Tires for Steering/Drive Axle: Improve Performance

Evening, everyone!

Since it keeps coming up repeatedly:

How do you handle it (in a front-wheel drive car)? Or, what do you think is the correct way to do it?

Should the good winter tires be placed on the steering axle (i.e., the rear) or the drive axle?


Ich habe es immer so gelernt, dass die besseren Reifen nach hinten gehören. Okay, hier ist die Übersetzung:

"Or simply:"
A car that understeers usually continues to move straight ahead... predicting what will happen with oversteer is not so straightforward.
"However, I always put the better tires on the front of my car (the difference is only about 2mm); I just prefer it that way, and in the rainy weather of northern Germany, I simply feel more confident when it comes to braking."

How are you doing? What do you think is right... or is it just biased towards current opinions (with compensation)?

Best regards,

Hi,

Since the 6K experiences significant tire wear on the front wheels due to the heavy TDI engine, while the rear tires show very little wear, I swap them front to back with every tire change.

Based solely on the effects (which can be well tested in ADAC driving safety training), the rear tire grip is more important than the front tire grip. However, in my case, this would mean that the rear tires would always age faster (which is not ideal), while the front tires would need to be replaced more often. Therefore, I think it is completely uncritical as long as the tires still have the legally required tread depth. Below that level, they should (and must) be replaced.

By the way, it's also not good for the ABS and ESP systems if the tire diameters differ significantly. I'm not sure if this would happen if you have brand new tires on the rear and tires on the front that are just barely still legal.

Therefore, I believe a gradual and controlled shutdown is preferable.

Best regards,

Jan.

Quote:

An understeering car usually continues straight... predicting the behavior when oversteering is not so easy.

Basically, as you mentioned, the rear axle needs better grip.

"Personally, I also fit the tires with the deeper tread pattern (+2mm) on the front axle, because those are the ones that have less grip on dry roads. Furthermore, the aquaplaning performance of the front axle improves. In the rain, the rear wheels usually run in the cleaner, less water-filled track created by the front wheels. However, when cornering in the rain, this advantage is negated, and I tend to drive more cautiously in those situations."

Hello!

I'm putting the better tires on the front (since it's a front-wheel drive car).

Simply to ensure that the tread depth of all four tires remains relatively even!
Otherwise, after 2 years, I'll have slicks in the front and usable tread in the rear, but with hard rubber.
And two new tires won't change that either (assuming they even exist). The hard rubber on the front will just wear away quickly...

BM has already explained the rest.

BYE
TDI mechanics.

Hello,

Always put the better tires on the rear axle, otherwise, it's quite possible that those will be the last tires your vehicle will ever need.
The rear axle ensures that the vehicle stays on track (i.e., remains stable).

The note "aquaplaning is better" because the front axle pushes the water away only applies up to the upcoming bend (even a small amount of water is enough). Then, the rear tires will be exactly in the path that the "better" front tires have just pushed the water into.
The control systems (e.g., EBV, ABS, ESP) also have to do much more, and may even reach the limit of being able to stabilize the vehicle. In the worst-case scenario, your ASR (Anti-Slip Regulation) might adjust the speed based on the better front tires, bringing you closer to the cornering speed limit that the rear axle (with the worse tires) can no longer handle.

My experiences with this are varied, and believe me: "not just positive."

I will be practicing in Scandinavia again soon.

Regards,

heating fossil.

Quote:

so please always put the better tires on the rear axle

What do you think are the better tires?
The one with less tread for dry conditions, or the one with more tread for rain.
where the lateral forces also only exhibit a higher grip level in the borderline area of aquaplaning?

Quote:

The note "Aquaplaning is better" because the front axle displaces the water.

Who is making the claims that you are quoting? Perhaps you should read carefully before simply repeating what others have written and taking things out of context.

Quote:

In the worst-case scenario, your ASR (Anti-Slip Regulation) will adjust the front tires to a higher cornering speed limit, which the rear axle (with the inferior tires) can no longer handle.

This only applies when it's raining, assuming the "better" tires are the ones with the deeper tread.

Despite this, I would like to reiterate that for the average driver, the tires with the deeper tread should be fitted to the rear axle.

BM wrote:

Basically, it's true, as you wrote, that the rear axle needs better grip. I personally also mount the tires with the deeper tread (+2mm) on the front axle, because those are the ones that have lower grip on dry roads, .... Furthermore, the aquaplaning performance of the front axle improves. In the rain, the rear wheels usually run almost entirely through the water-free channel created by the front wheels when driving straight. When cornering in the rain, where this advantage is negated, I tend to drive more cautiously.

tdi-schrauber wrote:

I'm putting the better tires on the front (on a front-wheel drive car). Simply to ensure that the tread depth of all four tires remains relatively even! Otherwise, after 2 years, I'll have slicks in the front and usable tread in the rear, but with hard rubber. And that's something that even two new tires won't change (assuming they still exist). Then the hard rubber on the front will be completely worn down...

Thank you, guys, that I don't have to write much anymore : those are exactly my reasons for always mounting the higher remaining tread depth tires in the front with every SR-WR tire change.

I also move the better forward for the reasons mentioned above.

I've been nose-diving several times, but I've never had the tail come off (due to insufficient stability).

That has happened exactly twice.
- Once on ice, the tires were actually the same anyway.
- and once, because the ones in the back (with the excellent tread) had become too old.

m;

heizfoss wrote:

Hello, Always put the better tires on the rear axle, otherwise, it's quite possible that those will be the last tires your vehicle will ever need. The rear axle ensures that the vehicle stays on track (i.e., remains stable).

... to end up hitting the wall on the next turn because the steering forces are not being transmitted...

Quote:

... In the worst-case scenario, your ASR (Anti-Slip Regulation) system will adjust the front tires to a higher cornering speed limit, which the rear axle (with the inferior tires) can no longer handle.

This only applies to three- or two-channel systems, which are only present in small numbers on the market and have not been commonly used for about 10 years. Four-channel systems can calculate the grip of each individual wheel and adjust the corresponding control strategy accordingly.


It's therefore best to wear down the tires evenly. This means frequently swapping them from the front axle to the rear axle and vice versa.


"Personally, I always use a higher tire tread depth in the front during the winter. However, the reason for this is related to my driving style and experience. I'm a rally driver, and I prefer a car that oversteers rather than one that understeers. I much prefer turning the ESP off and driving with the rear wheels leading the way around corners. However, this requires a great deal of "feel" and vehicle control."

However, I don't think this discussion is very useful for the average driver, as one shouldn't really be pushing a vehicle to its limits. Mastering a vehicle at the edge of its performance capabilities is also not something everyone can do, even with electronic assistance.
For this purpose, a vehicle with a slight tendency to understeer is preferable to one with a tendency to oversteer. Therefore, tires with more tread should be mounted on the rear axle.

Therefore, I refrain from making such a general statement about when tires with more tread should be used. It simply depends on the driver and their driving habits.

'Like 98 percent of people who drive, I've obviously experienced situations where I had to switch driving modes, and as BM mentioned, the handling in dry conditions is more important because no one sensible would drive a Walter Röhrl mode in public transport under adverse conditions.'

'Once in the winter, while driving my G3, the rear end became so light that, while I was in the crest of a tight turn in town, I lost traction and spun out 270 degrees.'

I suspect that the problem is only 65% due to the condition of the shock absorbers, 30% due to the very unfavorable weight distribution of the G3 with the 1.9 TDI engine, and 5% due to the age of the tires (not the tread depth, especially not at these speeds).

If the level of detail needs to be incorporated into the thought process, then everyone will be overwhelmed.

"...then I consider myself a reasonable person! I adopt a defensive driving style without any unnecessary haste or aggressive acceleration. But I'm also not a slow driver. Therefore, the wear patterns on my tires are usually quite even. With each seasonal change, I also swapped the tires from front to back and vice versa. As someone mentioned earlier, the tires on my vehicles also wore down slightly faster in the front than in the rear."

My current Peugeot 206 HDI70 seems to be quite gentle on the tires. The Suzuki Ignis DDIS I drove before, however, put a lot of stress on the front tires due to its higher axle load and higher center of gravity, which was mainly noticeable in the more worn outer tread grooves. With that car, you really had to replace the tires axle by axle, and every two years, you had to have the tires rotated from left to right and vice versa, otherwise, the tires on the front axle would have been completely worn out on the outer edges after only two summers.

With the Ignis, I only noticed the initially very high tire wear after switching from 175 Continental EcoContact tires with a very soft compound to 195 Marangoni Vanto tires with a rather hard compound. The standard 175 tires were simply too narrow and too soft for the high-riding car with its heavy front axle. On my partner's Ignis 1.3 (gasoline), the original Eco-Contis are still on after about 90,000 km and 3.5 years, and they have about 30% tread depth remaining. Perhaps 30,000 km of that was driven on winter tires. They should last for the upcoming summer, but the tires may need to be replaced in the fall.

The gasoline version didn't feel as front-heavy as the diesel, which, due to its relatively light rear axle, tended to wobble at the rear on wet roads when taking fast corners. If you're not prepared for that, you can easily lose control of the car. That was also a reason for selling the Suzuki after 3 years. In contrast, the Peugeot feels very stable on the road! Even standing water on the highway doesn't unsettle it.

Of course, I will continue to rotate the tires every season. I haven't had any bad experiences with it, and it always results in a set of tires that wear down evenly on the car. This also means I don't have to worry about the tires on the rear axle, which might not be in the best condition, deviating from the direction I'm steering in a curve. }

Hello,

The topic seems to be quite polarizing.

@BM: I didn't want to take anything out of context or simply parrot what someone else said, but rather...
Just sharing my personal experience. No offense intended.

@Bertil: 1.) If the front wheels are understeering as much as you describe, are they still safe? And are they still good for the rear axle? I don't quite understand that.
2.) Why can a 4-channel ABS or even ESP (I believe ESP is only available with 4 channels) regulate the rear axle, which is less stressed (the axle load ratio in front-wheel-drive vehicles from the VW Group is quite front-heavy, except for the "B8" model), just as effectively as the front axle, which is more heavily loaded?

So, if I misunderstood something or didn't know something, please accept my apologies for that.

Thank you, I'm eagerly awaiting your information.

heating fossil.

heizfoss wrote:

... 1.) If the front wheels are exhibiting the kind of understeer you're describing, are they still safe?

This can also happen with almost new tires.
For example, you're entering a long curve. There's no snow on the road. However, the wind has blown a snowdrift onto the road within the curve. You weren't going too fast for the clear road, but you're going too fast for the snow-covered section. With the "worse" tires on the front axle, the car immediately goes straight, and the ESP (Electronic Stability Program) can't generate any grip for the front inner wheel. -> Result: Loss of control.
If you use tires with more grip on the front axle, the ESP system has the ability to significantly decelerate the inner wheel in a turn and determine the direction. If the rear end starts to slide out, the ESP can also control this movement, as the critical speed has already been significantly exceeded due to the intervention of the system to prevent understeer.

Whoever drives properly will never find themselves in the awkward situation of a minor rear-end collision. Even I would have to deliberately provoke such a situation (which, admittedly, I sometimes do ), and my car is extremely rear-heavy.

Quote:

And are they still suitable for the rear axle?

Sure, no problem.

Quote:

2.) Why can a 4-channel ABS or even ESP system control the rear axle, which is less stressed, just as effectively as the front axle, which is more stressed?

Because the axle load distribution is a component of the ESP's control strategy and is tailored to the vehicle.
Similarly, this applies to ABS systems. The braking force is electronically regulated and adjusted to the load situation.

Quote:

So, if I misunderstood something or didn't know something, please accept my apologies for that.

No, that's okay.

Even though the case I mentioned is a borderline one, unfortunately, these are my experiences from the past few years with these electronic aids. Many incidents where I was called in have unfolded in a similar way. The ESP completely unnecessarily tried to force the car back in a certain direction.

Therefore, my recommendation is to use tires that are as equally matched as possible.

"Someone here was talking about swapping tires from left to right. I always thought that was a no-no (even with tires that don't have a specific direction), because the tires have settled into a certain direction due to the heavy braking load, and if you reverse them, they could come loose and rotate on the rim. I've never really understood it, but my father firmly believes it. On the other hand, I've also heard from people with particularly high-torque cars with wide tires that the rim can rotate inside the tire (like on a 535d) if they're not secured properly during installation. We also own a 535d, but we don't drive it that aggressively from a standstill."
Does anyone know anything about this?

Regarding the topic (it's a novel, but it's important to me because many drivers of performance cars seem to be under a dangerous misconception):

"Until a few years ago, I also thought like most of you and diligently installed tires with more tread on the front."
Above all, I wanted even wear. To achieve this, I accepted increased (and somewhat undesirable) understeer in dry conditions, because tires with more tread simply offer less grip in dry conditions than those with less, unless they are completely worn out.

Since a slightly nervous rear end doesn't usually bother me, even in wet conditions, the risk of the rear end sliding out a bit didn't really concern me.
Unfortunately, with my heavily front-biased Lupo TDI (80/20), it's quite expensive to experience that kind of arrogance when driving alone and unladen.

Years ago, I drove alone, with luggage in the passenger footwell, from north of Hamburg to a friend's place in Munich.
It was a hot summer day. In the evening, there was an extreme thunderstorm near Nuremberg, which I drove through. Afterwards, due to a severe weather warning and various highway closures because of flooded roads, I was practically alone on the highway.
Due to the extreme heat, the road surface dried very quickly. However, because of the water in the depressions, I had to drive slowly and cautiously. Also, around 7 PM, there was extremely bright sunlight coming directly into my eyes.
I had 185/55 R14 Conti Premium Contact tires on, with 3.5 mm of tread depth on the front and just under 3 mm on the rear.

As I said, the asphalt was only damp, and the grass on the median strip was barely visible due to the heavy evaporation, making everything appear misty.

Before the Feucht intersection, there's a slight rise with a very gentle, slightly negative banking left-hand curve, followed by a downhill section where the Autobahn (motorway) is slightly inclined to the right. Shortly after the rise, there's a bridge over the Autobahn.
Behind the bridge, water was flowing from left to right across the highway. It was gushing out of three drain openings. As you could see further ahead, it was coming onto the bridge from a hill via a country road, where it was apparently still raining. It flowed down a downspout from the bridge onto the median strip.
Unfortunately, I was probably the first non-truck vehicle to go that way.
I didn't mean to do anything wrong, I braked well below 100 km/h and moved to the middle lane because the right lane was partially blocked by trucks. I then took my foot off the brake and drove into the water. Unfortunately, due to the headlights shining in my eyes and the fog, I couldn't properly judge the water depth on the shoulder (I assumed there would be a lot of water, only in the depressions). Instead of a few millimeters, it was 1-2 centimeters, because the water was flowing out of the drains over a distance of more than 70 meters. Apparently, the drainage system on the downhill section was overwhelmed by the water coming from the bridge.
As I drove in, I immediately knew that I was going too fast for the tires. So, it didn't surprise me that the rear end immediately veered to the right. I was able to correct it. Ideally, I should have already been braking hard at that point, so that, if necessary, I could enter the botanical garden as slowly as possible, even if I was spinning.
I was thinking about regaining grip at any time, and I focused on avoiding hitting the guardrail on the left. However, instead of regaining grip, the front wheels just kept sliding, and I drifted sideways down the hill, across the track, until I reached the grass. Then, my right rear wheel got stuck in the mud (where all the water had collected), and I rolled a few times, ending up on the roof against an embankment.
Das war mein 1. Lupo.

The rear-wheel drive can be a problem when something unexpected happens.
I have no idea if I might have slipped a bit into the mud with a lot of tire profile in the rear, but I would never have tipped over like that or damaged the car.

After a huge crash... the next truck driver immediately called an ambulance, thinking "No one could have survived that without injuries"... and after clearing the debris, I got a Polo 9N with a 1.2 three-cylinder gasoline engine as a rental car at VW in Feucht. That allowed me to finish the remaining kilometers to Munich. However, it had 165 tires with more tread. I had to drive on country roads anyway, as the highway was still closed further south.

Since then, I always put new tires on the rear and drive the front ones until they're worn out. When the front tires are finished, I move the ones from the rear to the front and put new ones on the rear.
It has the advantage that the rear end is a bit more flexible when it's dry, allowing for better cornering. The difference is definitely noticeable.

When driving in wet conditions, it's best to drive straight and you'll quickly notice when things are getting dangerous. Even in cases of aquaplaning, the rear tires still maintain some grip.

Ultimately, with my Lupo TDI, the tires don't last any longer overall than they would if I were to always replace them. So, aging isn't a valid argument in this case.
In the case of the Lupo, it doesn't really matter that the rear tires typically have a much softer rubber compound than the front tires, because the weight distribution is already so uneven.
Of course, things are completely different with our 535d. The tires always wear out evenly. It also doesn't cause any problems with aquaplaning, as the car is heavier and, thanks to its intelligent design (aluminum at the front, steel and battery at the rear), has a full 50% of its weight at the rear.

If you drive a car that is very front-heavy and often travel alone on highways, you should really consider whether you should use tires with less grip in the rear (even if the difference is minimal compared to the front). At least, if you wear your tires down to less than 4 mm, I consider that a risk. You can always misjudge a situation, and in that case, the margin for error with a potential oversteer situation is very small. Furthermore, frontal collisions almost always result in less severe consequences than side impacts.

Regarding braking distance, I actually didn't notice any disadvantage in practice, even in wet conditions.

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

Regards,

Olaf.

In my opinion, the question of which brand of tires is (slightly) better remains a matter of personal belief.

Anyone who provides a more nuanced test result than a typical tabloid headline like "we have the solution" cannot also specify the distribution of risk potential for each driver.

Olaf, on the other hand, once lost control and spun out the back end... I've never experienced that, but I've definitely had the front end lose traction multiple times. With my Golf 2, I've even thrown away tires with 3mm of tread left because I was doing burnouts (they weren't old, worn-out Conti CT22 tires). Also, the Lupo is certainly a unique car when it comes to the "agility" of the rear end: How much car is there behind the rear axle, 10 cm or even less?

When I look at the tires of other cars in parking lots, I actually come to completely different conclusions.
"Directional tires are the worst thing ever invented. About 50% of the DIY mechanics out there are too stupid to read the arrows and end up putting the tires on backward!"
- It's more important to replace tires altogether than to worry about whether to choose the one with 6.5 mm or the one with 6.2 mm tread depth for the front. The amount of junk that's rolling around on the streets sometimes is unbelievable...
- Age and air pressure are not just marketing terms, but rather vital characteristics of a tire.


Always maintain good grip.
martin

Absolutely, tire pressure, overall tread depth, and the age of the tires are the main factors.

For most cars, I would also consider it a matter of personal preference. The question is, where do the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, or what disadvantages do I even have?

We also have a Honda Jazz (with the fuel tank under the passenger seat). In that car, it basically doesn't matter which way you mount the tires.
I would even consider a Polo 9N to be in that category, especially if it has a smaller engine than the 1.9 TDI. However, there are cars with extremely unbalanced weight distribution, where you practically always lose traction on the rear wheels first during aquaplaning. This is practically impossible to control. I'm not talking about simple oversteer here!

Even with the Lupo TDI, you are unlikely to experience any problems if you usually have a full trunk or passengers in the back.

Ultimately, I switched my "strategy" because I haven't experienced any noticeable disadvantages with less tread on the front tires in terms of braking distance, etc., when driving in snow. Besides, my winter tires are anyway due for replacement when they reach below 4 mm of tread.

Furthermore, the car feels much more agile when driving on dry roads. The excessive understeer is almost completely eliminated. The car even seems to "lift" its front end in corners, whereas before it would just slide straight ahead.
It's also partly due to the somewhat worn-out shock absorbers, but only to a small extent, as I've already done the "reverse test."
Many people spend a lot of time modifying their car's suspension to improve its handling. There are much simpler ways to achieve this. Tires with higher tread blocks give way more before providing grip, and due to the tread blocks being slightly "twisted" under load, they also have less contact area, resulting in less overall grip. This small difference can make a noticeable difference on dry roads. On wet roads, it's practically negligible up to the aquaplaning limit, as the overall grip level is lower, and the tire with more pronounced tread deforms less, bringing its performance closer to that of the front tires. You can really experience this, especially since many other effects related to braking distance, etc., are not really noticeable.

Of course, it sometimes happens to me now that the front of the car briefly lifts up, because I was going a bit too fast, or the car in front was a bit heavier. But when I think about how, in the past, the rear of the car would always be the first to lose traction, and even a slight incline in the road could put you in a difficult situation.
It's not a big deal if it's just short stretches of water. But if you misjudge the situation and end up on a longer downhill section, you're in trouble.

See you then.

Olaf.