every organization, manufacturer, person, whatever, that says the best tires belong on the rear are of the same (and mistaken) narrow mind and that you are the only one that sees the bigger picture?
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The only way I could pull donuts in my Subaru was to put it in 4-wheel drive.
Growing up we used to practice skidding in snowy parking lots, not just for the fun, but also to get used to it. There's no panic when it happens in real life if you've experienced it in a "safe" situation.
I miss those days.
When I was in the Coast Guard our last week of Boot Camp was a driving class put on by the California Highway Patrol. They would flood the parking lot and send us out to drive on through "neighborhood streets" outlined with cones, portable stops signs, etc. One of the vehicles was a 70-something Firebird that you could spin around on dry pavement, nevermind on a flooded street.
For some reason, they only let me drive that one once. ;-)
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yep, those were the fun days. I learned on country gravel roads in snow country. Actually did a 4-wheel drift on a highway once (that was enough). Not planned, not wanted and left creases in the seat covers. Dicing with another car a bit in Texas in my new 1969 Volvo and went into a corner that had a good sprinkling of gravel over the blacktop. 90 degrees of sweat equity :)
Harry K
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I only really lost it once.
I came into a 90 degree turn that I had done a hundred times at my usual speed - what was certainly faster than posted. It was kind of back road near a small muni-airport. Perfectly dry, sunny day.
What I didn't know was that the fire hydrant right around the bend had either leaked or been flushed or something as there was standing water right past the curve. The rear end came around faster than I could do anything about it and I resigned myself to sliding into the fence.
That's when I saw the offending fire hydrant in my path. It punched a hole in the side of the car behind the door and bent the support post into the seat back. It was 65 Dodge Coronet with a "half post".
Kind of like this, but blue.
http://www.collectormotors.com/cars_sold/65coro/65coro.jpg
I was in the CG at the time, so I took the car to the docks, hooked the post to 50,000 pound buoy sinker with a come-along and straightened it out so the door worked fine. If it wasn't for the hole in the skin behind the door, you'd never know I'd hit anything.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/8/2010 5:22 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:

Chuckle. Did a similar thing to a 73 Ford wagon once, after making the wheelbase several inches shorter on one side tagging a very-well-hidden-by-shadows telephone pole, while driving down an unfamiliar urban alley. Found a Real Big tree, dug out some carpet scraps and a big log chain, tied off that corner of the frame, and proceeded to pull most of the bend back out. This was in the crush-control eye on the frame, not the box rail itself. Car never did drive quite right after that again, and ate the tire on that corner pretty rapidly, but I was broke, and you do what you gotta do to get by. I don't think the telephone pole even noticed. Drove the car (mainly around town) another couple of years.
--
aem sends...



Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 08:10:06 -0700 (PDT), Harry K

You want to come up on a flat or slightly reverse banked 90+ degree right turn unloaded (just over a rise) on a freshly gravelled road at 50+ MPH in an 850 mini. It was "oh crap" and "come on baby" as I downshifted in mid air, hit the accellerator to the floor on touchdown, with the wheel hard to the LEFT, and ploughed a furrow all the way around the corner. If it hadn't happened while I was still young and invincible I'd have crapped myself for sure.
Had a few more similar situations 10 years later with the Renault R12, where the longer suspension travel helped counteract the loss of youthfull bravado. You could corner that thing with the outer door handles almost in the gravel, and still hold control, even in gravel. I never had an "off road excursion" with that car in some 50 rallyes. Michelin ZX tires on all four corners. Having the trigger on the handbrake reversed was a very welcome modification - you only used the "button" when you wanted the handbrake to stay ON.
Had the use of "shorty" for a couple months in Zambia in the early '70s. "Shorty" was a VW Beetle that had been rolled and had the roof removed and about 10 inches taken out of the wheelbase. With the greatly reduced weight and higher polar moment of inertia caused by the short wheelbase, it was a real handfull when the roads got dusted with a light layer of fine sand.Cornering, accelerating or decellerating, it was not hard to get the back bumper to try REAL HARD to pass the front one - and not much harder for it to succeed. Downright dangerous little rascal.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/8/2010 9:30 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:

(snip)
BTDT, or tried to at least. Promptly got rousted by the local PD. Talked my way out of a ticket, but was told that if I was ever caught doing it again, he'd write me up for reckless. He did not buy my 'learning experience' excuse.
--
aem sends...

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 03:49:07 -0700, Smitty Two

The reason "I" like to have the better tires (and traction) on the front of my front-drive cars is so that IF the rear end starts to come around I have the traction on the driving wheels to get the power to the road to get the front end out of the back end's way and get the vehicle back into full control, going in the direction I want it to be going. You cannot do that with excellent rear tires and slightly less than excellent front tires. Also, if the front wheels are having a bit of trouble getting the car going exactly where you want it in the slop, with slightly inferior tires it is simple to just pull the handbrake a titch, or stab the service brake with power applied and get the rear end to slide so you can hang it just where you want it in a turn. That maneuver is also pretty difficult if the front tires are inferior to the rears. Works OK if they are equal in condition - and can actually be easier if the rear tires have a bit less traction than normal. In other than a overloaded front wheel drive car, the rear ALWAYS has less traction than the front.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Stormin Mormon wrote:

You went through all that to save eight dollars on a Walmart tire?
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 16:14:49 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net (Herb Eneva) wrote:

What do I think???? You're NUTS. Particularly on front wheel drive vehicles, you want your best tires on the front. They do the driving, They do roughly 80% of the braking, and they do the steering.
One back wheel will keep the ass end in line if you know how to drive.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 20:45:39 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

I agreed with that until i saw the video derbydad posted the link to. Watching the video I was thinking-- 'so just slow down, stupid'. But then the narrator pointed out that with the more-likely-to-hydroplane tires on the front, you get some warning that the road is bad because you feel it in the steering wheel. With them on the back-- you've already started a skid when you realize the road conditions changed.
I'm still a 4-tires-at-a-time guy, but know that lots of folks like to save some pennies-- and I'm now a put-the-new-ones-on-the-rear-guy.
Jim [and what was the FWD you had in 1969? I didn't have the pleasure until 1984]
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

A driver with a brain in his head KNOWS to slow down when there is water on the road, before he feels either the front or rear tires coming loose. Can't remember the last time hydroplaning caught me by surprise - gotta be over 40 years ago.
As for what FWD car I drove in 1969 - I started with an Austin Mini. I also drove 204 Peugot (1961 and 1967 respectively) as well as a 1967 Renault R12 (which I rallyed successfully for 3 years) ,1981 Pontiac Phoenix XJ, and 1980 Tercel(all before 1984)
Chrysler Lebaron, Chrysler New Yorker (E-Class) Colt 100, Neon, Pontiac TransSport, Mercury Mystique(Mondeo), VW Rabbit, MagicWagon, and the current PT Cruiser since.
It's likely been over 30 years since I replaced anything other (less) than 4 tires at a time.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Elbrecht wrote:

When I went throught the Texas Department of Pulic Safety Pursuit Driving School, we saw a video produced by NASA investigating what kind of tires were appropriate for the space shuttle.
They used a ratty sedan with regular tires traveling at 50 mph. With a tire pressure of 60psi on a wet runway, the measured the stopping distance.
They let 10 pounds of air out of the tires and repeated the experiment. The stopping distance increased slightly.
Continuing to reduce the air pressure - down to ten pounds per square inch - uniformly increased the stopping distance. The final results were the 10psi tires almost DOUBLED the stopping distance of the 60psi tires.
Here's why:
As the air pressure drops, the width of the tire increases. On a wet surface, the wider the tire the more hydroplaning it does until it acts more like a surfboard than a tire. As the tire hydroplanes, very little of the rubber (i.e., none) is in contact with the road.
Bottom line:
Wide tires do not increase traction. In some cases they actually PREVENT traction.
And before anybody gets all exercised, here's a law of physics
Friction force = (coefficient of friction between the surfaces) x (weigh perpendicular to direction of movement)
Note that surface area is NOT involved in determining frictional force.
Probably.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ok, now rerun the experiment and measure cornering Gs. ...though this isn't really fair because an under-inflated tire will roll excessively, causing the tread to lose contact with the pavement.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

True on just about anything but clean dry pavement

But the surface area can have a lot of influence ofer the co-efficient or friction when there is water on the road!!!
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<<...snipped...>>

<...snipped...>
The experiment described may prove that reduced air pressure increases stopping distance. It does not conclusively prove that the reason is because the tires are wider. To prove that, they should have mounted progressively wider tires and tested stopping distance at the SAME air pressure. (I'm not saying I disagree with the results or even the explanation, just disagreeing with the application of scientific method)
--
Make it as simple as possible, but no simpler.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/2/2010 3:14 PM, Herb Eneva wrote:

agree. btdt a few times.
--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sep 2, 3:14 pm, snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net (Herb Eneva) wrote:

Here is my experiance, had Michelins 3 yrs old, 30000 miles, one front broke a belt, so I got 2 fronts, went around a corner in snow and fishtailed. Immediatly went and bought 2 new rears went around same corner and all was fine. I find my tires get noticably worse traction at about 30000 and at 60000 are to dangerous to keep. This is in my opinion and has more to do with age of tires, oxidation-hardening of rubber from the environment, then loosing tread. So new tires in front where you have 65 % breaking and need steering and the rears can go and fishtail, new tires in rear and the fronts might hydroplane and you might not stop or stear through a corner. All 4 should be equal if you drive in snow or wet is my opinion. Mixing new and old will lead to unknown handling just when you need stability, in emergencys. Put on 4 good ones that are equal
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Herb Eneva wrote the following:

Put them in the trunk.
--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.