Buying 2...on the back always....

[ToadU]

Here's a topic that will get some people riled up. When purchasing 2 tires...or running a mismatched set...the new or best tires tires should always be mounted on the rear wheels. Doesn't matter if the vehicle is fwd, rwd or AWD. This is the safest and only proper way to mount the tires. We sell tires at my service center and 100 percent hard fuel new tires when buying two mounted back wheels only. It's hard to get customers and even employees to understand this is proper and for their own safety. (And my liability). If a customer insists and refuses we thank them for stopping by and decline to mount them. Must always do it safely and properly. (This should bring some good discussions)

 

[bubbatime]

100% correct

 

[AZjeff]

 

[Wolf359]

Yeah, comes up here all the time.

Don't even mention whether you should go by the max inflation pressure on the tire or the car placard!

The real question is, what do you do when they come back in a few months and want them rotated?

 

[OilStasher]

No way to say this without sounding like a jerk...

Catering to the ignorant and penalizing the intelligent, huh?

Do you tell (force onto) customers the proper way to rotate their tires too? Genuinely asking, because I'm curious how you'll respond. I'll blow the incorrect response to pieces.

Edit: ^Wolf kinda beat me to it

 

[ToadU]

Originally Posted by OilStasher
No way to say this without sounding like a jerk...

Catering to the ignorant and penalizing the intelligent, huh?

Do you tell (force onto) customers the proper way to rotate their tires too? Genuinely asking, because I'm curious how you'll respond. I'll blow the incorrect response to pieces.


Well this is how it rolls (Pardon the pun...tire humor.) It's my shop. I get to make the rules. I get to say what's law. At the end of the day I can't allow someone to do something I know is highly dangerous. I can't allow someone to put themselves and others at risk.

As the owner I can't risk my livelihood and everything I have worked for my entire life because a customer wants to do something I know is dangerous. It my responsibility. I'm the one that will be sued possibility by many parties.

Finally, my insurance carrier requires we follow best practices and the tire industry through science has determined these to be best practices.

Can't really blow that out of the water.

Knowingly violating best practices is gross negligence and the veil of corporate sovereignty can be pierced. Not risking my company, livelihood and everything I have.

Regarding rotating as long as the tires are mis-matched the tires can be balanced, switched from left to right under some circumstances, but the best tires will continue to stay on the rear. If the tires are not mismatched regarding rotation after making a suggestion to the customer in his / her best Interest if it's not a safety issue for them, others on the road, my employees or a liability they can do whatever they want as long as I get paid.

 

[dave1251]

Well all I have to say is. I agree with you 100%.

 

[ToadU]

I didn't understand this......

>>> Catering to the ignorant and penalizing the intelligent, huh?<<<

 

[Dave9]

I agree it is good practice but don't give us that "my liability" nonsense. Nobody is liable for not following what they think to be "best practices" as long as they do their job competently. Where would it end? I think it is best practice to replace all 4 struts at the same time, so should everyone be forced to get all 4 at once? No. I think it is best practice to replace both tires on the same axle but should everyone be forced to? No. The list goes on, and often it is a shop trying to upsell more services enough though it is not in your case.

Where would it end? No, you cannot force ideals upon customers, but you can refuse to service their vehicle and perhaps you should because I agree that the best tires should go on the rear "IF" the front are very worn. If the front are not very worn, then no, they should be put on the same axle and rotated regularly until the weakest pair wears down more. Once the weaker pair is worn down dangerously low, THEN it is time to refuse to rotate them and to advise the customer that more new tires are needed.

Otherwise you are voiding the tire treadwear warranty and if you sold tire rotation with the original tires, you are liable if you refuse to rotate them, unless stipulated in the agreement.

Plus you are forgetting something. What if the customer had evenly wearing tires and didn't get new tires at all? That would mean that the rear tire would be just as worn as if you had put new tires on the front and left the worn ones on the rear. You are not responsible for someone wanting to drive with bald tires, nor are you doing anything that makes the handling less safe than when the vehicle arrived. In fact there are standards for tread depth, THAT is the "best practices" which are industry standard, not other fictions that are declared best practices.

Again, you are welcome to turn away customers, but it is better to educate them briefly and let them decide. You are NOT liable for a customer who chooses to run rear tires with insufficient tread, though you might want to tell them they need 4 tires and let them decide from there.

 

[ToadU]

The difference is improper installation. Putting new tires on the front and worn on the rear is improper and a huge liability for a shop. Someone running tires past tread depth is their responsibility. Actively configuring their car to be dangerous would be my liability.

 

[OilStasher]

Originally Posted by ToadU
Well this is how it rolls (Pardon the pun...tire humor.) It's my shop. I get to make the rules. I get to say what's law. At the end of the day I can't allow someone to do something I know is highly dangerous. I can't allow someone to put themselves and others at risk.
So if a customer has 2 tires that are in great shape with 7/32" and chooses 2 new tires for a FWD to be placed on the front *in winter*, that's "highly dangerous"? But if another customer has two tires that have 1/32" on the front and buys 2 new tires for the rear, that's acceptable and somehow safe?!?

You can't possibly be serious. Let me guess, you can read a dummy chart?
Originally Posted by ToadU
Regarding rotating as long as the tires are mis-matched the tires can be balanced, switched from left to right under some circumstances, but the best tires will continue to stay on the rear.
So this is in absolute? What if a matching set of 4 has 1/32" less tread on 2 tires? Now we're denying rotation due to uneven wear? Isn't that exactly why we rotate tires to begin with? But here's an interesting one: what if the front is *causing* the extra wear? How would they ever get their tires even again?!?

Originally Posted by ToadU
If the tires are not mismatched regarding rotation after making a suggestion to the customer in his / her best Interest if it's not a safety issue for them, others on the road, my employees or a liability they can do whatever they want
How do YOU know what is in THEIR best interest? If they clearly are confused or uninformed on the matter, perhaps. But if someone comes to you with hard facts and an intelligent reasoning, you won't let them do what they want with their own vehicle, with their own money? That's insane. At the very least make them sign a waiver and do it. But telling them what they can and can't do with their own vehicle? C'mon.

Originally Posted by ToadU
as long as I get paid.
Ah, now it makes sense.


I wrote off my local tire shop recently. I dropped it off with specific instructions to cross the rears to the front, and move the fronts straight to the rear. This is the way the dealer did it the first time after I bought it, therefore to keep the rotation even I had to adopt this pattern. I've been rotating my tires this way three times now. An hour later when they get to it, they suddenly tell me they only rotate tires ONE way, regardless of ANY circumstances whatsoever (which is completely false, proven in black and white). "Their way" is rotating the rear straight to the front, and the fronts crossed to the rear, "because that's what Firestone tells them" and then points to the dummy chart. I explained my reasoning was sound and intelligent, and was to ensure proper and even tire wear. I wasn't just being bull-headed. I had a legitimate reason. They still refused. So I refused to not make a scene over it, refused to refrain from calling the guy a complete moron in front of all his customers, and refused to ever step foot into that store again. What's your company called? There sure are a lot of similarities.

 

[Pew]

I once had a "mechanic" tell me he replaces his tires one at a time because he's never had a problem. His justification: because he used to work on cars that went 200mph. Also has never been on a track and thinks going downhill makes him "less innocent than he thinks."

 

[BigCahuna]

Doesn't matter where you put them. Like when you "rotate"your tires. You'll have 1 new and one old tire on the front, and the same on the back. As long as they're balanced and not bald or damaged, you won't give it a second thought the next day.,,,

 

[geeman789]

Originally Posted by ToadU


Well this is how it rolls (Pardon the pun...tire humor.) It's my shop. I get to make the rules. I get to say what's law. At the end of the day I can't allow someone to do something I know is highly dangerous. I can't allow someone to put themselves and others at risk.



There is the problem ... what exactly is highly dangerous ? Are two new tires on the front, with near bald tires on the back dangerous ? If it rains, then yes. But where do you draw the line ... 8/32's, or 4/32's ? Wear bars ... ?

And the rotation question brings in more uncertainty. At what point do you say, NO, I won't rotate your tires front to rear ? The fronts are too worn ... because you didn't rotate them.

But, that's WHY we rotate them ... to even out the wear.

 

[maxdustington]

Originally Posted by OilStasher
So if a customer has 2 tires that are in great shape with 7/32" and chooses 2 new tires for a FWD to be placed on the front *in winter*, that's "highly dangerous"? But if another customer has two tires that have 1/32" on the front and buys 2 new tires for the rear, that's acceptable and somehow safe?!?
That's a perfect example: the worst tires go on the front of a FWD car to prevent oversteer. The first customer's rear tires will have less grip than the fronts, increasing oversteer. The second customer's rear tires will have more grip than the fronts, causing understeer.

 

[geeman789]

It doesn't really matter if you understeer off the road and crash with worn front tires, or if you spin and crash with worn rear tires.

You still crashed ...

 

[dishdude]

This is a ridiculous position. If the existing tires are so bad that they are a hydroplaning hazard on the rear, then they aren't safe for the front either. If you're so concerned about liability, in this case you sell 4 tires or none.

 

[Dave9]

Originally Posted by ToadU
The difference is improper installation. Putting new tires on the front and worn on the rear is improper and a huge liability for a shop. Someone running tires past tread depth is their responsibility. Actively configuring their car to be dangerous would be my liability.


Wrong. It is not ideal, but it is not improper.

It is not up to you to pretend that ideals should be imposed upon others. Ideally, we would all drive sports cars with all new tires, right? Ideally, what you feel were dangerous to have on the rear, aren't 100% safe on the front either, right?

No it is not any liability. You are only liable for the tires YOU put on, that they are put on properly which involves mounting, balancing, and lug nut torque. You are not "actively configuring" anything. It is not a reconfiguration of the vehicle to put new tires on. If the owner's manual does not state "do not do this" then in no way are you stating fact instead of fiction as faras what is required or prohibited.

Again I think new tires are better on the rear but that's where the sane logic in this discussion ends. If the original tires were safe enough for the rear when it came in, then they still are. No thought on your part changes that.

If they were not safe enough for the rear and you didn't touch them, you are not liable for any work you did not do, except if you truly feel they need replaced, you should inform the customer. If you are the really paranoid type you can even have them sign a waiver, but then they may ask someone else about it and realize you were just being a control freak.

I can see it now, you would have someone with 60% good rear tires come in, insist that they forever run those on the front, wasting a fair % of the remaining tire life because you won't rotate them front to rear, void their new rear tires warranty too because they weren't rotated either, then they're driving even more bald/unevenly-worn tires than if you weren't involved, or else having to replace them even sooner so it costs them more money.

At no point is there a case where the customer should not be able to have new tires put on whichever axle and have them rotated normally, until they're worn out. If you refuse to rotate them after one pair is worn past the treadwear indicator, that is the right thing to do, don't touch them then.

 

[Nick1994]

Luckily it doesn't really rain here, so my Camry has 2 new front tires and 2 older tires on the rear.

 

[OilStasher]

^Dave9 and dishdude get it.

Edit: and geeman789. Don't know how I overlooked that goldmine...

The fact that you turn away business over something so minute is shocking. Not to mention the word-of-mouth cost involved.