Should "good" tires be rotated to the front?

Last fall when I took our Prius in to the dealer for a slow leaking tire....had a roofing nail in it......the dealer would only put a patch inside the tire.....would not put a plug in it......FWIW he said that the NHS people are just about ready to outlaw the plugs that are used in tires.

 

Well, the 195/65/15 has a tread width of about 5.7 and the 195/60/15 is about 6.3 but is a lot shorter. From a mpg standpoint it may be a wash because the 195/65/15 is taller so the revs per mile is lower but the tire is narrower so it will be lower in RR. I'd just run the 185/65/15 and call it good unless you want a slightly wider tire in which case I would go with the 195/65/15 which will help correct the speedo error. The 195/60/15 will only make the error larger, increase wheel well gap, and create more RR.

 

When you rotate tires, do you generally do front to back and back to front (as the manual suggests), or do you do front to back and back diagonally to front? I have to do that this weekend.

 

This depends on the type of tires. Some tires are directional; with those you do front to back rotation. Non-directional tires use criss-cross rotation.

Note that in the early days of radial tires it was said that they took a set. Back then the recommendation was front to back rotation only. That advice no longer applies, unless your tire manufacturer specifically states otherwise.

Tom

 

Plugs in tyres have been illegal here for years. Rightfully so. Now, the Nokian WR tyres I just replaced last fall did have "plugs" in them, but they were the patch inside with extended plug type. This design ensures they can't fly out and that the patch actually -prevents- water from infiltrating between the tread and cords due to the plug included on the patch.

Note to anyone thinking of "going cheap". The Nokian WR tyres were put on after four months of driving when Pearl was new. It was September, and with winter coming I wanted "real" tyres on the car. I "threw away" the OEM Goodyear Integrities. That choice was verified as a good one the same afternoon, as I exited a highway with a missing speed warning on the exit ramp. I exited WAY too fast and would have been in the "weeds" with the OEM tyres. The Nokians just had the car go around the ramp with no excitement and no squealing, just a worried driver.

Nokian WR and WRGII - same or better mileage as OEM tyres, MUCH better traction. Work well in winter without having to change wheels/tyres. Work very well in rain, even DEEP water! Legal when "snow tyres are required" as they have the snowflake symbol.

I don't sell them, but I do love them!

 

Nokian considers the WRg2 tires to be "All Weather" - their term, not mine. They use this term to make a distinction from normal All Season tires. All Season tires are summer tires that do fairly well in the winter. According to Nokian, the WRg2 tires are winter tires that can stand up to being driven in the summer. They are real winter tires that are also LRR and not too noisy. I highly recommend them.

Tom

 

Best tread in the rear.

 

Care to elaborate?

 

Did you read the rest of the thread?

 

On the street, in good conditions...no, the average driver isn't likely to encounter handling issues. Buuuuut....note that most of the videos show cars in the snow. You may have heard, it's pretty slippery stuff. There's no need to drive at 'track speeds' to explore the limits of traction.

 

I did. I was just wondering about the reasons behind this poster's one line verdict...

 

I'm going to make a completely casual observation here. Bear with me.

I'm from the UK, but I have done quite a bit of driving in the US.

When I pass accidents on the road in the US, quite often there is a car on its roof, or on its side. In the UK when I pass an accident this is much less likely to be the case. In fact, I can't remember the last time I saw this. I can remember quite a few incidents in the US. A casual observation.

Is it possible that this US recommendation has come about, because there are more cars that end up breaking lose at the rear in the US, and, therefore, you are probably better off having more rear grip?

None of these tests, as far as I can see, test a car under breaking in normal or wet conditions. As the car's weight shifts to the front under breaking, that's where I would want my grip.

Granted, in the wet/snow, in a turn, grip on the rear seems preferable.

 

This is where I make my case. During brake dive you shift the car's weight onto the front tires. This will increase their traction, especially in wet conditions. As the weight is shifted off the rear tires they will now suffer reduced traction and are even more likely to hydroplane and cause the back end to swing around. At the very least you will have less braking power from the rear. Thus with more treading the rear, you are more likely to create a condition where the front and rear tires work similarly and the car is more stable.

As you state, in the dry i don't think it makes much of a difference. If my rotational pattern is applied you will have the tires with the most tread on the front in the summer then in the rear in winter. This is harder to accomplish when you average 20,000 miles a year but you could try a double rotation from spring thru fall depending on your climate. I live is a decidedly Mediterranean climate so I don't usually have rain from May-October.

 

Here is a video test testing tread depth and panic stopping.

Panic Stopping: How Much Tread Depth Do You Need?

Keep in mind that wet traction performance is based on tread depth, tire design, vehicle speed and weight.

 

There are a few reasons that in the US, a higher than average number of drivers wind up looking like the Costa Concordia.
1. US drivers are relatively to appallingly uneducated about the driving task. I've seen more than a few roll-over T/As resulting from something as simple as a driver not knowing that it's a pretty good idea to dis-engage the cruise control when it's raining.
2. We're a little more spread out here. I'd submit that our average speed is somewhat higher than the gridlocked streets that I've had the pleasure of navigating on the continent. Speed enforcement here is also relatively more lax. Europe has traffic enforcement (or revenue collection efforts, depending on whom you ask! ) that aren't quite in vogue here (yet.)
3. Cars in the EU tend to be smaller, and they're usually....cars. We favor mastodon SUV's, and crossovers----which have a higher center of gravity, and there are more RWD cars here in the colonies than you'll probably find in places where they drive on the wrong side of the road.
4. US drivers are faaaaaaaaaaaaaar more distracted while they're doing the stick and ruder thing. We eat more, talk more, diddle with GPSs more, and I've seen an amazing number of people reading, or taking care of personal tasks while trying to yank and bank on the road.



Reader's Digest Version: We drive faster, and we suck at it. Our cars are more often not cars, but SUVs and crossovers.

 

Considering that the local rain season is 11 and 1/2 months, and that even on straight roads the driver still should maneuver (i.e. turn the steering) to either avoid a collision, or select the least damaging impact available, these conditions seem to apply to the majority of our driving.

 

Seems like a good reason for banning pickups.

 

Judging by the photos I'd say two of those tires need to be rotated to the junk heap. They would never had gotten that way if you would just rotate them at every oil change.

 

Or strengthening regulations on legal tread depth. You know that would never sit well with Merkins..... I for one sure as hell wouldn't want to be the next car in line in front of that pickup with legal but dangerous tread depth levels.