New tires caused me to hydroplane? 4runner totalled and going to court. Need advice

[sharp4runr]

Didn't see that one... Got a link?

Yup, it was posted on the second page: http://www.michelinman.com/care/buy_how.html

Go to the very bottom and click the link that says "Watch a short video to learn more"

It really dramatizes how the car reacts with the wrong placement of tires. It was an eye opener for me anyways.

 

[RickyCRX]

Nevermind.... I just watched it...

All I have to say is, those were professional idiots.

They INTENTIONALLY did that in those cars. In a front wheel drive car, it is easy to induce oversteer by simply lifting off of the throttle when close to the limits of cornering. If you'll watch, the guy in the blue car NEVER once attempted to countersteer. You can see the car turned MORE than his intended path of travel (he spun to the inside of the turn).... Had he countersteered and gently applied a small amount of throttle, he could have easily kept going around that turn without spinning.

If you will also notice, when they show the two cars side-by-side, you will notice the blue car (the one 'fishtailing') that the blue car starts falling back behind the white car. He is LIFTING OFF THE THROTTLE to induce oversteer, transferring weight off of the rear tires and onto the front tires to give it a dramatic effect.

Whether they said "professionals" or not in the video, those guys knew enough about what they were doing to induce or not induce oversteer, they could have easily controlled those two cars. The guy in the white car was CLEARLY intentionally driving very smoothly to not upset the suspension of the vehicle, whereas the guy in the blue car was see-sawing the wheel back and forth and playing with the throttle to induce oversteer.

The whole video was BS.

Ricky

Yup, it was posted on the second page: http://www.michelinman.com/care/buy_how.html

Go to the very bottom and click the link that says "Watch a short video to learn more"

It really dramatizes how the car reacts with the wrong placement of tires. It was an eye opener for me anyways.

 

[rensho]

I feel for you that you crashed. I also feel for you that you either were not asked about rotating tires when they were changed(maybe you were, but didn't want to incur any rotation costs since there was so much tread left in the back), and especially since the law got involved and gave you a citation to cap off your wonderful day. Hopefully they will drop the ticket.

If i take my 2wd 4R on to the snow and crash it, is somehow Toyota liable for selling me a car that is possibly going to crash while driving on a slick surface?
What's at hand here is even at "70%" tread depth, you still hydroplaned. It goes to reason that the conditions warranted slower driving than "40mph". Would you not agree?

There should be a sense of ownership for one's actions and decisions. In my above, snow comment, it is my problem if i assess the situation incorrectly, or take risk with my equipment. I drive like a weenie on snow, ice, water these days for a reason. Perhaps it is because i'm a physics major... It is always a loss to argue Netwon's laws. Like someone mentioned above, if you are driving a straight line at a constant speed, it would be impossible to lose control of the vehicle without external factors; wind, curves, rocks. Since none of us were there, we won't get into this. I bring this up because these are the things we all should take into acct when we assess our own safe speed(plus safety margin). Say if the rear tires were 2% thread depth and front tires new, and you knew it. You still can drive the section of road right? Just not at 40.

And no, even if i spilled hot coffee on my own family and burned them in the process, McDs is safe. They will not be hearing from my lawyer. Even if i drive my 4R in the snow and total it, and kill/mame a loved one because i only wanted to replace 2 of the 4 tires, Michelin, Toyota, CA, Caltrans will not hear from my lawyer.

I'm not from this country. When i came here at the age of 5, without even speaking English yet, the one thing i knew about the US, as told to me by my family, the country is sue happy. 32 years later, i'm still sickened by it.

I wish you the best with getting the ticket off your record.

 

[sharp4runr]

The whole video was BS.

I think I'll heed the warning from a number of Multi-million dollar companies over your post.... I've checked multiple tire companies websites, and they all say to put the replacement tires in the rear. Hmm, they all can't be wrong?

They do tests to back this up and its thier business to know. Feel free to think however you like, and I'll continue to do the same.

 

[dcampen]

I think I'll heed the warning from a number of Multi-million dollar companies over your post.... I've checked multiple tire companies websites, and they all say to put the replacement tires in the rear. Hmm, they all can't be wrong?

LOL! - Yes, I always believe everything a multi-million dollar corporation tells me.

Not wrong, they realize that it is better to have the better tread in the rear and they realize that this then gives anyone who spins out grounds to sue if they were not prevented from doing the opposite. This does not mean that you are going to spin out just because you have new tires in the front and 70% tread in the rear - you would have to try to do that just as those test drivers did.

They do tests to back this up and its thier business to know. Feel free to think however you like, and I'll continue to do the same.

Yes, I am sure you will, and I will agree with RickyCRX

 

[rensho]

i think you're both right. the video was a little BS in nature. Those drivers could have done what they wished with the car depending on the intended outcome.

The new tires are better off on the back though. For a car going forward in motion, you want the most drag/friction in the back to keep it pointed in the 'right' direction. Similar to how a rudder on a boat, parachute on a cargo, tail on a dart works. Once the car starts sliding, and the rear starts to come around, assuming all four tires are sliding, if the fronts have more drag/grip, the rears will then come past the fronts in the direction of momentum.

His point was that the professional drivers could have countersteered, which would have helped the rear tires come back inline(not always), but they didn't.
Michelin is obviously making a biased video to prove their valid point.

 

[TRUST8383]

Well, i don't know what else to say about this topic other than what happened to me. People can speculate about physics, etc... this and that. But I went through it first hand. Also, there is no info that i am holding back. I have nothing to gain on a web forum by lying?

Take it for what it's worth i guess... I swear on the life of my first born child. 40mph, no wind, no rocks, light rain... driving straight and the truck kicked out just like when you see them do the pit maneuver on "cops". It was too easy, and i don't have any other explanation for it?

Oh well, no i'm not suing anyone. I'm just trying to contest a careless driving ticket.

be safe everyone. thanks, Jon.

 

[Bill42]

I am glad that you started this thread. If for no other reason then to learn where the new tires go, how to get out of ticket and a little bit about physics.

The above notwithstanding, I believe you. Good luck with your case.

 

[RickyCRX]

The new tires are better off on the back though. For a car going forward in motion, you want the most drag/friction in the back to keep it pointed in the 'right' direction. Similar to how a rudder on a boat, parachute on a cargo, tail on a dart works. Once the car starts sliding, and the rear starts to come around, assuming all four tires are sliding, if the fronts have more drag/grip, the rears will then come past the fronts in the direction of momentum.

Actually, if I were to put two new tires on a car, they would go on the drive axle. On a front wheel drive car, I'd put the tires on the front. If it was a rear wheel drive car, I'd put them on the back. The reason being, and this is VERY obvious on our Integra GS-R with the Falken Azenis Sports on it (these tires only last about 20-25k miles at MOST), after 12k miles I had neglected to rotate the tires, as it's the wife's daily driver and I didn't really think about it during the one or two oil changes a year I do on that car... After 12k or so, the fronts were SIGNIFICANTLY more worn than the rears due to the fact that they are constantly having to put down power to the ground, turn, AND brake all the time. After rotating them, the 'good' tires were now on the front and it had no negative effect on the handling of the car having better tires on the back.

In this situation, if I had not rotated them and my fronts were to have worn out significantly before the rears, I would have needed a new pair of tires. To achieve equal wear, assuming I was still lazy and would never rotate them again, I would put the new tires on the front, at which point the rears would probably wear out around the same timeframe as the brand new tires added to the front of the car.

If I did it the other way around and put new tires on the rear, and put the older tires on the front, I'd need two more tires again much sooner, instead of hopefully them all wearing out around the same time the next time around.

Also, to those that say new tires have to go on the rear, what happens when you have a vehicle with a staggered tire setup? My Honda S2000 has wider tires in the back. The rear tires last 8-10k miles. The front last 12-15k miles. When I put a new set of tires on at 10k miles, okay... That follows your theory... Then 5k miles later, when my rears are half worn already, I have to put a new set of front tires on the car. Are you going to say that this is unsafe? Think about it... Not every car on the road has the same size tires front to back. Some Porsches, some BMW's, 350Z's (I think), etc... Lots of cars have staggered setups that would not allow you to put new tires on the rear if the fronts needed replacing at a different time than the rears.

Just something to think about. It's not a cut-and-dried answer as to where to put the tires. It has a lot to do with the car and other factors.

 

[rensho]

I'll mention one last thing and then get off this guy's thread.

You are thinking of good tires going on drive wheels, which is correct, but that is for best driving traction, meaning under power. If the conditions were dry, and we were trying to get good lap times, then yes, best tires go on the front for a fwd. If you were trying to keep the rear from swapping ends, the best tires would need to go on the back. This is assuming the driver was not actively trying to 'pull' their way out of a rear end slide, which then good front tires may help more(this scenario has so many variables, i can't assess it off the cuff).

Your comment about offset tires are dead on, those cannot be rotated as you well stated.
As well, yes the drive tires typically wear faster, especially on a fwd car, as typically 62% of the weight is over those wheels as well.

 

[Hank]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that most people have a misconception on which axle the new tires should be mounted on. Some might think that there's only one answer, either front or rear axle. My point is that it depends on the climate and road conditions. Here's my thought on how it probably should be:
Dry pavement: new tires go on the drive axle (fwd or rwd)
Snow: same setup as dry pavement
Wet: new tires go on the rear axle, regardless of fwd/rwd/awd (for the same reasons mentioned in previous posts).

 

[DaveS]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that most people have a misconception on which axle the new tires should be mounted on. Some might think that there's only one answer, either front or rear axle. My point is that it depends on the climate and road conditions. Here's my thought on how it probably should be:
Dry pavement: new tires go on the drive axle (fwd or rwd)
Snow: same setup as dry pavement
Wet: new tires go on the rear axle, regardless of fwd/rwd/awd (for the same reasons mentioned in previous posts).

So I have to move my tires round if it rains? Honestly, with the Dunflops I think we all face the risk of hydroplaning.

I have been on the highway when it rained so hard that people actually pulled over or slowed right down to less than 30mph - if its raining that hard your visibility is as big an issue as traction. 40mph might sound real slow but if the weather is bad enough its still a fair speed - but bottom line - I was not there, did not see how bad the weather was so I think its unfair to pass judgement on who was right or wrong.

Best of luck with the court case!

 

[TRUST8383]

quote from Discount tire co.'s actual website....

" Buying just two tires? Discount Tire Co./America

 

[dancojgl]

As an aside, in snow country, most tire shops will not mount only front snow tires (on front-wheel drive cars), for precisely the same oversteer reason...

 

[greasefingers]

It makes no difference what axles 2 new tires should go on, with an AWD vehicle. I never buy just two tires because I rotate mine and get an alignment with each new set of four tires. Once hydro-planed one is in the same situation as ice. The point-of-no-return until the road condition changes again. This is assuming that the other two tires are not bald.

 

[greasefingers]

Slightly off-topic, but an interesting dilemma is when one has between 50 to 30 % tire thread left and then experiences a sidewall puncture. This would require a new tire. However, now one is jeopardizing the drivetrain due to different tire diameters. It sucks to put four new tires on you only need one. Something 2WD vehicles do not have to worry about.

 

[Revo12]

I know that this thread has gone on for what seems like forever
but I thought I would put my 2 cents worth in, I have been a long time subscriber to Consumer Reports and the highly recommend never replace just 2 tires on a SUV always replace all 4 tires for better traction and safety reasons. Maybe they have a good reason for there recommendation.

 

[joyride]

Re: New tires caused me to hydroplane? 4runner totalled and going to court. Need advice

Hey guys... well a crazy thing happened to me about a week ago. Hopefully, others will learn from my dilemma as well....

I "had" a 1999 limited edition 4wd 4runner. Excellent condition, it was my daily driver and well taken care of. I noticed that the front tires were showing a little bit of wear, but the rear tires were still good (about 70% treadlife left) . So I went to discount tire, and had the front two tires replaced.

Anyways. Driving in very light rain, 95 south going about 60 mph, i felt the truck hydroplane ever so slightly, enough to scare me, so I move into the right lane and slow down to 40 mph. About 5 min. later, still at this slow speed and driving straight, the back end kicks out effortlessly, and the truck goes into a 180 spin across 3 lanes and hits a guard rail. Granted, at this slow speed it wasn't enough to be a huge impact, but my exhaust got caught on the guard rail and flipped the truck on it's side. No glass broke, the truck basically just fell over.

Really sorry to hear about your accident, but I am curious...

- Were you driving in 2WD or 4WD ? I have always found in wet conditions that I have far better traction when driving in 4H. Do you think this could have made a difference ?

joyride

 

[greasefingers]

My son is taking the Drivers Ed course in the high school. One thing that he mentioned to me was that they stress that the Cruse-control should never be used when it is raining. Obviously if the engine downshifts and the rpms race up, in the rain, it could lead to a loss of traction.

 

[Boaz]

My son is taking the Drivers Ed course in the high school. One thing that he mentioned to me was that they stress that the Cruse-control should never be used when it is raining. Obviously if the engine downshifts and the rpms race up, in the rain, it could lead to a loss of traction.

YEah

Cruise Control+ Rain+ Dunlops= Death!:bash: