Proper tire mounting

[autoboy]

Edit: This thread was from another thread that is not worth linking. It was moved into off topic because I threw out this little jewel of opinion. Just so you know....


Heck, I know people that think Bose is the best speaker they have ever heard; that 150 fps on quake is required for smooth gameplay; that a digital optical cable sounds better than a digital coaxial cable; that if you buy only 2 new tires that you should mount them on the front; that carbon dioxide is causing global warming.

The amount of misinformation out there is crazy.

[jaganath]

<off-topic>

if you buy only 2 new tires that you should mount them on the front

if you have a front-wheel drive car, isn't that correct?

that carbon dioxide is causing global warming.

we've been over this before, so I won't rehash the whole long-winded debate, just check out this NS link, I don't expect it to change your opinion because generally most people would rather die than do that.

</off-topic>

[mcoleg]

150 fps on quake is required for smooth gameplay

The amount of misinformation out there is crazy.

another off-topic; sry, couldn't help myself

assuming you are talking about q3a engine? it's 125fps; one could get by swimmingly with 76fps as well. depends on how well one can sinc. the connection and equalize the latencies.

[Das_Saunamies]

<offtopic>

Better tyres in front makes sense: you want them mounted as a pair, and preferrably on the wheels that do the steering. You'll see the difference when driving(or indeed breaking and steering) in pouring rain or in the winter, I know I did(although my rear-wheel drive was a pain to drive with the old fronts at the back, never skimping on tyres again! ). Don't know if there is any added benefit for a front-wheel drive, don't drive one.

Usually the front tyres see more wear(steering stress, heavier breaking effect), especially in front-wheel drive(add power as a factor to the aforementioned), so it makes additional sense to swap out the more worn-out ones. Because of this uneven wear, you can usually swap your old rear tyres to the front to get along just a bit longer.

And carbon dioxide alone is not causing the "Global Warming" of today, as there are other factors to consider. It is, however, an agent in a process that keeps warming Earth. Jaganath's link was very good at explaining why and how, but it doesn't tell you what the exact effect of the substance is. NASA's Earth Observatory does a good job of explaining it. Short version: these gases are essentially transparent to Sun's inbound energy wavelengths but trap Earth's outbound energy wavelengths, releasing trapped energy back.

Branding these two as misinformation is misinformation or indeed propaganda in itself.

</offtopic>

Power supplies: measure your idle use, load use and peaks, get one that accomodates them efficiently. There are many trusty measurements floating around now, so not having a personal power meter is no excuse. That's all there is to it, and current shortages are starting to sound like a thing of the past with the new PSUs sporting monster readings.

[snoopygum]

<off topic, more on tires>

Better tires in front = more grip in the front than the rear. While this may sound desirable because it gives the steering tires more grip, it's actually dangerous. That is because when you slip, the rear tires will lose grip first, which will lead to fishtailing (over-steering). This is a dangerous scenario & is hard to overcome.

Now consider the reverse situation. Better tires in the rear. You now have more grip in the rear, and when you slip, the car will be plowing (under-steering). This is a less dangerous & easier to rectify scenario for most drivers.

I've seen a video produced by Michelin, using 2 FWD Camry, one with each of the 2 setups above. In a skid pad test, the better-tire-in-front car always lose control first.

When replacing 2 tires, always put them in the rear.

[Das_Saunamies]

<offtopic>

I'd rather have oversteer with working steering, really. That's what ABS is about too, working steering, and you'll want your grip to work for it to do its job. It'll have to be a sideways breaking situation, crap tyres or reckless driving to get you into fishtailing or slides just because you have slightly more grip in the front. Usually all it does is help you go where you want to, FWD or RWD, plus it helps breaking as weight shifts forwards. Back tyres just keep you in a straight line.

Fishtailing is a slower process and can be controlled by doing the right thing(accelerate and steer or release power and slow down), depending on the car at hand of course. An old 316 starts spinning from fishtailing easy because the steering is slow, but a Golf with fresh studs easily straightens out with acceleration. Plowing means you're instantly heading straight where you don't want to go, only thing you can do is straighten up and hope the grip catches up. Notice the keyword?

Front tyre grip is essential. Only working steering will save you when something goes wrong.

If you want to link to this Michelin test material, please do. Hard to comment on the speeds and situations present without reference material. Most likely it's two cars going around corners too fast or trying snappy 90' corners... and the fact that they use two cars with two different sets of tyres(I'd imagine?) is off-putting in the first place.

Bottom line: don't skimp on tyres! You'd have to be really poor and somewhat stupid to buy just a pair if you're going to be doing something more challenging than school and mall runs in a round-the-year sunny suburb.

</offtopic>

[autoboy]

<off topic, more on tires>

Better tires in front = more grip in the front than the rear. While this may sound desirable because it gives the steering tires more grip, it's actually dangerous. That is because when you slip, the rear tires will lose grip first, which will lead to fishtailing (over-steering). This is a dangerous scenario & is hard to overcome.

Now consider the reverse situation. Better tires in the rear. You now have more grip in the rear, and when you slip, the car will be plowing (under-steering). This is a less dangerous & easier to rectify scenario for most drivers.

I've seen a video produced by Michelin, using 2 FWD Camry, one with each of the 2 setups above. In a skid pad test, the better-tire-in-front car always lose control first.

When replacing 2 tires, always put them in the rear.

Exactly. See...misinformation. Everyone should just listen to me. I am smart.

Sorry about stealing the thread. It was dead anyways.

[snoopygum]

<offtopic>

I'd rather have oversteer with working steering, really. That's what ABS is about too, working steering, and you'll want your grip to work for it to do its job. It'll have to be a sideways breaking situation, crap tyres or reckless driving to get you into fishtailing or slides just because you have slightly more grip in the front. Usually all it does is help you go where you want to, FWD or RWD, plus it helps breaking as weight shifts forwards. Back tyres just keep you in a straight line.

Fishtailing is a slower process and can be controlled by doing the right thing(accelerate and steer or release power and slow down), depending on the car at hand of course. An old 316 starts spinning from fishtailing easy because the steering is slow, but a Golf with fresh studs easily straightens out with acceleration. Plowing means you're instantly heading straight where you don't want to go, only thing you can do is straighten up and hope the grip catches up. Notice the keyword?

Front tyre grip is essential. Only working steering will save you when something goes wrong.

If you want to link to this Michelin test material, please do. Hard to comment on the speeds and situations present without reference material. Most likely it's two cars going around corners too fast or trying snappy 90' corners... and the fact that they use two cars with two different sets of tyres(I'd imagine?) is off-putting in the first place.

Bottom line: don't skimp on tyres! You'd have to be really poor and somewhat stupid to buy just a pair if you're going to be doing something more challenging than school and mall runs in a round-the-year sunny suburb.

</offtopic>

For most drivers, understeer plowing is much easier to rectify thanoversteer fishtailing.

As for the video, I didn't see it online, so no links. But as I've already mentioned, it was a skip pad test, not some crazy maneuver. It was 2 cars, same set of tires. And what would Michelin gain by screwing with the setup anyways? It wasn't promoting their brand of tires, it was demonstrating proper tire setup, which is not brand-specific.

But I agree with your bottom line, don't skimp on tires. On the snow, I'd rather have 4 winter tires on 2wd, than all season tires on awd, because awd only help you going, and does next to nothing to help you stop the car.

[Das_Saunamies]

<offtopic>

I am not suggesting the test was intentionally flawed, it often happens by accident. I blame the academic community for imposing this strict model on my view of empirical testing: I just can't accept something to be this or that way on word alone, the test needs to be verifiable and repeatable, open to criticism and observation.

I read autoboy's link, and recognize the arguments from discussions on the issue before, as this really is a myth for the ages. I should point out that I relate mostly to slippery conditions and not hydroplaning, as I've yet to own such poor tyres that it would have become an issue. Here is where my ground rules differ, and thus the discussion often has turned into debate:

I'm interested in classifying fishtailing and spin as two halves of the same serious effect on steering, loss of control, and plowing as just one. This may sound like semantics, but the implication is that a plow is always just as serious, indeed complete, whereas fishtailing is less serious and spin more serious. When fishtailing, control isn't yet lost as the car is steerable but in a dangerous situation. It may further worsen into a spin which is completely uncontrollable. Between fish-tailing and plowing, the potential threat to life and limb is situation-dependent, which brings me to my experiences:

My limited driving experience(just 6 years) with mopeds, light motorbikes, cars and heavy trucks has taught me that I feel worse in a plowing situation than a fishtailing or sliding one. Steering, by tyre grip or acceleration, is what keeps the vehicle going in the safe direction. Loss of front-wheel grip is the worst thing I feel can happen to me, and it has lead to two accidents. Loss of rear-wheel grip has been dangerous, but never has there been an accident. I classify accident as "an incident with damage", be it collateral or personal. I may just be lucky, but this is my life. Summa summarum: loss of grip is always bad, but loss of steering is dire. It may result from loss of grip on either axle, but is immediate on the steering one.

So, this is a nice discussion to have from time to time, and I have shared my opinions. You have shared yours and provided a rather reliable statement backing up your view as to why it's wrong to buy new front tyres first. I do not disagree with the experts, or you, on why changing front tyres first is potentially more dangerous in a generalised, average situation(which reflects truth to the degree generalisations can and often do). I disagree on the 'desirability', if one can call it that, of one effect over the other, and thus the whole argument on a theoretical basis. I won't furiously defend my view, as I don't buy mismatched tyre sets and try guessing which pair would result in me losing less life in a hydroplaning or spin scenario.

Thank you for being civilised, I hope I have expressed myself clearly.

</offtopic>

[autoboy]

I always buy tires in sets of 4.

6 years of driving experience and already had 2 accidents from loss of steering? ouch. I guess roads in finland can be pretty bad so I won't fault you on that one.

For the average driver fishtailing usually results in spinning. I've seen it happen many times. Oversteer is less controllable for any driver than understeer. Yes, it depends on the situation which is better, but on average it is better to maintain more control with understeer than spin, resulting in complete loss of control. If we want to continue this, we should move it to an off topic thread.

One more interesting fact:
stability control is more effective at preventing accidents than anti-lock brakes. Gotta tell you something about the dangers of a spin.

[Das_Saunamies]

I wholeheartedly vouch for stability control like MB ESP, would have avoided one of the accidents with that. And the roads are not bad per se, mostly just outdated(old cart paths with lots of bends and wrong tilt). I was "a young male with nothing to lose and everything to prove".

My accidents were: sliding into oncoming car in a 4-way light intersection at 20 km/h, embarassing but the steering just didn't grip on the ice when turning left, both just slid clumsily into each other. Lost a headlight, other car had a dent. Other one was on a long right curve, front tyre grip failed on packed snow at 50 km/h, plowed straight but furious acceleration allowed me to romp up from the bank. Wheels had to be realigned, some ripped covers. Car was a '97 Polo, not my own. I drive an '85 316.

Plenty more incidents, mostly with my own car, but no consequences. Sometimes it feels magical how nothing happens even though life is at risk... *knock on wood*

A spin is more dangerous, I agree(d) on that. So yeah, in the world of average truth you want understeer. It's probably been safer for me too even if it has resulted in the aforementioned accidents while getting away unscathed from fishtailing and slides. Luck has everything to do with it: a single oncoming vehicle not paying attention when you're sliding in the middle and you're in a very dangerous side-on-front crash. Would have resulted in more expensive damages in a city environment as well.

It's a pet peeve, driven by my guilt from those accidents, so I jumped at the opportunity to discuss. Shall resume normal operation.

PS. I think it's time I change my stance and express my support for the wiser approach instead of arguing theory.

[JazzJackRabbit]

Regarding 150fps in quake, it's true, it gives better gameplay in pretty much all games based on Q3 engine based games. The only thing that isn't true is 150fps, as far as I remember the magic fps to use are 43, 76, 125, there are more but I do not remember them.

As far as tires go, it is better to put them on front because front tires are used for steering and breaking (and in FWD cars for accelerating as well). I live near Chicago and winters here are mostly snowless, with the exception of major snowstors several times during the winter when driving becomes hell. During those snowstorms in 4 or so years that I have been driving I've only fishtailed once, and that was very easily corrected by me, no biggie. Really the only dangers of fishtailing are if you are cornering too fast in heavy snow (i.e. driving like an idiot) or if you start breaking when you're fishtailing (which is a very stupid mistake, and no one with one ounce of brain would do that). On the other hand there have been numerous occasions when I've completely lost front tire traction (mostly on left turns) and was drifting helplessly until stop. That's a really bad feeling when you're sliding helplessly toward the curb or worse into oncoming traffic (luckily no accidents so far). In those situations I couldn't do anything at all, the best thing I could do was set tires in the same direction I was sliding and hope they regain traction soon. So in my experience it is much more dangerous to lose front traction than rear traction and therefore I couldn't care less what those experts at tirerack or Michelin think, they conducted the tests on a closed track pushing the car to the limits whereas I'm driving on a regular street at regular speeds.

[jhhoffma]

When you replace two tires on an FWD car you ALWAYS put them on the rear . This has been proven to be the safest way according to sources such as Consumer Reports, Car and Drive, and Motor Trend (sorry no quotes, I just remember reading them). The reasoning goes like this: you can sense wheel slippage first in the front wheels, and when you first sense it, there's usually enough time to correct it. Not true with the rears. By the time you sense wheel slippage in the rears, you're sideways. Since you can't oversteer (you're in a FWD car remember), there's no way to compensate and as a result you keep sliding until something stops you.

Another way of putting it is, you need to know you can count on traction in the areas that you can do nothing about (the rears in a FWD car). When you have less traction in the front, you're less likely to end up in a situation that could break loose the rear wheels anyway.

Of course, this all assumes you drive conscientiously and aren't intentionally trying to be an idiot.

[Das_Saunamies]

Heyyy, someone else shares my experiences and view!

FWD I don't like because you lose everything when front grip goes: steering, power and control. In RWD you still have either power or steering if either axle goes, and it's easier to drive around the town in winter if you're being careful(can steer with power, uphills and heavy snow less problematic). Have to be extra careful at high speeds though, more so than with FWD.

FWD with rear grip loss I don't remember so much about... try to regain control with power or cut power with clutch(automatics are probably awful on slippery roads)? In my second accident power and front grip kept me from crashing completely into the bank, loss of rear grip first would have probably resulted in a slide but no bank contact.

Nice topic title change!

[walle]

I tire of you talking about tyres gents, lets move along to the global warming shall we?, what causes it, well, it’s the sun! The sun is causing the global warming and it’s the sun alone. All human beings on this planet can drive as much as they freaking like to (naming one example, out of all others) it doesn’t have any kind of impact on the global warming what so ever. That said, its so much money involved in the environmental smoke screens produced, that its mind boggling. And now root for thought: Africa is not allowed to develop here industries and she is forced to use solar panels, whereas we in the west are not. Now tell me, given the logic of the environmental smoke screens of misinformation, how does that approach make sense? In my view, it makes no sense what so ever, the only way it could make sense was to be if the west wants to keep her on her knees. Oh, , the west’s answer to that question is “they should not do the same mistake as usâ€

[tehfire]

First off, I think it's safe to say it's best to change all your tires at the same time...

I can't share any experiences about only changing 2 tires as I always rotate my tires (front and back only, they're unidirectional) and change them all at the same time.

What I can say is in my experience, I'd much rather deal with oversteer than understeer. Let's try to get one thing straight - with all the talk about rear wheels slipping, it seems the most common way this would happen is if you were in a turn and suddenly the back went out. Unless you're rediculously too fast, the fastest way I correct this when I'm autocrossing is the standard clutch in, countersteer, straighten and apply brakes. This takes quite a bit of practice, but it's completely doable.

When you lose traction with your front wheels, you don't have nearly as much options. This usually happens when someone didn't really listen when learning how to drive and is braking through a turn. At this point, getting traction is much more critical. At least in an oversteer situation, you can correct somewhat and stay on a track. With understeer, short of letting off the brakes and trying to steer through the turn, you're up stink creek without a paddle.

To the other guy who said STM saves more lives than ABS, that's because STM is basically ABS on crack. In addition from keeping your wheels from locking up (what ABS usually does), stability management will selectively put braking power on certain wheels in order to correct the attitude of the car. That's why STM is more effective.

[NyteOwl]

My experiecne is that tires/tyres wear pretty evenly (depending on your driving style) and usually end up replacing them all at once. That said, if I was only going to replace two at a time the new ones would go on the front Then again I drive RWD by preference so YMMV.

[DanceMan]

Someone who learned to drive in San Jose should put the better tires on the rear. A Finn can put them on the front.

Driving on snow at an early age teaches you car control. It's no accident that Finns are over represented in F1 and the WRC.

[autoboy]

To the other guy who said STM saves more lives than ABS, that's because STM is basically ABS on crack. In addition from keeping your wheels from locking up (what ABS usually does), stability management will selectively put braking power on certain wheels in order to correct the attitude of the car. That's why STM is more effective.

I was wrong. Best since seatbelts.

Numerous international studies have confirmed the effectiveness of ESC in helping the driver maintain control of the car, help save lives and reduce the severity of crashes. In the fall of 2004 in the U.S., the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration confirmed the international studies, releasing results of a field study in the U.S. of ESC effectiveness. NHTSA concluded that ESC reduces crashes by 35%. Additionally, sport utility vehicles with stability control are involved in 67 percent fewer accidents than SUVs without the system. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) later issued its own study that concluded the widespread application of ESC could save 7,000 lives a year. In June 2006, the IIHS updated the results of its 2004 study by stating that up to 10,000 fatal crashes could be avoided annually if all vehicles were equipped with ESC.[1] Now being used by other manufacturers, stability control systems reduce the likelihood of all fatal accidents by 43 percent and fatal single-vehicle crashes by 56 percent, according to another accident study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). That makes ESC the greatest safety equipment development since seat belts and air bags, according to some experts.[citation needed] The European New Car Assessment Program (EuroNCAP) "strongly recommends" that people buy cars fitted with stability control.[2] On November 21, 2006 the IIHS announced that 13 of the 2007 vehicles had earned its TOP SAFETY PICK rating---a major new requirement for this top rating is that the vehicle must be equipped with ESC.[3]

[Bluefront]

If you rotate the tires as often as you should, you'll be needing all four tires at the same time, on most cars. That's how I do it.

However, IMHO......the best tires go on the front. It has to do with safety, and what happens when a front tire blows, as compared to a rear blow-out. I've had both things happen on similar cars. A front blow-out has a much greater chance of causing an accident, compared to a rear blow-out. Hell you can drive on a rear flat without even knowing it. When a front tire goes, you're in trouble.

Most of the time in the USA, we drive on clear roads. So your tires should reflect that......

[autoboy]

I tire of you talking about tyres gents, lets move along to the global warming shall we?, what causes it, well, it’s the sun!

YES! finally someone who gets it! Hmm, what is that big ball of fire doing in our sky? Surely it can't be warming the earth now can it.

I 95% agree with the environmental movement and I think clean air is great. However, don't waste all our #^&$ing money on CO2 emissions. Lets spend on something that can hurt us.

Also, I love alternative energy and can't wait to get some sort of power generation for my house, whatever that might be. Current solar panels no, but damn, I want something cool to power my computers.

[jaganath]

walle@lets move along to the global warming shall we?, what causes it, well, it’s the sun! The sun is causing the global warming and it’s the sun alone.

Solar variations not behind global warming: study

YES! finally someone who gets it! Hmm, what is that big ball of fire doing in our sky? Surely it can't be warming the earth now can it.

obviously a major source of the world's heat is the Sun; the Earth would be a cold, dead rock without it. However the trend in the Sun's output has precisely zero correlation to the warming we are currently experiencing:

http://environment.newscientist.com/cha ... ge/dn11650

But even if solar forcing in the past was more important than this estimate suggests, as some scientists think, there is no correlation between solar activity and the strong warming during the past 40 years. Claims that this is the case have not stood up to scrutiny (pdf document).

Direct measurements of solar output since 1978 show a steady rise and fall over the 11-year sunspot cycle, but no upwards or downward trend .

Similarly, there is no trend in direct measurements of the Sun's ultraviolet output and in cosmic rays. So for the period for which we have direct, reliable records, the Earth has warmed dramatically even though there has been no corresponding rise in any kind of solar activity.

I can only present you with the facts, gentlemen. I was under the false impression that you were men of reason, I see now this is not the case.

[tehfire]

Alright, this is my explination to this phenomenon we call global warming.

Ever heard of a mastodon? Huge creatures that once roamed the great plains during the last ice age....

What happened to the ice age? It disappeared about 10,000 years ago (not positive on the time frame). Ever since then, the glaciers have been retreating, the ice caps have been melting, and the sea has been rising. Is that our fault? No! Ice samples from the south pole and numerous other sources have shown that the Earth goes through cycles of ice ages. So if there was a period of cooling a few thousand years ago and it's ending, that would mean....

I'll let you figure it out.

Bottom line: it's getting warmer because we're in the middle of the cycle between ice ages.

And jaganath, no need to stand on a pedestal 'nuff said

[walle]

I can only present you with the facts, gentlemen..

You presented us with yet another smoke screen of misinformation which we are constantly being fed and programmed with on a daily basis.

was under the false impression that you were men of reason, I see now this is not the case.

Men of reason requires breaking out of the box in which they are undertaking the programme; remaining in the box doesn’t qualify.

Bottom line: it's getting warmer because we're in the middle of the cycle between ice ages.

Indeed, it’s as correct as it makes perfect sense.

[Plissken]

The sun is causing the global warming and it’s the sun alone.

Back on point, off topic in off topic...
The links Jaganath povided attempt to refute the effects of solar activity. Your claim is outrageous, even for me who believes humans are responsible for less than 1% warming.

[Das_Saunamies]

I'm ready to take into account the Sun's increased effect as much as the next person, but we shouldn't just ignore the other effects in play. What I will ignore is the foaming about nukes and Africa, there's too much of that already on the ecomentalist and political forums. Controlling emissions is in the best interest of everyone, be it by industry or consumers, transportation or foresting, this or that continent. There is only benefit to be had, and the investment will pay off. And emissions is what we can affect immediately, the Sun and climate cycles we can't. I'd rather make the effort now than face the music a century down the road.

The Sun is contributing, the atmospheric weather is cyclical... but that's no reason to go on a tangent about the greenhouse effect and human contribution being a hoax. I'd rather trust a scientist with verified scientific research than opinionated bigotry.

And as far as pedestals go, I don't think I see one. What I see is playful verbiage ignored.
--

And the tyre debate keeps on giving. Bottom line on skimping has been established, but how about this as an addition: better tyres in front are actually less dangerous if the driver knows how to control the car in all situations(as should be the case)? That makes sense from the perspective of how retaining steering is safer than trying to prevent a spin by locking the car in a straight line. Grip differences on axles don't kill people, people and their shortcomings or excess kill people(to quote the gun debate motto, which is essentially true).

[walle]

…Your claim is outrageous

Unfortunately I missed to recheck prior to posting ( I apologize). It should have stated [The sun is causing the global warming and it’s the sun “aloneâ€

[autoboy]

The fact that trained driving profesionals admitted that they had much more trouble controlling the car with new tires in front disproves your argument. I know you think you are a great driver, I am too, but I'm not too proud to admit that I could not do better than a profesional.

It is kinda like saying, I'm a great driver so I don't need to wear my seatbelt. Yeah...dumb.

[Das_Saunamies]

I never said I was a good driver. In fact I'm pretty sure I'm not, and I sure don't drive like I'm on a test track or participating in a rally. I drive like a regular person in my regular car with its regular tyres, and when the regular mishap here or there comes, I like front grip over rear grip as it helps me steer the car.

What I've said is what I have to say: I like front grip, and with fresh tyres I have more of it. If there was a time when I had to choose, I'd put new tyres in the front and drive carefully, and most likely successfully.

If I get into an accident because of loss of rear grip, that will disprove me, not a professional driver's opinion. So far all I've had from losing rear grip is some heart-stopping slides and a couple of spins, but nothing that has caused an accident; this is not a Michelin test track, this is my life.

Whether or not it solves the argument... I doubt it can be solved with just one answer that would cover all scenarios.

[ronrem]

I've lived in an area of mountain roads since the 70's. I used to do 4 wheel drifts in my 57 Pontiac because it could power out of a slide so well and predictably.

With the Pinto's I had,I pushed them. I put KYB's on the rear so they would not swap ends too often-but still-sometimes I'd go into a local hairpin too hot and lose the rear end. It's kind of hard to quickly recall that steer into the skid stuff---and in a tight turn-you still want to point to the road-not the woods. Turned out the easy answer was just tuck it under and do a 180. I got pretty good at it Probably if I had more grip on the rears it would have made it harder to lose the rear in the first place--but also harder to control a neat 180 and end up in the right lane (that's a key point)

Now I have FWD and a car that even corners a bit quicker. I've wondered about which end needs the best tires--but our driveway is a nasty low gear climb so the tread has to be in front for wet weather or I can't get up the hill