New Tire - Must Be On Rear?

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.

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.

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"
> 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?

On Sep 22, 11:35*pm, "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?
>
> --
> ----------
> 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.

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

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"
> > 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?


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

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?
>


The idea is that the average driver can handle an understeering car more
easily than an oversteering one. If you've driven the original VW
Beetle for very long, it would be no problem.

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:

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.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Hachiroku" > wrote in message
news
> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:35:21 -0700, CWLee wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>
> It was put to me you put the best tires on the rear, because you
> can't
> steer the rear wheels.
>
> This question is similar to asking, where should I part my hair?
> You'll get a different answer from everyone.
>
> Never heard of any law as to where to put tires, however.

I don't think there is a "law." I think this is a cover your rear end
practice and is a rule at the big box retailers like Costco. The
theory is simple - if one end of your car is going to loose traction
first, it is better if it is the front end. It the front end breaks
loose first, the the car usually continues in a straight line. This
may end up with you in a ditch, or in the raer of the car in front,
but in many cases that is the lesser of two evils. If the rear end
breaks loose first, the car will spin, and unless the driver is very
competent, it is possibe that the car will end up going sideways and
rolling, or spin into the opposing lane of traffic or something else
nasty. These are worse options - usually. Car manufacturers have been
designing passenger cars so that the front end breaks loose first for
many years (understeer). Putting the better tires on the front can
counteract this design "feature" by improving the front end traction
relative to the rear end traction.

In the case quoted, this seems to be a trivial worry. The guy was
getting exactly the same tire, with just a little less tread than the
tires already on the car. I assume he is roatating them. I would just
switch the rear tires to the front in a normal rotation pattern. The
front and rear tires wear differentially (as do the side to side
tires).

Ed

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> 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:
>
> 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