what causes shaking?
 

I think I'll keep my best tires on the front, thanks. Drivers who don't
know how to handle a skid should probably keep good tires in the rear,
but if you have the right reflexes and know what to do in a skid
situation I think the traction is put to better use up front.

Just IMHO.

The front tires should match in wear and tread pattern, too, BTW.
However with FWD, the rear tires can be mismatched with little effect.

what causes shaking?
 

Brian Running > wrote:
> >> Sorry to pounce on this, but the accepted wisdon is to have the good
> >> rubber on the front as it carries 70-90% of the breaking and does all
> >> of the steering. (and on a FWD, provides drive; the rears are there
> >> to stop the arse dragging)
> >
> > Which is wrong. The safety experts agree that the best tyres need to be
> > on the back. (BTW that 70-90% figure for brakes is generally not correct as
> > well.). The problem is when a car goes into a skid, the most dangerous
> > thing is to have the back tyres loose grip as that will result in you
> > looking where you have been and not where you are going.

> You are wrong, and dangerously wrong.

I have to agree with the lawyer here... You are dangerously wrong. First, I think
the statement that the front tires do 70-90% of the work is probably correct.
heck, the fronts probably have at least 60% of the weight on them statically.
Last time I measured it, my 90 Jetta GLI could pull 1G while braking. So I think
that puts the numbers somewhere in the 75-82% just based on my crude back of
the envelope guessing.

The fact is, on hard braking the rear of your average VW is just along for the
ride. There's a reason why the front are 10.1" vented and the rears are 8.9"
solid. Is it dangerous if your rear brakes lock before your front brakes?
Sure... But so what? There is a rear pressure regulator on the axle to adjust
the rear braking strength. You put the good tires up front and then adjust
the rear brake power relative to the front to ensure your front brakes lock up
first.

I can tell you that if I'm hard on the brakes and I try some radical steering
its gonna break loose. Thats pretty obvious. Wouldn't matter if there were
good tires on the back or not. You brake, or you steer, you don't do both
unless you know exactly what you are doing (or have ABS).

what causes shaking?
 

Here's what progressive insurance unofficially had to say... The problem is
a tire store sold two brand new snow tires to an old man driver. He had well
worn tires on the back, and spun out , slammed on the brakes and crashed. He
sued the store and won a couple of million or so. His argument was the store
should of known not to put such good tires on the front without having at
least as good tires on the rear. He won and the logical approach of putting
the best tires on the front of a front wheel drive car for traction and
braking, was thrown out to prevent lawsuits. And the new rule became at
least as good tires on the back. It has nothing to do with brakes or load on
the front or back. It is safer for people with basic driving skills.. It is
not safer for people who do how to drive. It has to do with idiots who don't
know or understand understeer or oversteer and how you must step on the gas,
not brakes to reverse a rear wheel slide , on a front wheel drive car, when
you have crappy tires on the back, or brand new ones in the front. Besides
that reason , the lawsuit, there is no reason. It is most economical and
safer for advanced drivers, to put the best on the front. Here's my policy
for maximum tire wear. You start out with four new tires. You drive them
until the fronts are at least half worn, or the outer edges are almost worn
to the wear markers in the tread on the fronts due to tire scuffing from
turning. Switch them front to back. You drive until the fronts are half
worn again or the backs are shot. Buy two new tires , replace the shot
rears, then rotate back to front again. Start over. You always got the best
on the front , for the tire scuffing, braking and traction. and the oldest
tires get replaced first , because they are wore out, or dryroted if you
don't drive much. but last longer because they are on the rear. This is
for maximum economical life only, not even wear or rotations every 5000
miles like the manufacturer says. Why? because at the end of the tire life,
you have four evenly worn, almost shot tires driving around all at once.
This isn't safer for anybody, but is recommended, for who? Basic drivers.
My view is I want the backs to lock up first so I can steer. And I want the
best tires on the front drive wheels for traction. And less hydroplaning in
the rain on my steering tires. But I know what to do if the rear lets go
first. Basic drivers can't decide brakes or gas, in a split second. The
Industry solution is to push best on rears. They get to sell more tires too.
The rear brakes are not along for the ride. They take as much as possible
without locking up without a load in the car. That's what the proportioning
valve is for. And this is why fully loaded cars and trucks stop faster with
loads then empty. There's more weight on the rear tires. The manufactures
make the rears work better with loads , then without. Via the proportioning
valve. Nothing I say applies to ABS. For the record. Rear drum brakes are
better in the rain then rear discs, because they don't lock up as easy.
Rear discs are better in the rain if you have ABS. because they wont lock
up at all.
"blah" > wrote in message
...
> Brian Running > wrote:
>> >> Sorry to pounce on this, but the accepted wisdon is to have the good
>> >> rubber on the front as it carries 70-90% of the breaking and does all
>> >> of the steering. (and on a FWD, provides drive; the rears are there
>> >> to stop the arse dragging)
>> >
>> > Which is wrong. The safety experts agree that the best tyres need
>> > to be
>> > on the back. (BTW that 70-90% figure for brakes is generally not
>> > correct as
>> > well.). The problem is when a car goes into a skid, the most dangerous
>> > thing is to have the back tyres loose grip as that will result in you
>> > looking where you have been and not where you are going.
>
>> This is completely wrong and only applies to basic drivers. Advanced
>> drivers know to look in the direction the car is going , not the
>> direction it is facing. The Safety experts are concerned with the
>> majority of people drivers , not the best drivers , which know more then
>> the safety experts.
>
> I have to agree with the lawyer here... You are dangerously wrong. First,
> I think
> the statement that the front tires do 70-90% of the work is probably
> correct.
> heck, the fronts probably have at least 60% of the weight on them
> statically.
> Last time I measured it, my 90 Jetta GLI could pull 1G while braking. So
> I think
> that puts the numbers somewhere in the 75-82% just based on my crude back
> of
> the envelope guessing.
>
> The fact is, on hard braking the rear of your average VW is just along for
> the
> ride. There's a reason why the front are 10.1" vented and the rears are
> 8.9"
> solid. Is it dangerous if your rear brakes lock before your front brakes?
> Sure... But so what? There is a rear pressure regulator on the axle to
> adjust
> the rear braking strength. You put the good tires up front and then
> adjust
> the rear brake power relative to the front to ensure your front brakes
> lock up
> first.
>
> I can tell you that if I'm hard on the brakes and I try some radical
> steering
> its gonna break loose. Thats pretty obvious. Wouldn't matter if there
> were
> good tires on the back or not. You brake, or you steer, you don't do both
> unless you know exactly what you are doing (or have ABS).

what causes shaking?
 

Joseph Meehan wrote:
> I suspect the problem is a tyre. Sometimes belts shift so if you look
> at the tread as the wheel turns you will see it move left and right at one
> spot on the wheel as it spins. The only fix is replacement. It is also
> possible that there is a dynamic balance problem. Dynamic balancing cost
> more (sometimes called computer balancing) they spin the wheel at high speed
> on the machine.

Balancing would be my first option. It takes only a few minutes to do.
I get the wheels on my car re-balanced every service additionally to
switching the tyres front to back. This gives a nice and even wear with
minimal noise increase.

Remco

what causes shaking?
 

none2u wrote:
> Here's what progressive insurance unofficially had to say... The
> problem is a tire store sold two brand new snow tires to an old man
> driver. He had well worn tires on the back, and spun out , slammed on
> the brakes and crashed. He sued the store and won a couple of million
> or so. His argument was the store should of known not to put such
> good tires on the front without having at least as good tires on the
> rear. He won and the logical approach of putting the best tires on
> the front of a front wheel drive car for traction and braking, was
> thrown out to prevent lawsuits. And the new rule became at least as
> good tires on the back. It has nothing to do with brakes or load on
> the front or back. It is safer for people with basic driving skills..
> It is not safer for people who do how to drive. It has to do with
> idiots who don't know or understand understeer or oversteer and how
> you must step on the gas, not brakes to reverse a rear wheel slide ,
> on a front wheel drive car, when you have crappy tires on the back,
> or brand new ones in the front. Besides that reason , the lawsuit,
> there is no reason. It is most economical and safer for advanced
> drivers, to put the best on the front. Here's my policy for maximum
> tire wear. You start out with four new tires. You drive them until
> the fronts are at least half worn, or the outer edges are almost worn
> to the wear markers in the tread on the fronts due to tire scuffing
> from turning. Switch them front to back. You drive until the fronts
> are half worn again or the backs are shot. Buy two new tires ,
> replace the shot rears, then rotate back to front again. Start over. You
> always got the best on the front , for the tire scuffing, braking
> and traction. and the oldest tires get replaced first , because they
> are wore out, or dryroted if you don't drive much. but last longer
> because they are on the rear. This is for maximum economical life
> only, not even wear or rotations every 5000 miles like the
> manufacturer says. Why? because at the end of the tire life, you have
> four evenly worn, almost shot tires driving around all at once. This
> isn't safer for anybody, but is recommended, for who? Basic drivers.
> My view is I want the backs to lock up first so I can steer. And I
> want the best tires on the front drive wheels for traction. And less
> hydroplaning in the rain on my steering tires. But I know what to do
> if the rear lets go first. Basic drivers can't decide brakes or gas,
> in a split second. The Industry solution is to push best on rears.
> They get to sell more tires too. The rear brakes are not along for
> the ride. They take as much as possible without locking up without a
> load in the car. That's what the proportioning valve is for. And
> this is why fully loaded cars and trucks stop faster with loads then
> empty. There's more weight on the rear tires. The manufactures make
> the rears work better with loads , then without. Via the
> proportioning valve. Nothing I say applies to ABS. For the record.
> Rear drum brakes are better in the rain then rear discs, because they
> don't lock up as easy. Rear discs are better in the rain if you have ABS.
> because they wont lock up at all.

I would like to point out that most drivers believe they are above
average and it would appear that many many drivers who become involved in
serious accidents have greatly over estimated they personal ability to drive
and control their car. I also tend to find that people who have great faith
in themselves tend to find excuses to ignore the advice of legitimate
experts because they think they know better.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

what causes shaking?
 

blah wrote:
> Brian Running > wrote:
>> >> Sorry to pounce on this, but the accepted wisdon is to have the
>> >> good rubber on the front as it carries 70-90% of the breaking and
>> >> does all of the steering. (and on a FWD, provides drive; the
>> >> rears are there to stop the arse dragging)
>> >
>> > Which is wrong. The safety experts agree that the best tyres
>> > need to be on the back. (BTW that 70-90% figure for brakes is
>> > generally not correct as well.). The problem is when a car goes
>> > into a skid, the most dangerous thing is to have the back tyres
>> > loose grip as that will result in you looking where you have been
>> > and not where you are going.
>
>> You are wrong, and dangerously wrong.
>
> I have to agree with the lawyer here... You are dangerously wrong.
> First, I think the statement that the front tires do 70-90% of the
> work is probably correct. heck, the fronts probably have at least 60%
> of the weight on them statically. Last time I measured it, my 90
> Jetta GLI could pull 1G while braking. So I think that puts the
> numbers somewhere in the 75-82% just based on my crude back of
> the envelope guessing.
>
> The fact is, on hard braking the rear of your average VW is just
> along for the ride. There's a reason why the front are 10.1" vented
> and the rears are 8.9" solid. Is it dangerous if your rear brakes
> lock before your front brakes? Sure... But so what? There is a rear
> pressure regulator on the axle to adjust the rear braking strength.
> You put the good tires up front and then adjust
> the rear brake power relative to the front to ensure your front
> brakes lock up first.
>
> I can tell you that if I'm hard on the brakes and I try some radical
> steering
> its gonna break loose. Thats pretty obvious. Wouldn't matter if
> there were
> good tires on the back or not. You brake, or you steer, you don't do
> both
> unless you know exactly what you are doing (or have ABS).

I am glad you have more faith in yourself than in the experts. I hope I
am not involved with you while you are trying out your theory.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

what causes shaking?
 

Pep boys said absolutely nothing. The other two articles said a car will
spin, easier with better tires on the front when most drivers take their
foot off the gas, and cause their rear to spin out harder when they are
starting a spin already. I agree if you have only basic driving skills ,
and you cause your own spinouts, by letting off the gas, or hitting the
brakes. Put your good ones on the back and buy more tires. If you have more
advances driving skills , every other reason is to put good tires on the
front of front wheel drive cars, bar none. Its safer, more economical, and
cost less on rotations.
"Joseph Meehan" > wrote in message
...
> Brian Running wrote:
>>>> Sorry to pounce on this, but the accepted wisdon is to have the good
>>>> rubber on the front as it carries 70-90% of the breaking and does
>>>> all of the steering. (and on a FWD, provides drive; the rears are
>>>> there to stop the arse dragging)
>>>
>>> Which is wrong. The safety experts agree that the best tyres
>>> need to be on the back. (BTW that 70-90% figure for brakes is
>>> generally not correct as well.). The problem is when a car goes
>>> into a skid, the most dangerous thing is to have the back tyres
>>> loose grip as that will result in you looking where you have been
>>> and not where you are going.
>>
>> You are wrong, and dangerously wrong.
>
>
> http://www.pepboys.com/learning_cent..._buy_four.html
>
>
> http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...=1026296450133
>
>
>
> --
> Joseph Meehan
>
> Dia duit
>

what causes shaking?
 

It isn't theory . understeer and oversteer and using the gas to stop a rear
slide on a frontwheel drive car is fact. The majority of people let off, or
brake and cause their skid to increase when they start to slide. The
experts take the easy way out and say put good tires on the back. Because
people who don't know how to do anything, teach. So when you screw up , you
may stop faster, before you hit something. It cost a little more, and you
can still be a dumb driver. The problem is when a car goes into a skid, the
most dangerous thing is to have the driver use the brakes and increase the
skid. Instead of using the gas and pull the car through it with the front
traction tires. while steering and looking in the desired direction. Its
basic driving skills 101 and is on the drivers license exams.
"Joseph Meehan" > wrote in message
...
> blah wrote:
>> Brian Running > wrote:
>>> >> Sorry to pounce on this, but the accepted wisdon is to have the
>>> >> good rubber on the front as it carries 70-90% of the breaking and
>>> >> does all of the steering. (and on a FWD, provides drive; the
>>> >> rears are there to stop the arse dragging)
>>> >
>>> > Which is wrong. The safety experts agree that the best tyres
>>> > need to be on the back. (BTW that 70-90% figure for brakes is
>>> > generally not correct as well.). The problem is when a car goes
>>> > into a skid, the most dangerous thing is to have the back tyres
>>> > loose grip as that will result in you looking where you have been
>>> > and not where you are going.
>>
>>> You are wrong, and dangerously wrong.
>>
>> I have to agree with the lawyer here... You are dangerously wrong.
>> First, I think the statement that the front tires do 70-90% of the
>> work is probably correct. heck, the fronts probably have at least 60%
>> of the weight on them statically. Last time I measured it, my 90
>> Jetta GLI could pull 1G while braking. So I think that puts the
>> numbers somewhere in the 75-82% just based on my crude back of
>> the envelope guessing.
>>
>> The fact is, on hard braking the rear of your average VW is just
>> along for the ride. There's a reason why the front are 10.1" vented
>> and the rears are 8.9" solid. Is it dangerous if your rear brakes
>> lock before your front brakes? Sure... But so what? There is a rear
>> pressure regulator on the axle to adjust the rear braking strength.
>> You put the good tires up front and then adjust
>> the rear brake power relative to the front to ensure your front
>> brakes lock up first.
>>
>> I can tell you that if I'm hard on the brakes and I try some radical
>> steering
>> its gonna break loose. Thats pretty obvious. Wouldn't matter if
>> there were
>> good tires on the back or not. You brake, or you steer, you don't do
>> both
>> unless you know exactly what you are doing (or have ABS).
>
> I am glad you have more faith in yourself than in the experts. I hope
> I am not involved with you while you are trying out your theory.
>
> --
> Joseph Meehan
>
> Dia duit
>

what causes shaking?
 

Avanced driving Skills 101.
http://www.cyberpoet.net/writes/web/snowdriving.html
"none2u" > wrote in message
...
> It isn't theory . understeer and oversteer and using the gas to stop a
> rear slide on a frontwheel drive car is fact. The majority of people let
> off, or brake and cause their skid to increase when they start to slide.
> The experts take the easy way out and say put good tires on the back.
> Because people who don't know how to do anything, teach. So when you screw
> up , you may stop faster, before you hit something. It cost a little more,
> and you can still be a dumb driver. The problem is when a car goes into a
> skid, the most dangerous thing is to have the driver use the brakes and
> increase the skid. Instead of using the gas and pull the car through it
> with the front traction tires. while steering and looking in the desired
> direction. Its basic driving skills 101 and is on the drivers license
> exams.
> "Joseph Meehan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> blah wrote:
>>> Brian Running > wrote:
>>>> >> Sorry to pounce on this, but the accepted wisdon is to have the
>>>> >> good rubber on the front as it carries 70-90% of the breaking and
>>>> >> does all of the steering. (and on a FWD, provides drive; the
>>>> >> rears are there to stop the arse dragging)
>>>> >
>>>> > Which is wrong. The safety experts agree that the best tyres
>>>> > need to be on the back. (BTW that 70-90% figure for brakes is
>>>> > generally not correct as well.). The problem is when a car goes
>>>> > into a skid, the most dangerous thing is to have the back tyres
>>>> > loose grip as that will result in you looking where you have been
>>>> > and not where you are going.
>>>
>>>> You are wrong, and dangerously wrong.
>>>
>>> I have to agree with the lawyer here... You are dangerously wrong.
>>> First, I think the statement that the front tires do 70-90% of the
>>> work is probably correct. heck, the fronts probably have at least 60%
>>> of the weight on them statically. Last time I measured it, my 90
>>> Jetta GLI could pull 1G while braking. So I think that puts the
>>> numbers somewhere in the 75-82% just based on my crude back of
>>> the envelope guessing.
>>>
>>> The fact is, on hard braking the rear of your average VW is just
>>> along for the ride. There's a reason why the front are 10.1" vented
>>> and the rears are 8.9" solid. Is it dangerous if your rear brakes
>>> lock before your front brakes? Sure... But so what? There is a rear
>>> pressure regulator on the axle to adjust the rear braking strength.
>>> You put the good tires up front and then adjust
>>> the rear brake power relative to the front to ensure your front
>>> brakes lock up first.
>>>
>>> I can tell you that if I'm hard on the brakes and I try some radical
>>> steering
>>> its gonna break loose. Thats pretty obvious. Wouldn't matter if
>>> there were
>>> good tires on the back or not. You brake, or you steer, you don't do
>>> both
>>> unless you know exactly what you are doing (or have ABS).
>>
>> I am glad you have more faith in yourself than in the experts. I hope
>> I am not involved with you while you are trying out your theory.
>>
>> --
>> Joseph Meehan
>>
>> Dia duit
>>
>
>

what causes shaking?
 

none2u wrote:
> It isn't theory .

The only theory I was referring to was your theory that you and most
other drivers have the ability and experience to handle the situation in an
emergency situation. I would say I don't, even though I do understand the
physics involved. Somehow I doubt that the average driver has that ability
and to suggest that they should do otherwise than to follow the advice to
keep the best tyres on the back is irresponsible.

Note: I would suggest that it is likely a good idea to put the better
tyres on the front in the situation where hydroplaning is a more serious and
common problem. The better tread on the front IS more important under those
conditions.

> understeer and oversteer and using the gas to stop
> a rear slide on a frontwheel drive car is fact. The majority of
> people let off, or brake and cause their skid to increase when they
> start to slide. The experts take the easy way out and say put good
> tires on the back. Because people who don't know how to do anything,
> teach. So when you screw up , you may stop faster, before you hit
> something. It cost a little more, and you can still be a dumb driver.
> The problem is when a car goes into a skid, the most dangerous thing
> is to have the driver use the brakes and increase the skid. Instead of
> using the gas and pull the car through it with the front traction
> tires. while steering and looking in the desired direction. Its basic
> driving skills 101 and is on the drivers license exams. "Joseph
> Meehan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> blah wrote:
>>> Brian Running > wrote:
>>>> >> Sorry to pounce on this, but the accepted wisdon is to have the
>>>> >> good rubber on the front as it carries 70-90% of the breaking
>>>> >> and does all of the steering. (and on a FWD, provides drive; the
>>>> >> rears are there to stop the arse dragging)
>>>> >
>>>> > Which is wrong. The safety experts agree that the best tyres
>>>> > need to be on the back. (BTW that 70-90% figure for brakes is
>>>> > generally not correct as well.). The problem is when a car goes
>>>> > into a skid, the most dangerous thing is to have the back tyres
>>>> > loose grip as that will result in you looking where you have been
>>>> > and not where you are going.
>>>
>>>> You are wrong, and dangerously wrong.
>>>
>>> I have to agree with the lawyer here... You are dangerously wrong.
>>> First, I think the statement that the front tires do 70-90% of the
>>> work is probably correct. heck, the fronts probably have at least
>>> 60% of the weight on them statically. Last time I measured it, my 90
>>> Jetta GLI could pull 1G while braking. So I think that puts the
>>> numbers somewhere in the 75-82% just based on my crude back of
>>> the envelope guessing.
>>>
>>> The fact is, on hard braking the rear of your average VW is just
>>> along for the ride. There's a reason why the front are 10.1" vented
>>> and the rears are 8.9" solid. Is it dangerous if your rear brakes
>>> lock before your front brakes? Sure... But so what? There is a
>>> rear pressure regulator on the axle to adjust the rear braking
>>> strength. You put the good tires up front and then adjust
>>> the rear brake power relative to the front to ensure your front
>>> brakes lock up first.
>>>
>>> I can tell you that if I'm hard on the brakes and I try some radical
>>> steering
>>> its gonna break loose. Thats pretty obvious. Wouldn't matter if
>>> there were
>>> good tires on the back or not. You brake, or you steer, you don't
>>> do both
>>> unless you know exactly what you are doing (or have ABS).
>>
>> I am glad you have more faith in yourself than in the experts. I
>> hope I am not involved with you while you are trying out your theory.
>>
>> --
>> Joseph Meehan
>>
>> Dia duit

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit