From: C. E. White on

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge(a)panix.com> wrote in message
news:h9d8p1$kkn$1(a)panix2.panix.com...
> CWLee <cdubyalee(a)post.harvard.edu> wrote:
>>6 months ago got a set of 4 new tires at Costco. 5000 miles
>>later one tire, right front, failed. Costco replaced it,
>>charging me about $30 for my tread wear. So far so good.
>>
>>Then Costco said it was required (implication was by law) to
>>put the new tire on the rear, and move the slightly used
>>rear one to the forward. I had no problem with that, but I
>>wonder if:
>
> If this is a front-wheel drive car, you want to do this so that the
> two
> driven wheels are the same diameter.
>
> If you had a rear-wheel drive car, you probably want to put the new
> tire
> on the front.

Tread wear has almost no effect on rolling diameter. I know this seems
counter intuitive, but a friend explained this to me years ago. I've
checked and confirmed this over the years.

I'd be more worried about batch to batch variation in rolling diameter
becasue of internal structure changes than in differences in rolling
diameter becasue of tread wear.

Ed


From: CWLee on

"Nate Nagel" <njnagel(a)roosters.net> wrote

> Where was this? That doesn't even make sense.

I'm the OP, and the Costco was located in Torrance,
California, a suburb of Los Angeles.

From: Fatter Than Ever Moe on
CWLee wrote:
>
> 6 months ago got a set of 4 new tires at Costco. 5000 miles later one
> tire, right front, failed. Costco replaced it, charging me about $30
> for my tread wear. So far so good.
>
> Then Costco said it was required (implication was by law) to put the new
> tire on the rear, and move the slightly used rear one to the forward. I
> had no problem with that, but I wonder if:
>
> 1. That is a genuine legal requirement or not? (This is in California,
> so it could be a state law, not a federal law.)
>
> 2. If not required by law, is this an industry standard?
>
> 3. If the answer to either of the above is YES, what is the rationale
> behind it. I always believed it was safer to have the best tires on the
> front, to decrease the danger of loosing steering control during a
> blowout at speed, thinking that one won't be likely to lose steering
> control if a rear tire blows.
>
> Comments?
>

I doubt it's a law. I doubt it's even a regulation. As others have
already mentioned the tire companies recommend new tire go on the rear
of front wheel drive cars. I thought otherwise but here's what the
printed word says, seems to be serious enough to justify putting the new
ones on the rear, I suppose, I don't know how you are ever going to get
the rear ones to wear down enough to rotate them to the front though....
anyway here it is,
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/techpage.jsp?techid=52
From: Paul Hovnanian P.E. on
Ashton Crusher wrote:

> I had the same BS from them except I'm sure they told me they had to
> put the new tires on the front. It's not a law, it's just some policy
> written by their lawyers.

Tires as in plural? This makes sense to me. On the other hand, if its only
one tire, I'd rotate BOTH rear tires to the front and put the new one in
back.

--
Paul Hovnanian paul(a)hovnanian.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have gnu, will travel.
From: Ashton Crusher on
Phoenix. My memory is a little fuzzy but it seems to me that at one
time the big deal was that "new tires need to go on the front so you
can steer". But a few months before that it was "tires need to go on
the rear so you don't spin". It's all driven by lawyers and lawsuits.
Now the chains won't install "old" tires. I had a pair of brand new
(as in unused) Michelins that used to be spare tires and Discount Tire
wouldn't install them. I had to take them to a gas station/auto
repair place to get them mounted.


On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 06:51:12 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel(a)roosters.net>
wrote:

>Where was this? That doesn't even make sense.
>
>nate
>
>Ashton Crusher wrote:
>> I had the same BS from them except I'm sure they told me they had to
>> put the new tires on the front. It's not a law, it's just some policy
>> written by their lawyers.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:35:21 -0700, "CWLee"
>> <cdubyalee(a)post.harvard.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> 6 months ago got a set of 4 new tires at Costco. 5000 miles
>>> later one tire, right front, failed. Costco replaced it,
>>> charging me about $30 for my tread wear. So far so good.
>>>
>>> Then Costco said it was required (implication was by law) to
>>> put the new tire on the rear, and move the slightly used
>>> rear one to the forward. I had no problem with that, but I
>>> wonder if:
>>>
>>> 1. That is a genuine legal requirement or not? (This is in
>>> California, so it could be a state law, not a federal law.)
>>>
>>> 2. If not required by law, is this an industry standard?
>>>
>>> 3. If the answer to either of the above is YES, what is the
>>> rationale behind it. I always believed it was safer to have
>>> the best tires on the front, to decrease the danger of
>>> loosing steering control during a blowout at speed, thinking
>>> that one won't be likely to lose steering control if a rear
>>> tire blows.
>>>
>>> Comments?