Today I will be mainly rotating the tyres on the car, there is 3.5mm tread on the fronts and 6mm on the rears and I thought I'd do it before we drive to France next month (which reminds me I have some questions for Mike Hannon)
But it's not just rotating is it, it's clean them inside and out, lacquer the outsides, check for cuts, check pressures, copaslip the appropriate bits, replace and re-torque.
It's the first time the wheels have been off (it's a bit over 12 months old), and a bit of encouragement with a rubber mallet was needed. Combine that with the fact that that the jack storage arrangements seem to be a combination of Chinese Finger-trap and Rubiks cube, I'd hate to have to change a wheel by the side of a road on a dark night - perhaps there is something to be said for 'get-you-home' arrangements anyway
|
Since you've invited comments (at least implicitly by posting here) haven't you left it a bit late to be useful? If a set of front tyres lasts, say, 18,000 miles from 8mm new to 2mm worn out then you've got, at best, 4,500 miles left on the pair you plan to rotate to the back. Why not just leave them on the front to wear down to replacement level, then get a new pair for the back? That way you aren't driving around all next winter with mostly-worn rear tyres - and you can leave the tyre shop to do the rotating and checking for you (and forget the lacquering - does anyone really bother with that?) and get a sunny Saturday back for something more enjoyable.
Unless you're doing the Grand Tour 3.5mm is plenty for that trip - or if you feel it isn't, get the new tyres now. We're in France next month and I'll be replacing two tyres before we go.
|
|
I would not like 3.5mm on the rear in the wet of winter... Spin time.
|
>> copaslip the appropriate bits
>>
The appropriate bits being ?
>> It's the first time the wheels have been off (it's a bit over 12 months
>> old), and a bit of encouragement with a rubber mallet was needed.
>>
Easiest way is to ease off the torque on the wheel bolts and with the weight of the car on the wheel rock the car a bit. You'll hear a loud crack but far easier than attacking the wheel with a mallet.
|
>>>> 3.5mm if you feel it isn't, get the new tyres now.
Agreed.
The rears on daughter's Polo are 3mm and were a noted advisory at the MOT last week. The seller was entirely reasonable in saying they were good for a while yet... but I'm putting new ones on next week. The fronts are very recent and I'd rather give her the best balance in wet handling.
185/60x14 on her Twist model with the upgraded alloys and not too bad at £61 each fitted.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Sat 5 Jul 14 at 14:03
|
Sorry to join in the chorus, but I'd leave the 3.5mm on the front, then replace around the end of September so as to have a good set for the winter.
Just have to remember that the fronts aren't going to be that good at clearing water in a downpour and take it steady on fast roads meanwhile when there's a downpour.
|
|
If you feel you have to modify your wet-road driving because of the specific state of your front tyres, it's not your tyres that are wrong, it's your driving.
|
>> If you feel you have to modify your wet-road driving because of the specific state
>> of your front tyres, it's not your tyres that are wrong, it's your driving.
Not sure what you mean by that WdB - I always modify my driving in the rain, but I am also aware of the state of my tyres.
Not many people are prepared to throw them away at 5mm.
I'd keep the 3.5mm on the front, but it makes sense to be aware that aquaplaning is more likely than with newer tyres.
|
>> I'd keep the 3.5mm on the front, but it makes sense to be aware that
>> aquaplaning is more likely than with newer tyres.
>>
Too much of a generalisation.
Consider:-
Weight of vehicle.
Speed.
Depth of water.
Angle of approach (and departure through a hedge)!!
Width of tyres etc etc etc dee dum dee dum dee dum. The variables go on.
The Master van will cope with most of the one sided aquaplaning moments whether at speed or on a slight fast bend etc. I have little idea why, but would the carried weight and the long wheelbase have a positive effect on this?
Conversely the Pajero (short wheelbase and wide tyres) will take off at a moments notice if it hits standing water and there have been a Brown trousered moment of or two in the thing. It weighs 1.8 tons, but standing water has no respect for this.
|
|
Biggest variable affecting likelihood of aquaplaning is tyre pressure.
|
>> Conversely the Pajero (short wheelbase and wide tyres) will take off at a moments notice
>> if it hits standing water and there have been a Brown trousered moment of or
>> two in the thing. It weighs 1.8 tons, but standing water has no respect for
>> this.
>>
That's interesting as a saw a discussion on driving hired SUVs in Florida on another forum and some people were saying they avoided hiring big SUVs (my weapon of choice over there) now due to past acquaplaning incidents.
|
>>>If you feel you have to modify your wet-road driving because of the specific state of your front tyres, it's not your tyres that are wrong, it's your driving.
Can't agree. I think one reason I have a clean record despite nipping about at times is because I factor in all aspects of the car I'm driving from its handling limits and balance, stability control or not, tyre make and tread depth plus the position of the weakest tyres on the car front/rear.
It makes a massive difference to safe progress in the wet. A poor handling car on Chinese rubber at 2.5mm all round needs driving with huge care in the wet. My old 156, to take an example, with excellent handling balance, sensibly configured stability control and new tyres with a good wet rating was immensely safe.
|
I did the same on 'her' Qashqai the other week. Different reason though. All four tyres were at 5mm but the back ones were the originals and are 6 years old. The fronts had been been replaced 3 years ago and had gone down to 5mm again.
I figured that as the car has done 40 odd thousand miles it would go another few years on the back ones without them wearing down enough to warrant changing them, but would in turn make them too old for comfort. So, I thought I'd put the older tyres on the front so they wear out quicker than the younger ones.
If you see what I mean.
I know what I mean.
I think.
Probably.
|
Incidentally, I thought I might put a full set of rufty tufty Pirelli Scorpions or somesuch on the Qq in the winter. Not because it'll need them all that desperately but more to make it look more, I dunno, rufty tufty I suppose.
Quite hard to carry that one off in a red 1.6 Qashqai I'll admit. But it's Cheshire and when in Rome...
|
>> Incidentally, I thought I might put a full set of rufty tufty Pirelli Scorpions or
>> somesuch on the Qq in the winter. Not because it'll need them all that desperately
>> but more to make it look more, I dunno, rufty tufty I suppose.
>>
>> Quite hard to carry that one off in a red 1.6 Qashqai I'll admit. But
>> it's Cheshire and when in Rome...
>>
Forget the tyres Runfer, just stick a couple of go faster stripes from bonnet to back and that'll be rufty tufty enough.
Cheaper too.
|
|
My point about rain is that there may be conditions of rain and standing water that new tyres can clear and part-worn tyres can't, but I challenge anyone short of a racing driver in a racing car to tell them apart in advance from behind the wheel. Standing water = reduced speed, increased spacing and extreme watchfulness, even with brand new tyres.
|
>> My point about rain is that there may be conditions of rain and standing water
>> that new tyres can clear and part-worn tyres can't, but I challenge anyone short of
>> a racing driver in a racing car to tell them apart in advance from behind
>> the wheel.
What can I say? I can certainly detect that part worn tyres are more likely to come unstuck.
|
I didn't mean this to be about you personally, Manatee, but I think you're deluding yourself. You can't detect a likelihood, can you? How? Detect a loss of adhesion, yes - but by then it's too late.
You may be aware that part-worn tyres will clear less water, but you can't tell whether or not they'll clear the patch you're about to hit.
The converse of your statement is that there is standing water you assume your tyres will clear because they're new, and that's a very dangerous delusion.
|
>> I didn't mean this to be about you personally, Manatee, but I think you're deluding
>> yourself.
No.
>>You can't detect a likelihood, can you? How? Detect a loss of adhesion, yes
>> - but by then it's too late.
>>
>> You may be aware that part-worn tyres will clear less water, but you can't tell
>> whether or not they'll clear the patch you're about to hit.
True
>>
>> The converse of your statement is that there is standing water you assume your
>> tyres will clear because they're new, and that's a very dangerous delusion.
Also true.
We're both in danger of making too much of this. Reducto ad absurdum, even you would presumably modify your wet weather driving if you were forced to drive on bald tyres. It's only a matter of degree, recognising that a manageable risk is slightly higher, and being alert to it.
Whether that translates to an actual difference in speed, following distance or simply being a bit more ready for a specific eventuality is not something I could write a procedure for, or want to.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sat 5 Jul 14 at 15:32
|
|
Fair enough. I may be a little tetchy today because I've been dodging regatta traffic all week and have had not even one Pimms to compensate. And before Vić starts scoffing, I had to go his way yesterday and it was pretty busy there too - without even the fun of pointing at blazers and maxi-dresses. (Very few of the latter this year, incidentally.)
|
Well, I think you are both partly right, and indeed both partly wrong.
There, sorted.
;-)
|
>> I challenge anyone short of a racing driver in a racing car to tell them apart in advance from behind the wheel.
I wouldn't claim to be one of those, but I can usually spot standing water especially on roads I know. Of course if pressing on I am always looking out for it. Any puddle longer than 20 feet or so carries an aquaplaning hazard. All the usual precautions still apply (staying clear of verges where deep puddles are more likely, making sure you are pointing in the right direction when some aquaplaning is inevitable, so that you don't try to turn or slow resulting in a violent swerve when the car touches down, etc.). It isn't rocket science, but it takes brisk reactions and a light (but firm because a deep puddle on one side will pull the wheel) and fluid touch on all controls.
Of course if aquaplaning scares you and you can't cope with it, your only choice is to mimse. Perhaps that's the sensible option really. New, good-quality tyres will make a difference but they won't prevent aquaplaning when the water's deeper than the tread.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sat 5 Jul 14 at 15:08
|
New, good-quality tyres will make a difference but they won't prevent aquaplaning when the water's deeper than the tread.
I think the right design can push enough water sideways to let rubber touch Tarmac even in a deeper puddle, but I agree with everything else you've said, AC. But you haven't claimed to be able to tell a 'safe' puddle from a hazardous one, or to be able to vary the assessment according to the age of your tyres.
|
>> you haven't claimed to be able to tell a 'safe' puddle from a hazardous one, or to be able to vary the assessment according to the age of your tyres.
The safe thing to do is to assume any large puddle is a hazardous one. A new tyre with a lot of tread may be more likely to stay in touch with land even in a deep puddle, but only at lowish speeds. Aquaplaning is a function of speed more than anything else.
Of course one is continuously aware of changes to grip and/or handling as the tyres wear. It's an unconscious, automatic process.
|
>> I did the same on 'her' Qashqai the other week. Different reason though. All four
>> tyres were at 5mm but the back ones were the originals and are 6 years
>> old. The fronts had been been replaced 3 years ago and had gone down to
>> 5mm again.
>>
>> I figured that as the car has done 40 odd thousand miles it would go
>> another few years on the back ones without them wearing down enough to warrant changing
>> them, but would in turn make them too old for comfort. So, I thought I'd
>> put the older tyres on the front so they wear out quicker than the younger
>> ones.
>>
That's the other reason for always (on a FWD car) putting new tyres on the back and moving the exisiting rear tyres to the front.
|
|
Yeah cos all that tread not getting worn out on the back must mean that the tyre is working harder than the front???
|
>> Yeah cos all that tread not getting worn out on the back must mean that
>> the tyre is working harder than the front???
>>
Don't follow?
|
>> Yeah cos all that tread not getting worn out on the back must mean that
>> the tyre is working harder than the front???
Well...in terms of useful work, there probably isn't that much in it, driven smoothly - avoid violent acceleration, hard braking, corner smoothly and on a balanced throttle, and avoid twiddling the power assisted steering when stationary and the wear is a lot more even than most people experience. You need grip at both ends to get around corners.
I've run part time 4x4s for the last 13 years, and although I swap the wheels about to even it out there really isn't that much in it.
The boss on the other hand shreds front tyres. Too quick into corners (she doesn't drive particularly fast) and lock to lock steering while stationary is what I put it down to.
And shirley after 4,329 threads on the subject you know why the best tyres go on the back :)
|
"And shirley after 4,329 threads on the subject you know why the best tyres go on the back :)"
OK we've reached a sort of conclusion with the summer tyres but do the same rules apply to the winter ones? Perhaps a new thread is called for. :-)
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Sun 6 Jul 14 at 17:36
|
>>>And shirley after 4,329 threads on the subject you know why the best tyres go on the back :)
Like Runfer I have my own ideas on this but I totally accept the standard reasoning for the masses.
However it was interesting that the seller of daughter's Polo and the owner of a Ford dealership where we looked at a Punto last week both said it didn't really matter what make or tread depth was on the rear as long as they were legal... because they just trail along and do nothing on a front wheel drive!!!
Edit: Well to be fair to the Polo seller he said it re tread depth but did insist on Michelins.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Sun 6 Jul 14 at 17:51
|
>> owner of a Ford dealership where we looked at a Punto last week both said it didn't really matter what make or tread depth was on the rear as long as they were legal... because they just trail along and do nothing on a front wheel drive!!!
Castors would do then:)
|
|
Well apparently so... he said it as the Punto he was selling had Winters on the rear only... good choice for front wheel drive eh??
|
One can only agree with Humph on the desirability of a bit of entertaining oversteer, and the dire and alarming effects of too much of the other thing, fussily insisted on by segments of the market and pubic opinion.
Moderation in all things though. Better tyres on the front as a general rule, but brand new on the front and barely-legal on the back might seem a step too far in wet conditions.
|
>>That's the other reason for always (on a FWD car) putting new tyres on the back and moving the exisiting rear tyres to the front.>>
That's exactly what I do.
|
>> 185/60x14 on her Twist model with the upgraded alloys and not too bad at £61
>> each fitted.
>>
That's the tyre size which was fitted to a Mk2 Golf GTi. Tyres weren't that cheap for the Golf.
|
|
Not sad at all, it's what makes a man a real man.
|
>>> 185/60x14... Golf GTi
Yes I thought just over £60 each was OK for Michelins in that size... budget ones would be £40- £45.
I'm sure I remember paying £60 a tyre 25+yrs ago for my Saab 99 Turbo... but perhaps they were a 15" with 195s... can't remember now.
|
|
Every time I drive my car I rotate the tyres.............
|
I've never really understood why I'd want the back end of a car to have noticeably more grip than the front. If the back lets go you can catch it easily and quickly with a twitch of opposite lock and carry on. If the front lets go you just keep heading inexorably for whatever it was you were trying to turn away from.
I know which option I prefer.
Ideally of course, you try to drive in such a way as to not lose grip at either end.
|
>>>Ideally of course, you try to drive in such a way as to not lose grip at either end.
Sadly a constant aim my 525 stability/traction control keeps imposing in a very Germanic dictatorial way... must find the the off button.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Sun 6 Jul 14 at 17:43
|
>> If the back lets go you can catch it
>> easily and quickly with a twitch of opposite lock and carry on.
Sure - at 20MPH on a roundabout, but not at speed of a fast, wet bend. Even if you could catch it with a dab of oppo, you're immediately on the wrong side of the road and you're having a head-on crash. At best you have tank-slapper but chances are you'll spin the car and then you have to hope you don't hit another vehicle or something else solid.
>> If the front
>> lets go you just keep heading inexorably for whatever it was you were trying to
>> turn away from.
You get more warning and you back off and the car comes into line.
Good ESP sorts all this out for you so for years people in BMW, Merc etc have been taken care of, and now pretty well all new cars have ESP. Indeed Merc said in the C Class handbook that their ESP is so good you might as well put new tyres on the front - the tyre industry bodies went nuts and they took it out of later editions.
|
We will have to agree to differ on this one Bill I'm afraid.
If you understeer, sure the car will come back into line if you back off but as with your hypothesis on oversteer you are now where you don't want to be by the time it does sort itself out.
Best trick is not to let it get out of shape in the first place of course.
Anyway, it seems you manage to drive around without hitting very much very often as do I apparently so maybe we should just both stick to our preferences.
It's a bit like religion, so long as you believe in something, whatever that is, you can be certain in the knowledge that your lot are right and the other lot are wrong. That in itself is quite comforting I find.
;-)
|
>> We will have to agree to differ on this one Bill I'm afraid.
>>
>> If you understeer, sure the car will come back into line if you back off
>> but as with your hypothesis on oversteer you are now where you don't want to
>> be by the time it does sort itself out.
>>
It's speed which is the difference - the front end washing out usually happens on tighter (and therefore lower speed) turns. Even if you run off the road and crash those crashes are not usually too severe. You might hit a wall, all the airbags go off etc.
The rear end just sliding away happens out of the blue on high speed bends - no-one can catch that on a non-esp equipped car. You go sideway into a tree. You probably die.
>> It's a bit like religion, so long as you believe in something, whatever that is,
>> you can be certain in the knowledge that your lot are right and the other
>> lot are wrong. That in itself is quite comforting I find.
>>
Of course we can do whatever we think suits us best, but it's a different kettle of fish if looking after cars driven by other people.
|
Runfer, aren't you ignoring the fact that every road car will understeer first anyway?
Not to be confused with breaking traction on the driving wheels due to clumsy use of the accelerator or other violent control inputs (snow etc. excepted).
Somebody warned me when I got the MX5 that they oversteer, because if you stamp on the accelerator in a bend the tail will come out. No kidding.
The MX5 is fun to drive, but slippery conditions aside, if I go into a corner a bit too quickly and lift off gently, it tucks in just like I imagine a Perodua Kenari would.
I could get the tail out on a roundabout by wilful effort with the accelerator and/or yanking on the wheel, but that's another thing altogether. Acting daft I think it's called. You need rear wheel drive for that, I agree.
In the early 80s I drove a lot of cars of all kinds (legally!) not belonging to me - common or garden RWD Cortinas, Bluebirds etc. would spin just with clumsy use of the accelerator on a damp bend, especially if they happened to be the 2 litre ones with a monster 90ish bhp.
I accidentally did an extra 180 degrees doing a U-turn at some traffic lights, in a Datsun 180B, appropriately. I still say it must have had a flat back tyre. The copper who saw me called it something, but it wasn't oversteer.
None of this will make any difference when everything has ESC, ABS, ASR, EDL, HBA (that's just the list from the new Roomster, not made up - I have no idea what they all are).
Have you actually ever had to deploy a handful of oppo on your panzerwagen :)
Last edited by: Manatee on Sun 6 Jul 14 at 23:28
|
The Toyota MR2 would oversteer quite sharply (enough to spin it right round) even on a dry surface if you eased your foot off the accelerator and that was at comparatively low speeds of around 40mph...:-(
|
>> The Toyota MR2 would oversteer quite sharply (enough to spin it right round) even on
>> a dry surface if you eased your foot off the accelerator and that was at
>> comparatively low speeds of around 40mph...:-(
>>
I only ever drove the Mk1, but I find that very difficult to believe, though I've heard the story. The hospitals would be full of MR2 owners if it was a problem for anybody but motoring journalists.
Maybe they were?
|
>>... but I find that very difficult to believe, though I've heard the story. >>
It happened to me the first time I drove one on a large, fortunately empty roundabout as I headed for one of the exits...:-)
Afterwards I joked I'd been for a spin in it.
|
>>Have you actually ever had to deploy a handful of oppo on your panzerwagen :)
Thankfully no, but I have chucked a Westfield about a fair bit. No driver aids on those.
Like I say, probably best if we all make our own minds up. Don't want to argue.
|
>> Like I say, probably best if we all make our own minds up. Don't want
>> to argue.
Of course. Just a point of view, and it's usually I who am out of step anyway...
|
>> >>Have you actually ever had to deploy a handful of oppo on your panzerwagen :)
>>
>> Thankfully no, but I have chucked a Westfield about a fair bit. No driver aids
>> on those.
>>
>> Like I say, probably best if we all make our own minds up. Don't want
>> to argue.
>>
I *believe* that in order to successfully 'drift' a Merc Estate you do need to disengage the traction control / ESP, or so I've heard at least ... Use of 'M' mode to hold a low gear is also advisable, and so is only trying it off road... :-). With ESP on the things unstick-able IME, certainly on-road, which I thinks a good thing :-)
The best 'normal' car I've had for that kind of activity, if that's what you're interested in, was an E46 BMW 330d touring. 50:50 or thereabouts weight distribution, plenty of torque for unsticking the rear at low speeds and long enough to be able to drift easily but not so long it turned into a pendulum. Again, only recommended if (a) you're not on a public road and (b) it's a company car and you don't have to pay for tyres...
|
Well my car has different sized tyres front and rear, so inevitably there will be a time when the front and rears are significantly out of kilter wear-wise...
Now, as to why a 2.1 litre diesel estate car needs a staggered wheel/tyre set up is another question ;-)
|
|
Ah well, now then Peter, I find the fronts and rears on the Merc seem to be wearing at a similar rate. This is of course with a lot of motorway miles of course. Might be different if I had to use the steering wheel, any gear other than top or the brakes much.
|
|
Rears definitely wear quicker for me...not that many motorway miles though ;-)
|
>> Rears definitely wear quicker for me...not that many motorway miles though ;-)
>>
Same with me, and mine does mainly motorway miles, with long steady cruising. On the 3rd different make of rear tyre and they all last around 25K. Fronts I reckon would do 60K - I changed the original pair as the edges looked bad and the ones on now are 6yrs old so I'm thinking I ought to change them before winter.
They're summer tyres on the front anyway and I'm now running All-Season's on the rear.
|
My 970S Cooper which, in the day, I raced a bit, had lowered suspension at the front and almost standard height at the back. (Konis fully hard all round).
The idea was that initial under-steer round say Clearways at Brands could more easily and more dramatically (!) be controlled with a lift off the loud pedal for a fraction. The extra height at the rear exaggerated the effect a bit.
(Poverty racing, as I could not afford all the expensive de-cambering and so on, the really quick blokes had).
|
...why a 2.1 litre diesel estate car needs a staggered wheel/tyre set up is another question.
Yes. It is - or was last time I looked - the same combination you get if you buy a snorting-monster E63. So does that have too little rubber, or this too much? They can't both be right, can they?*
* Round here, of course, both have too much since neither is likely to exceed 40 mph for long enough to worry about.
|
|
It's nothing to do with what's right for a particular engine, it's what is right for the IMAGE. Which is all that matters in this brand-obsessed end of the market, isn't it? Staggered wheel set up looks SPORTY.
|
|
Which is why folk are uncomfortable with 225/40 19"s, pay a fortune for new tyres when the conveyance would work with 185/70 15"s (a heck of a lot of cars are overtyred now).
|
Skoda - Call me sad but..... - WillDeBeest
