Better tires on the steering or drive axle.

Good evening, everyone!

After it has been a recurring topic:

How do you handle it (on a front-wheel drive vehicle)? Or, what do you think is the correct approach?

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


I have always learned that the better tires should be at the rear. Or simply:
A car with understeer typically continues straight... However, it is not easy to predict the consequences of oversteer.
Nevertheless, I prefer to move the better tires to the front (they are only max 2mm different on my car); it just feels "better" to me, and in typical northern German rainy weather, I feel "more secure" when braking.

How do you do it? What do you think is the right approach... or simply a link to current opinions (with compensation)?

Greetings

Hi,

Since the 6K, due to the very heavy TDI engine at the front, wears the tires quite a bit, while they show almost no wear at the rear, I always swap them when changing from front to rear.

From an impact perspective (which can be easily tested during an ADAC driving safety training), the rear tire positioning is more important than the front, however, in my case, this would lead to the rear tires always aging more (which is also not ideal), while the front tires would need to be replaced more often. Therefore, I think it is completely acceptable, as long as the tires still have the required tread depth. One should (and must) replace them anyway.

Regarding ABS and ESP, it's also not ideal if the tire diameters differ significantly from each other. I'm not sure if this would actually happen if you had brand new tires in the back and tires that were still within the legal limit in the front.

Therefore, I believe a sensible and consistent shutdown is better.

Best regards,

Jan

Quote:

A car with understeer typically continues straight... However, it is not easy to predict the consequences of oversteer.

Basically, it's similar to what you're saying, that the rear axle needs better grip.

Personally, I also mount the tires with the lower profile (+2mm) on the front axle, because these have the lower grip on dry roads... Furthermore, the front tires also improve the aquaplaning behavior. The rear tires usually run almost entirely through the drier track of the front tires even when driving straight in the rain. When driving on curves and in the rain, where this advantage diminishes, I would also refrain.

Hello!

I am putting the better tires on the front (for front-wheel drive vehicles).

Simply to ensure that the tread depth of all four tires remains reasonably uniform!
Otherwise, after 2 years, I had slicks on the front and usable tread on the rear, but hard rubber.
And that won't change anything, even if there are two new tires (if they still exist). Then the hard rubber strips at the front were completely worn off...

The rest has already been explained by BM.

BYE
TDI-Mechanic

Hello,

So, bitte immer die besseren Reifen auf der Hinterachse, sonst besteht die Gefahr, dass dies der letzte Satz Reifen ist, den Ihr Fahrzeug benötigt.
The rear axle ensures that the vehicle remains in its lane (i.e., stable).

The note "Aquaplaning better" because the front axle displaces the water applies only until the next curve (even a slight turn is enough). Then the rear tires are perfectly aligned with the track, just as the "better front" tires have so nicely diverted the water.
Also, even the safety systems (EBV, ABS, ESP...) need to do much more, and they will then also reach the limit of being able to stabilize the vehicle. In the worst case, adjust your ASR to match the speed limit of the curve, using the best front tires, so that the rear axle (with the worse tires) can no longer handle it.

My experiences in this regard are diverse, and I assure you: "not only positive"

I will be training in Scandinavia again soon.

Greetings

heizfoss

Quote:

so, bitte stellen Sie immer die besseren Reifen auf die Hinterachse

What do you think are the best tires?
The one with less tread for dry driving or the one with more tread for wet conditions,
where the side forces also only exhibit a higher grip level in the boundary area of aquaplaning?

Quote:

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

Who claims this, like you quote? Maybe you should read carefully before you start repeating and distorting what I've said, taking things out of context.

Quote:

In the worst-case scenario, adjust your ABS to bring the front wheels with the better tires up to the cornering speed that the rear axle (with the worse tires) can no longer handle.

This only applies in the rain, if the better tires are those with the deeper tread.

Nevertheless, I would like to reiterate that for the average consumer, the tires with the lower profile should be mounted on the rear axle.

BM wrote:

Basically, it's similar to what you're saying, that the rear axle needs better grip. Personally, I also mount the tires with the lower profile (+2mm) on the front axle, because these have the lower grip on dry roads... Furthermore, the front tires also improve the aquaplaning behavior. The rear tires usually run almost entirely through the drier track of the front tires even when driving straight in the rain. When driving on curves and in the rain, where this advantage diminishes, I tend to slow down anyway.

tdi-schrauber wrote:

I'm putting the better tires on the front (for a front-wheel drive vehicle). Simply to ensure that the tread depth of all four tires remains reasonably uniform! Otherwise, after 2 years, I had slicks on the front and usable tread on the rear, but hard rubber. And that won't change anything, even if there are two new tires (if they still exist). Then the hard rubber strips at the front were torn off...

Thanks guys, that I don't have to write much anymore : these are exactly my reasons for mounting the higher remaining profile depth at the front in every SR-WR switch.

Also, I'm also fastening up from the above. Establish better ahead.

I've been leading quite a few times, but never (due to a lack of control) has the rear end gotten away from me.

That happened exactly twice.
- once on ice, but the tires were already identical
- and once, because the rear ones (super profile) had become too old.

m;

heizfoss wrote:

Hello, So, bitte immer die besseren Reifen auf der Hinterachse, sonst besteht die Gefahr, dass dies der letzte Satz Reifen ist, den Ihr Fahrzeug benötigt. The rear axle ensures that the vehicle remains in its lane (i.e., stable).

... in order to land in the next corner, the steering forces are not transmitted ...

Quote:

... In the worst case, adjust your ASR to match the speed limit of the curve, using the best front tires, so that the rear axle (with the worse tires) can no longer handle it.

However, this only applies to three- or two-channel systems, which are only available in small numbers and have not been in use for about 10 years. Four-channel systems can calculate the individual liability for each wheel and adjust the corresponding control strategy accordingly.


Therefore, it is best to always wear your shoes evenly. That means a frequent switching from the front axle to the rear axle and vice versa.


Personally, I always run with a higher front tire profile in winter. However, the reason for this is my driving style and my driving experience. I'm a rally driver, and I prefer a car that oversteers rather than understeers. With ESP off, "Heel and Toe" around the corner is much better for me. But this requires a considerable amount of "skill" and vehicle control.

However, I find this discussion to be pointless for "ordinary drivers," as one should not really drive so close to the limit of the vehicle anyway. Mastering a vehicle on the edge requires skill, and even with electronic aids, it's not something everyone can do.
For this, a car with slightly less understeer would be better than one with more oversteer. So, the tires with more tread should be mounted on the rear axle.

Therefore, I refrain from making such a general statement regarding the need to mount tires with more tread. That simply depends on the driver and their habits.

I have essentially replaced 98 percent of the economically active people, and as BM already says, the dry conditions are more important, because no one reasonable like Walter Röhrl plays in public transport under adverse conditions.

The rear of the car became so slippery in the winter that I lost control while driving at high speed in a sharp turn in the city, and the car spun out 270 degrees.

'However, I believe that this is only due to the condition of the shock absorbers (65%), the very unfavorable weight distribution of the G3 with a 1.9Tdi engine (30%), and the age of the tires (5%), not the tire tread depth (especially at these speeds).'

If the profile depth needs to be incorporated into the thinking model, then everyone plays the piano.

...dann betrachte ich mich auch als einen vernünftigen Menschen! Ich fahre einen defensiven Fahrstil ohne jegliche Hektik und Streit. Aber ich bin auch kein "Schleicher". Daher sind die Abnutzungsbilder meiner Reifen meist ziemlich gleichmäßig. Ich tauschte auch bei jedem Saisonwechsel die Reifen achsweise von vorne nach hinten und umgekehrt. As someone wrote further up, my vehicles also had tires that were slightly more worn in the front than in the rear.

My current Peugeot 206 HDI70 seems to handle the tires quite gently, while the previous Suzuki Ignis DDIS tended to wear the tires more heavily due to the higher axle load and center of gravity, which was particularly noticeable in the more heavily loaded outer tread grooves. Here, you really had to swap them carefully, and also have the tires rotated from side to side every 2 years, because otherwise the tires would wear down on the outer edges of the front axle after 2 summers.

With the Ignis, I only realized the initially very high tire wear when I switched from the 175er Conti EcoContact with a very soft rubber compound to the 195er Marangoni Vanto with a relatively hard compound. The original 175er tires were simply too narrow and too soft for the high car with the heavy front axle load. On my partner's Ignis 1.3 (petrol), the first Eco-Contis are still running after about 90,000 km and 3.5 years, and they have about 30% remaining tread depth. Perhaps 30,000 km of that has been on winter tires. For the upcoming summer, they will then go, and for the autumn, it may be necessary to replace the tires.

"My gasoline engine also didn't feel as heavy as the diesel, which, with its relatively lightweight rear in relation to the front axle, sometimes wobbled on wet roads when driven too fast through corners. Anyone who isn't prepared for this will quickly find themselves losing control of the car. This was also one of the reasons for selling the Suzuki after 3 years. In contrast, the Peugeot feels like it's sitting perfectly on the road!" Even standing water on the highway doesn't bother him.

Anyway, I will continue to switch the tires every season, following the 8-way pattern. I haven't had any bad experiences with this, and it also ensures that I always have a set of tires that have been evenly worn. This means I don't need to take any consideration for the fact that the not-so-great tires on the rear axle might deviate from the direction I've specified, especially when turning.

Hello,

The topic seems to be quite polarizing.

@BM: I wanted to avoid misinterpreting anything or simply repeating what was said, but
share my personal experience. So, nothing to worry about.

@Bertil: 1.) Wenn die Vorderräder so stark untersteuern, wie du beschreibst, sind sie dann noch sicher? Und sind sie dann noch gut für die Hinterachse? I don't quite understand this.
2.) Warum kann ein 4-Kanal ABS oder sogar ESP (ESP gibt es glaube ich nur 4-kanalig) die wenig belastete Hinterachse (die Achslastverteilung bei VW-Konzerntriebwerken mit Frontantrieb ist relativ ausgeglichen, außer bei "B8") genauso gut regeln wie die stärker belastete Vorderachse?

So, if I simply misunderstood or didn't know something, I would like to apologize for that at this point.

Thank you, I'll be waiting for your information.

heizfoss

heizfoss wrote:

1.) Wenn the front wheels steer so much to the left as you describe, are they still safe?

This can also happen with almost new tires.
For example, you might be driving around a long, sweeping curve. There is no snow on the road. However, the wind has blown a snowdrift onto the road along the curve. While you were not exceeding the speed limit for the open road, you were exceeding the speed limit for the snow-covered road. With the "worse" tires on the front, it goes straight immediately, and the ESP cannot build any grip for the front wheel on the inside of the curve. -> Loss of control.
But if you use the VA (Vehicle Dynamics Control) to use tires with more grip, then the ESP has the ability to significantly decelerate the inner wheel of the turn and determine the direction. Even if the rear is "ignored," the ESP can still detect and correct the steering, as the critical speed for understeer has already been significantly reduced by the initial input.

Whoever drives sensibly will never find themselves in the predicament of a light rear-end collision. Even I would have to provoke something like that (which I admittedly sometimes do ), and my "pamper bomber" is extremely rear-heavy.

Quote:

And are they then still suitable for the rear axle?

Okay, no problem.

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

So, if I simply misunderstood or didn't know something, I would like to apologize for that at this point.

No, that's okay.

Even though the case I mentioned is a borderline case, unfortunately, these are my experiences from the last few years with electronic assistance devices. Many similar incidents to which I have been called in recent years have unfolded in a similar way. The ESP completely and unnecessarily tried to force the car back in that direction.

Therefore, my recommendation: Use tires that are as similar as possible.

Here, someone mentioned swapping tires from left to right. I previously thought that this was a no-no (even if there's no defined direction of rotation for the tread), because the tires could wear in one direction due to strong braking and then potentially pull apart differently, causing them to rotate on the rim. I never really understood this, but my father firmly believes it. On the other hand, I also know from particularly high-torque cars with sufficiently wide tires that, with correspondingly reckless driving, the rim can rotate within the tire (e.g., in the 535d) if they are not fixed during installation. We also have a 535d, but we don't accelerate from a standstill quite as aggressively.
Does anyone know anything about this?

Regarding the topic (which is a novel, but I find it particularly relevant because it seems that many drivers of heavier vehicles are prone to a dangerous misconception):

"I used to think the same way, like most of you, and diligently mounted more tires with more tread in the front."
Above all, I wanted even wear. For this, I also accepted increased (boring) understeer in dry conditions, as tires with more tread offer less grip in dry conditions than those with less tread, or even tires that are completely worn out.

Since the slightly nervous rear doesn't really bother me, even in wet conditions, I wasn't particularly concerned about the possibility that the rear might "sink" a bit more.
Unfortunately, this is quite expensive in terms of arrogance, especially with my very head-heavy Lupo TDI (80/20), when I'm driving alone and not carrying anything.

One day, years ago, I drove alone, with my luggage also in the passenger footwell, from north of HH to a friend in Munich.
It was a hot summer day. In the evening, there was an extreme thunderstorm in Nuremberg, which I swam through. After that, I was practically alone on the highway due to the weather warning and various AB closures due to the flooded road.
Due to the extreme heat, the road surface was very slippery. However, due to the water in the depressions, I drove with dampened foam. Furthermore, it was around 7 PM with extremely backlighting.
Had 185/55 R14 Conti Premium Contact tires on, front with 3.5 mm of tread, rear with less than 3 mm.

As mentioned, AB was only damp, but the grass on the center line was barely visible because of the strong evaporation, which made everything hazy.

Before the Feucht cross, there is a crest with a slight, very minor, negative left curve, followed by a downhill slope, with the road slightly and consistently inclined to the right. Just a short distance after the peak, there's a bridge crossing the AB.
Behind the bridge, water flowed from left to right across the AB. It was gushing out of 3 drains. As it turned out later, the incident occurred via the country road, leading to the bridge of a mountain, where it apparently was still raining... he then ran across a drainpipe from the bridge onto the median.
Unfortunately, I must have been the first non-truck to come through there.
I didn't mean anything bad, I braked significantly below 100 km/h and moved into the middle lane because the right lane was partially blocked by a truck. Then I took my foot off the brake and ended up in the water. Unfortunately, due to the oncoming traffic and the fog, I didn't accurately estimate the depth of the water (I thought there would be a lot of water, but only in the dips). Instead of a few millimeters, it was 1-2 cm, because the carpet extended for about 70 meters from the ditch. Apparently, the drainage system on the downhill section was overwhelmed by the water flowing from the bridge.
When I entered, I immediately knew that I was going too fast for the tires. Therefore, it wasn't surprising to me that the rear immediately spun out to the right. I was also able to correct it. Correctly, I should have braked fully at that point in order to, at worst, slowly come to a stop and also, as a "brummkreis" (a type of vehicle), to gently enter the botanical area.
But I was thinking about regaining control at any time and concentrating on not landing on the left side of the guardrail. Instead, there was no grip, and the front axle also started to float, and I drifted sideways down the hill along the inner track until I reached the grass, where my right rear wheel got stuck in the mud (since all the water was collecting there), and I made a few turns before coming to rest on a dirt mound on the roof.
That was my 1st. Lupo.

The rear-mounted ejector system is always a problem when something unexpected happens.
I'm not sure if I would have been able to drive a car with a high profile in the mud, but it wouldn't have overturned/damaged the car.

After the big crash... the next truck called for an ambulance, saying "No one could have survived this unscathed"... and after clearing the debris, I got a Polo 9N with a 1.2 3-cylinder engine as a rental car in Feucht, near VW. That's how I was able to drive the rest of the way to Munich. However, it had 165er tires and more tread. I was already going to drive along Landstr. because the highway was still closed further south.

Since then, I've been putting new tires on the rear and driving the front ones to the end. Once they are finished, they come from the back to the front and then new ones come from the front to the back.
This is an advantage because when dry, the rear end is a bit looser, and you can better maneuver around corners. The difference can be clearly understood.

In wet conditions, it's best to drive straight ahead, and you'll quickly notice when things are getting dangerous. Even during aquaplaning, the rear tires still maintain some grip.

In summary, I'm not wearing out my tires any faster with the Lupo TDI than I would have if I had replaced them all at once! Aging is therefore not an argument.
The fact that there is usually a much softer rubber compound on the rear compared to the front is irrelevant for the Lupo, as the weight distribution is already so uneven.
Completely different, of course, with our 535d. The tires wear out evenly anyway. It doesn't pose any aquaplaning issues either, as the car is heavier and, thanks to its intelligent design (aluminum front, steel + battery rear), already has a full 50% weight at the rear.

Someone who drives such a brainy car and spends a lot of time alone on highways should really consider whether they should use tires with less (although hardly any difference) in the back. At least if you lower the tires more than 4 mm, I think that's a risk. You can always misjudge, and then the "rear-end spin" scenario leaves very little room for maneuverability. Furthermore, frontal collisions almost always result in less severe damage compared to side impacts.

Regarding braking distance, I also found, in practice, that there was no noticeable difference in wet conditions.

However, the Lupo TDI is certainly the most extreme example in terms of weight distribution, apart from the Lupo 3l (99) (lightweight tailgate, no spare wheel, battery at the front).

Greetings

Olaf

In my opinion, the position of the (slightly) better tires will always be a matter of belief.

Anyone who, besides providing a test result similar to "we have the solution," can provide a more differentiated result, cannot specify the distribution of the potential risk for each driver.

Olaf has now once driven off with the rear end flying off... I have never done that, but I have swum with the front end multiple times. With the Golf 2, I already threw away tires with 3mm of wear because I was swimming with them (they were not outdated Conti CT22). Furthermore, the Lupo is certainly a unique case when it comes to the "agility" of the rear: How much car is there behind the rear axle, 10 cm or less?

If I look at the tires of other cars in parking lots, I naturally come to completely different conclusions:
- Direction-specific tires are the worst thing ever invented. About 50% of the "I'll just do it myself" DIY mechanics are too stupid to read the arrows and attach the tires the wrong way around!
- It's more important to completely replace the tires than to think about whether the front ones should be 6.5 mm or 6.2 mm. What's going on out there...
- Age and air pressure are not advertising slogans but (life-)important properties of a tire.


Always maintain a good grip.
martin

Completely clear, tire pressure, overall tire depth, and tire age are the main factors.

In most cars, I would also consider it a matter of faith. It's just a matter of figuring out which disadvantages outweigh the others, or even what disadvantages I might have.

We still have a Honda Jazz (with a fuel tank under the driver's seat). Also, in the end, it doesn't really matter how you put the tires on.
I would even consider a Polo 9N, especially if it has a smaller engine than the 1.9 TDI. However, there are cars with extreme weight distribution, where you practically always lift up on the rear first when aquaplaning. This is practically uncontrollable. I'm not talking about simply oversteering!

Even with the Lupo TDI, you won't have any problems if you usually have the trunk full or have passengers in the back.

Ultimately, I changed my "strategy" because I didn't experience any noticeable disadvantages in snow, such as longer braking distances, when I drove with less tread on the front tires. Winter tires basically fly off when the tread depth gets below 4mm for me.

Furthermore, the car handles much more agilely in dry conditions. The excessive understeer almost disappears. The car is even lifting its legs in the turns, even though it was previously just sliding straight.
A little bit of this is also due to the somewhat worn-out shock absorbers, but only a very small amount, as I have already performed the "counter-test".
Many spend a long time tinkering with their suspension to improve the car's steering. There are much simpler ways. Tires with higher tread blocks give more, until they provide grip, and due to the slightly "twisted" tread blocks under load, they also have less contact area with overall less grip. This makes a noticeable difference on dry roads. In wet conditions, it's practically irrelevant up to the aquaplaning limit, as the overall grip level is lower and the heavily treaded tire deforms less, thus being closer to the performance of the front tire. You can really experience this, even though many other effects are also relevant. Braking distance, etc., are not really noticeable.

Of course, it also happens to me sometimes that the car tends to lift up at the front, because I was sometimes a little too fast, or because the car in front is heavier. However, if I remember that in the past, the rear of the vehicle would always be the first to enter the water, and even a slight slope in the road would put me in a very difficult situation.
No problem at all if it's just a short distance of water. But if, however, one misjudges the situation and ends up on a long downhill section, good night.

See you later

Olaf