Got a dilemma with tires

[Lug_Nut]

Worn tread tires on the rear of a FWD car are more likely to hydroplane than those same worn tires on the front of that car, due solely to the weight distribution. Add in the apparent additional forward weight transfer from braking and the rear end can come around before you can react.

Dry conditions are one thing, compromised traction (wet or snow) conditions contraindicate spotaneagle's new tires up front, worn ones out back opinion.

Have you seen TownFair's Chinese tires? THAT'S a horror show. I cringe knowing that there are car's out there with these on them.

[theholycow]

I haven't seen Town Fair's crappy ultra-cheap tires, though I might see them on my car soon. Over a decade ago I saw quite a few sets of Pep Boys cheapest tires on my 1987 Cadillac, those were awful though I suspect they'd be fine for me now.

[Jay2TheRescue]

I always put my new tires (when only buying 2) on the front. The logic is that in wet conditions you want to be able to steer. Then again I've never owned a FWD vehicle.

[spotaneagle]

well, first off, toyos are japanese I believe, built to last like an acura for example, that being said, the worn tires I have on my back wheels supposedly aren't that worn, I bought them with ALOT of tread on them and considering that they're on the back wheels, they stay that way from what I can tell, isn't it true that front wheels wear more quickly than the back? this is the way I was thinking when i bought tires

but can we look at it like this? when driving in the rain, hydroplaning conditions rarely occur, if at all, in fact i've only seen my car do anything close to hydroplaning once or twice in the last year...

that aside...

overall in the rain, minus the hydroplaning scenario, wouldnt wider tires help traction greatly? like around corners, changing lanes on the highway, I remember my 86 honda civic with little baby tires on it spinning around in circles on ice down a hill one night...

weee

we're not even talking about snow here

also one more tidbit about sears tires, I bought 50k mile falken sears tires that only lasted 30k

alignment shmalignment, falkens have softer tires(for more traction supposedly on the track, this is what ive heard a racer or two say pffftt)

toyos are made of super hard rubber( last upwards of 80k+ miles), should we compare how hard rubber is on your tires to your chances of hydroplaning?

I also have 1/4in spacers on my back wheels.. would that save me in a hydroplaning event? should we all buy skinny tires now cause hydroplaning is gonna get us?(and have bad handling overall in return)

also im not even sure the more likely to hydroplane with wider tires thing is true

wouldnt you be more likely to have a part of your tire on pavement thats not a hydroplanable puddle with wider tires I understand you're more likely to hit water, but you're also more likely to hit pavement too so that might make this equation null..(you know what I mean half the tire is in the puddle, half on non puddle pavement)


I would think you would need a much bigger equation to figure this out, such as area of puddles depth of puddle ectectect I guess my point is, are there any real studies actually proving this? (other than two people on this message board agreeing?)

[bowtieguy]

Originally Posted by Jay2TheRescue

I always put my new tires (when only buying 2) on the front. The logic is that in wet conditions you want to be able to steer. Then again I've never owned a FWD vehicle.

not to mention, in the event of a blow-out, altho' none is desired, a rear one is more controllable.

[Jay2TheRescue]

@ Bowtieguy: I've had blowouts on the front before. Not fun. It happened on I-95 while I was going about 70 MPH. Luckily I was in the right lane anyway, so it was easier to pull off and stop safely.

[Jay2TheRescue]

@ Spotaneagle: In FWD vehicles the front tires wear quicker. They bear the weight of the engine, and are responsible for moving the vehicle, and do a majority of the braking.

A wider tire is more likely to hydroplane because the wider the tire is, the more water is forced under, instead of around it. Hydroplaning is simply what happens when you squeeze more water under the tire, than can pass through the treads. When this happens the tire lifts off the road surface, and you no longer have steering or braking on that wheel until it makes contact with the road again.

[theholycow]

Taking these points one at a time...

Originally Posted by spotaneagle

isn't it true that front wheels wear more quickly than the back?

As Jay said, that's very correct. With FWD the front wheels pretty much do everything. If you never rotate your tires, your rears will probably last ridiculously long.

alignment shmalignment, falkens have softer tires(for more traction supposedly on the track, this is what ive heard a racer or two say pffftt)

Softer tires, or softer rubber compound? Softer tires have sloppy handling, tires with softer rubber compound have better traction.

toyos are made of super hard rubber( last upwards of 80k+ miles), should we compare how hard rubber is on your tires to your chances of hydroplaning?

Hydroplaning is about width and tread pattern, nothing more. Rubber compound choice makes a difference in handling (except under some conditions like hydroplaning) and tread life, and probably a few other things I don't remember.

I also have 1/4in spacers on my back wheels.. would that save me in a hydroplaning event?

No, the position of the tires doesn't make a difference.

should we all buy skinny tires now cause hydroplaning is gonna get us?(and have bad handling overall in return)

I don't think anybody's advocating buying narrower tires for safety or handling here. When you said that wider tires help avoid hydroplaning, I wanted to point out an incorrect statement so that people reading this may learn.

also im not even sure the more likely to hydroplane with wider tires thing is true

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroplaning_(tires)
The longer and thinner the contact patch, the less likely a tire will hydroplane. Tires that present the greatest risk are wide, lightly loaded, and small in diameter. Deeper tread dissipates water more easily.

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tirete....jsp?techid=16
While deeper water, higher speeds, lighter vehicles, wider tires, less tread depth and less efficient tread designs will cause tires to hydroplane at lower speeds; all tires will be forced to hydroplane at some speed.

Think about it. If you want to dive into water smoothly, do you present a narrow cross-section to the water surface, or do you belly flop? Which one makes you stay on top of the water and which one lets you dive to the bottom?

I guess my point is, are there any real studies actually proving this? (other than two people on this message board agreeing?)

It might be good for one of us to look this up. Perhaps I will later.

[spotaneagle]

i guarantee my tread is better at water dissipation than that of some slim tires, thats what im paying for, this might make up a little bit for extra width.. who knows, especially if these things never wear out, a cheap thin tire might wear out at 30k putting you at risk more often and sooner, because of less tread.. but anyhow

and at first i said wider tires are better in the rain, when its rains out you're not constantly hydroplaning,,

i would think overall in the rain(besides hydroplaning) wider tires are better, is that something we can all agree on?

[theholycow]

In heavy rain, I would much rather have wider tires with a better tread design than narrower tires with a worse tread design. Of course, better than that in heavy rain I'd prefer narrower tires with a better tread design.

For fuel economy, I recommend wider tires. For heavy rain, I recommend narrower tires. For light rain I'm not sure. For dry weather, which is the majority of my driving, I prefer wider. My actual purchase preference tends to be wider.