Bessere Reifen auf die Führungs- oder Antriebsachse | Posts 16+

Quote:

The Lupo TDI is certainly the most extreme example in terms of weight distribution, aside from the Lupo 3l manufactured in 1999 (lightweight tailgate, no spare tire, battery in the front).

The 3L Lupo has the battery in the back... just for the sake of accuracy.

By the way, I drive a gasoline-powered Lupo without ABS... and in my case, the better ones end up in the front.

The Lupo 3L models produced before the year 2000 had it in the front (just for the sake of accuracy). From the revision onwards, the magnesium tailgate was no longer available. This significantly improves the weight distribution.

Off-Topic:

ok... then I recently held a newer one... I don't want to be pinned down about that .

'Until now, like most of you, I've been swapping the tires from front to back and vice versa when changing seasons. Because I also drive an Ibiza 6K, the front tires tend to wear out faster, so this season I was again driving with almost new tires in the front and tires that were almost at the end of their life in the back. But what can you do? As an Austrian, I've always prioritized being able to get up a snowy mountain, rather than worrying about any extreme driving situations. Besides, you can drift and show off so wonderfully in the parking lot *childishly*.'

Approximately two weeks ago, I drove off the highway. The exit ramp resembles a long, winding S-curve with a difference in elevation in the middle, sloping downwards. So, it starts as an S-curve, then slopes downhill, and then becomes an S-curve again, sloping upwards.
At the beginning of the downhill section, the speed limit is 100 km/h, and at the end, it's 80 km/h. With a temperature of around 0 degrees Celsius and a wet road surface, I entered the curve at approximately 110 km/h and exited it at 100 km/h. It's worth noting that in the summer, the curve can handle speeds well above the limit, around 130 km/h, without any issues.
'Definitely, at around 100 km/h as I was exiting the long, sweeping S-curve, the rear of the car started to slide - I countersteered - 'wowowow' - the rear broke out in the other direction... this happened 2-3 times, and then I had a 200° spin. It all happened in the middle of the 3-lane highway exit (including the emergency lane). When I finally came to a stop 150 meters later, I just thought, thankfully there were no other cars here, and the guardrails were so far apart '.

Well, this experience has shown me that it might be a good idea to think about how to mount the tires, to carry snow chains, or simply to pay attention to the speedometer while driving *G*...

I wanted to say that, regardless of whether the tires are worn on the front or rear, a skilled driver is generally much more dangerous on the road in the winter than with completely bald tires in the summer.

Take care, best regards, p.

Sure, but if someone happens to have an accident in the winter, it's almost normal (even though it's never happened to me), and everyone feels sorry for them.
If you drive off the middle lane of a three-lane, unlimited speed autobahn with a speed of just over 80 km/h in the summer, you'll quickly become the laughingstock of the neighborhood.


Black ice, which someone (perhaps due to carelessness) might have overlooked, is one thing.
I don't understand why someone would accept a potentially avoidable effect in the summer, such as increased risk of aquaplaning, and also have to deal with more understeer in dry conditions, all without any other benefits.

Ultimately, when it comes to tire wear (in the cars we're discussing here!), you generally have to replace the tires sooner because you can't really wear down the rubber very much without encountering serious problems.
Ideally, you should never drive your tires close to the legal limit.

Hi,

Quote:

The rear-wheel drive is always a problem when something unexpected happens.

If the rear of the car starts to slide out, you can countersteer. If the car understeers, there's nothing you can do. (Let's stick to water for now.)

Quote:

I have no idea if I might have slipped a little bit into the mud with a lot of profile on the tires, but I would never have tipped over like that or damaged the car.

Why are you so sure that this wouldn't have happened if there was more rear downforce?
1.) If a tire with a lot of tread floats, then a tire with less tread will float even more. --> no advantage.
2.) If you think that oversteering occurs because the front tire is holding too well and the rear tire is gripping too poorly, that's not correct in the case of aquaplaning: The moment your front wheel enters the water and you don't maintain a constant throttle, the vehicle is strongly decelerated by the forces acting on the front axle (the water being displaced). If, in this state, the rear axle then enters the water, oversteering will occur.
I can already imagine what you're thinking: The front wheel should rise up and glide straight through the water, while the rear axle, with its good tread, shouldn't float and should plow through the water. Unfortunately, this doesn't work due to the load transfer reaction (or, to be more precise, it only works within an extremely narrow range).

As always, the key is to adjust your speed, and in front-wheel drive vehicles, in tricky situations: keep your foot on the accelerator and steer in the right direction.

Regards,
Micha.

P.S.: Give my regards to your guardian angel! You were really lucky that nothing was in the way and that you could "roll out" freely.

Oversteer means the rear of the car loses traction, but it sounds like you meant understeer.

Of course, I don't find understeer exciting either, but it's the lesser of two evils when you actually still have a little bit of room to maneuver straight ahead.
When you're experiencing aquaplaning, you're already floating, so in my opinion, the most important thing is to avoid being completely perpendicular to the road when you regain a bit of traction.

The phenomenon of load shift reaction during aquaplaning is correct, but it only applies if the steering wheel is turned at the wrong moment.
In practice, having a tire with a slightly less pronounced tread pattern on the front shows that the vehicle brakes strongly, but with the correct reaction, it remains in its lane. However, with the same (or even worse) tires on the rear, even slight differences in road gradient can quickly lead to a spinning effect, even when driving straight.
With my car, there's simply so much more weight in the front, even when it's unloaded, which becomes extremely noticeable during aquaplaning.
Unfortunately, I've only tested it in puddles on relatively flat terrain, as I don't want to end up in the hospital for the second time in my life.

It's naturally better not to get overly concerned and to always drive with new tires on both axles.
Well, everyone does what they like.

Indeed, my luck was that there were no bystanders. I got my rear wheel stuck in the mud (knee-deep if you stepped into it) and then I was thrown sideways, hitting an embankment with the roof about 15-20 meters off the highway. The roof absorbed the main impact.

I'm sorry for your loss.
- Well, now you need the money for the repair, or even for a new car.
I would have liked to have sent you 2 new tires earlier (and it would have been in your best interest too) - it's a shame about the expensive lesson learned.
New slogan: "The best tires should be used on both axles."

edit: I admit, it also hurts me to throw them away, even if they're only 3 mm thick.

Well, it happened a few years ago, and ultimately it was my fault. I just misjudged the situation regarding the tires and the lighting conditions.
It shouldn't happen, but that's life.

The car was sold to a Romanian man. While technically everything was in good condition except for the axles, and it had 102,000 km on the clock, the body was completely damaged and beyond repair.
Well, he got it for 600 euros, but he probably paid 1000. He probably got a good deal considering the engine, transmission, seats, and all the airbags (including the side airbags). For me, it worked out in the end, considering the insurance and the price of the new Lupo. So, I'm not complaining.
I also bought another Lupo from a different dealer after I had to temporarily park the first one there. At first, they didn't want to give me anything for my car, but they were pushing for a sale because they would otherwise charge me for the parking space. Then I investigated how they were planning to resell the car and put pressure on the dealership because they had unrealistic price expectations for the new Lupo.
In the end, I got the car for 7800 instead of 10000, plus a new N75 valve, paintwork, a full tank (with an overflow tank), and everyone was happy.
The new Lupo was from the same production date, but without the side airbags and with 60,000 km less mileage.
Since the insurance company estimated the value of the old car at 9200, I was able to recover the increased premium for the comprehensive insurance.

It was pretty much like a Turkish bazaar, because the used car dealer for VW in Roth is Turkish. The only difference was that everything was handled over the phone, since I was in Hamburg. I randomly found the Lupo on the internet.

In the end, the insurance company tried to secretly and quietly increase my liability insurance premium by 80 euros due to damage to the lawn. However, I managed to prevent this.

A lot of trouble (I'll spare you all the details) because of my own stupidity... but I don't want to complain, it could have been much worse.
Thanks to the roadside assistance service, I was able to get a tow truck and a rental car delivered around 8 PM on a Sunday, completely free of charge.

Regards,

Olaf.

Hi,

Quote:

but you probably meant understeer.

Yes, I do. I wanted to edit it, but I can't seem to "send" the edited post. However, I think everyone understands what I mean, as I described everything in enough detail.

Regards,
Sure, here is the translation of the text from German to English:

"Micha"

Hello fellow enthusiasts,

Regarding this topic, I would also like to add my two cents ......

I discussed the question of where to mount the tires with the deeper tread pattern with a professional driving safety instructor many years ago.

This expert (who works for a major car manufacturer and also trains bodyguards/security personnel in driving techniques) advises, regardless of the type of engine and vehicle:

The better tire profile should be on the rear axle .

His reasoning:
'When the front of the car loses traction and slides to the side, it's called understeer. This can be corrected. When the rear of the car loses traction and slides to the side, it's called oversteer.'

And while the argument that 'the heavy (TDI) front-wheel-drive vehicle wears out the front tires much faster' is true, it shouldn't lead to the practice of rotating the tires to the front once a year with the noticeably better tread, only to have a set with the same tread depth again after two years...
We're not talking about a difference of just 0.5 mm between the front and rear axles here. You could certainly replace those every year.

This approach keeps appearing right here in Swabia, a region known for its frugality .......

Simply drive the front tires down until they need replacing, and then when you buy new ones, move the old ones from the front to the rear, and of course, have the new ones installed in the rear.
You neither save nor waste anything, but you have a safer vehicle.

Generally, one should not exploit the permitted minimum profile depth of 1.6 mm. Another rainy day is bound to come. For me, things start to get problematic around 2.5 to 3 mm.

Best regards, Kassen.

Thank you for your support.

Actually, that's exactly what I'm doing.
Of course, I also know that all driving instructors invariably emphasize this (even with rear-wheel drive vehicles). I think most readers here are aware of that as well.
I didn't want to use the argument "even the ADAC says that," because such "official statements" can certainly be questioned.

I wanted to convince the skeptics and support the "official" opinion by sharing my own experiences.

Regards,

Olaf.

The better tire profile should be on the rear axle .

His reasoning:
'When the front of the car slides out, it's called understeer. This can be corrected. } When the rear of the car loses traction on the sides, it's called oversteer.' }

Hello,

I completely agree with the profile, but his reasoning is a bit 'well...'

If the car is understeering, there's not much I can do except wait for the speed to decrease to the point where the tires regain grip.
As long as it goes in the direction of the curve's exit...
'Korrigieren' would mean 'steer towards,' which also points in the direction of the exit of the curve.
However, the vehicle remains stable in this situation.

I can only correct oversteer or 'skidding,' but that requires specific driving skills because the vehicle is unstable.

Therefore, the IDR (Idle Speed Reduction) is set to a lower value because a typical driver will experience fewer issues and only needs to 'wait' for the vehicle to become stable again.

Best regards, Jochen.

oldewurtel wrote:

... If the front of the car slides out, it is called understeer. This can be corrected.

And how do you do that?
A vehicle exhibiting understeer will not respond to steering inputs and is therefore uncorrectable. Braking is the worst thing you can do in this situation. The most important thing to do is to reduce speed to stabilize the vehicle. Accelerating will not have the desired effect. The only thing that helps is to release the steering wheel. However, if the ditch is on that side, it's too late.
However, things are different when driving straight. In that situation, a nervous rear end is not desirable (see Olaf's report).
So, that statement made above is far too general.

Jochen_145 wrote:

I can only correct oversteering or "skidding," but that requires the appropriate driving skills, as the vehicle is unstable.

Similarly, this is what is taught in security training courses.