New Tire - Must Be On Rear?
in [Technical]
|
From: CWLee on 22 Sep 2009 23:35 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? -- ---------- CWLee Former slayer of dragons; practice now limited to sacred cows. Believing we should hire for quality, not quotas, and promote for performance, not preferences.
From: Steve W. on 22 Sep 2009 23:53 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? > Well if it's a front drive car it is best to have the tires matched in size and wear. Keeps you from having problems with uneven wear due to the different tire sizes. Many companies have CYA rules in place to prevent lawsuits for some strange stuff! Wal~Mart for instance has a store policy that they will not install a tire on your vehicle that does not match the door sticker. Why? Because they were sued by a person with a lifted P/U who had them put on bigger rubber. The ABS failed to operate properly and it was determined that this was due to the over-sized tires and vehicle speed. Lawsuit was settled out of court and company policy was changed. (some of the T&Ls no longer even carry tire sizes that are not factory sizes) -- Steve W.
From: Ashton Crusher on 23 Sep 2009 01:21 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?
From: CEG on 23 Sep 2009 05:04 On Sep 22, 11:35 pm, "CWLee" <cdubya...(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? > > -- > ---------- > CWLee > Former slayer of dragons; practice now limited to sacred > cows. Believing we should hire for quality, not quotas, and > promote for performance, not preferences. IMO that is BS. I bought 2 tires at Goodyear a few months ago and they also wanted to put them on the rear. I told them I wanted them on the front to which they had no problem doing. They made no mention of "having" to put them on the rear. Now that I re read your message they probably wanted to match a used tire with your other one (assuming it's the same brand) but it's probably no requirement. What if you get a flat down the road? Assuming your spare is a full size tire are you going to be required to change two tires putting that new spare on the rear, and moving the rear tire up to the front?? I don't think so. :)
From: Nate Nagel on 23 Sep 2009 06:49
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? > It's not a legal requirement (that I'm aware of) but it is good practice. Probably a company best practice. The reason is that if a tire loses traction you want it to be the front, because the coefficient of sliding friction is less than that of rolling friction, so the vehicle will tend to keep pointed in whatever direction it was traveling before the front washed out. If a rear tire loses traction esp. while braking you're essentially trying to balance a pencil on your palm - not impossible but not easy, either, as the fronts are trying to stop but the rears aren't, at least not as hard, so the rear end of the car will try to come around on you. nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel |