tire store refuses to rotate tires on Minivan.

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: NMBurb02
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
As I see it, tire shops have very little incentive to do the rotation. Not only can they cite something saying that it improves safety, but it also will make tires in a wear position, wear faster, so they will sell more tires. What reason do they have to do anything else?

Keeping the business. I don't know what it is like around you or the OP, but I probably have 20+ tire shops within a 10 mile radius of me, several of them independents who are not directed by lawyers at the corporate level to do or not do certain things. Find someone who will rotate the tires and pay them to do it. If the tires were purchased at Discount, rotations should be free, so they are not turning down money and are instead looking out for their customers.


There are a ton around here.

But just because DT gives the rotation to you for free, does not mean it is free. They are still paying the tech and SM. That costs money. If they can minimize unbilled hours, and help push a sale down the line, that's what they will do. They are in the business of selling tires, not giving out "free" (expensive to them) rotations.

 

[mikered30]

Originally Posted By: threeputtpar
Originally Posted By: PZR2874
Originally Posted By: Darkfire
Originally Posted By: mikered30
If they always want the most tread in the back, you never have to rotate tires front to back on a FWD car.

1st time I've ever heard this. Even if this is true, would there still be no benefit to doing so anyways? Do you have some sources backing up what you've said?


I think he's joking.


No, I belived that if DarkFire would have read the first part of mikered30's statement he would have understood that telling a customer that the tires with the greatest amount of tread need to be on the rear of the FWD vehicle and a FWD vehicle will always wear the front tires faster, it would never be necessary to rotate the back axle tires to the front until the fronts are bald and in need of replacement. Rinse and repeat every 25-30k miles.


Bingo. Seems like a great way to tell the customer to buy new tires when the fronts are bald and the rears are only a 1/4 worn.

 

[Ken2]

Quote:
The tolerance is 2/32" (1.6 mm). The front tires are allowed to have up to 2/32" more tread than the rears, which gives plenty of time to get the rotations done on time.
This sounds smart to me.

As an extreme example, my wife's cousin found the reason to not put just two snows on the front of her FWD car...as she pinwheeled through an icy intersection. Of course, cousin Debbie learned the wrong lesson and won't have another FWD....

The problem with the differing tread depth comes at the extremes of traction. When you need max traction to avoid a crash on a slippery road, you don't want the fronts to grip while the rears slip.

 

[Johnny248]

Originally Posted By: InhalingBullets
I agree whole heartily that proper and timely maintenance is the key to avoiding this problem completely. Although, I had never heard of a shop refusing to rotate serviceable tires. My brother ended up back at the shop today and they put two new tires on the REAR moving the old rears to the front...thus when he goes to get them rotated in 6 months...they won't.


In most cases if it is ok to replace two tires (move new to rear) then they will be ok to rotate in the next 6-8k. Good move. People neglect their tires WAY to much. I personally think that (at least in states like mine, Michigan which gets its share of foul weather) a car accident is caused, car off the road, guard rail, etc and the tires on the vehicle are baled, then they should be ticketed. We don't have annual inspections here, so some of the stuff you see driving around is very unsafe.

 

[NMBurb02]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: NMBurb02
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
As I see it, tire shops have very little incentive to do the rotation. Not only can they cite something saying that it improves safety, but it also will make tires in a wear position, wear faster, so they will sell more tires. What reason do they have to do anything else?

Keeping the business. I don't know what it is like around you or the OP, but I probably have 20+ tire shops within a 10 mile radius of me, several of them independents who are not directed by lawyers at the corporate level to do or not do certain things. Find someone who will rotate the tires and pay them to do it. If the tires were purchased at Discount, rotations should be free, so they are not turning down money and are instead looking out for their customers.


There are a ton around here.

But just because DT gives the rotation to you for free, does not mean it is free. They are still paying the tech and SM. That costs money. If they can minimize unbilled hours, and help push a sale down the line, that's what they will do. They are in the business of selling tires, not giving out "free" (expensive to them) rotations.

I know labor is expensive, but it doesn't take much to rotate a set of tires at a tire shop that uses lifts and pneumatic tools, particularly if the employees are working set shifts and the costs are then sunk/fixed. The DT I used most recently took great care of me when I went in for a rebalance with less than 2,500 miles on the tires, provided a woman who bought her tires elsewhere with a free flat repair and rotation (how's that for labor costs, plus the liability they took on), and gave me two cards for free rotations to give to others. Taking care of people is the best way of obtaining and retaining customers, and I think that is what happened in the OP's case. That being said, I am in the commercial P&C insurance field and am a bit risk averse, so I wouldn't risk putting worn (even if they are still "serviceable") tires on the back if the general industry consensus, backed by the previously mentioned study, warns me against it.

 

[rslifkin]

Personally, I go with best tires belong on the front (regardless of drive wheels). I'd rather have the tail step out than hydroplane the front end and lose steering. Plus, the front end handles most of the braking load. Also, if you hit a large puddle straight on on the highway, if you keep the front wheels straight, the tail isn't going anywhere anyway, but having the front end hydroplane can lead to it getting a lot more skittish in my experience.

On my last set of tires, I'd gotten a bit lazy about rotation, which left me with 1 pair with about 3/32nds and 1 pair with about 6/32nds by the time I replaced them. The Jeep definitely drove better in the rain on the highway with the less worn pair on the front. It started out the other way around, as it's harder on front tires, and was starting to get a bit skittish around puddles, etc. The less worn pair did go back on the rear right before I replaced them though, but only so I could take a bit off them with a nice burnout

 

[Rolla07]

i wont comment, when i removed my tires they are at about 1/32 tread...lol.. still great dry traction but forget about wet traction...

I think they should just do what you ask them to do and just list done as per customer request..

 

[PZR2874]

Most ppl seem to forget that all cars rely on FRONT braking 70/30 or 80/20 or whatever... having the cruddier tires up front doesn't help that situation.

I stick to my better tires up front. You brakes are only as good as your tires.

 

[martinq]

Originally Posted By: PZR2874
I stick to my better tires up front. You brakes are only as good as your tires.

Agree. Most front-drive vehicles are already heavily biased to understeer and have 60% or more of the weight on the front.

This whole thing is a silly way to sell another set of tires but it is a successful way. One year's worth of driving is not enough to throw the handling balance. I would rotate front-back every year (or twice a year) and be done with it. But hey, if you've got the coin I'd certainly recommend a new set every year.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Anyone who puts the better tires in front should have his licence revoked unless and until he passes a college-level course in the physics of vehicular motion. This is basic physics, people!

 

[martinq]

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Anyone who puts the better tires in front should have his licence revoked unless and until he passes a college-level course in the physics of vehicular motion. This is basic physics, people!

No tire rotations for you!!!

 

[HerrStig]

I don't think the "basic physics" of something as complex as the reaction of a tire to various loadings is that simple. Maybe to you it is, but to me it encompasses more than tread depth. A tire reacts to weight, side loading from cornering, and power or brake force transmission. On A FWD vehicle, the deck is stacked against the FRONT tires in terms of the slip angles produced by such tire loading. Simple to you maybe.

 

[NMBurb02]

Originally Posted By: HerrStig
I don' t think the "basic physics" of something as complex as the reaction of a tire to various loadings is that simple. Maybe to you it is, but to me it encompasses more than tread depth. A tire reacts to weight, side loading from cornering, and power or brake force transmission. On A FWD vehicle, the deck is stacked against the FRONT tires in terms of the slip angles produced by such tire loading. Simple to you maybe.

What is your response to the video on the first reply or this video? The complex physics seem to work in favor of putting the good tires on the rear.

 

[martinq]

Originally Posted By: NMBurb02
What is your response to the video on the first reply or this video?

You're missing the whole point. The van didn't need new tires (from what we can tell) it just needed rotation. I'll answer your question with the best question.

Assuming all tires are the same type and not very old, what was the tread-depth of the tires in that test?

Without this information the video is fairly useless but good advertising.

 

[NMBurb02]

Originally Posted By: martinq
Originally Posted By: NMBurb02
What is your response to the video on the first reply or this video?

You're missing the whole point. The van didn't need new tires (from what we can tell) it just needed rotation. I'll answer your question with the best question.

Assuming all tires are the same type and not very old, what was the tread-depth of the tires in that test?

Without this information the video is fairly useless but good advertising.

I'm not missing the point. Differences in tread depth are differences in tread depth, no matter if we're talking about new vs 10k worn or 10k worn vs 20k worn. In my first post in this thread I said that we need tread depth info for the tires in question.

They didn't say anything about relative tread depths in the video I posted, but in the first video they stated that it was new vs half worn. Seeing as the OP's sister-in-law replaced the front tires, I would assume that they were pretty worn in one way or another. Not many people would replace two tires simply because they could not be rotated. It sounds like they were trying to get a few thousand more miles out of a pair of tires that were unevenly worn or they could have just driven away with unrotated tires with more tread on the rear.

More info would be helpful. What were the tread depths? Had the tires been rotated or alignment done in the 12 months since the van was purchased? Was it a coincidence that the flat happened at the same time as the tires needing rotation or was the rotation an afterthought since the car would be at DT and they hadn't been rotated in the year of ownership or the driver had been experiencing tire related issues and it was going to DT anyway?

 

[martinq]

Originally Posted By: NMBurb02
Seeing as the OP's sister-in-law replaced the front tires, I would assume that they were pretty worn in one way or another. Not many people would replace two tires simply because they could not be rotated.

The way it sounds to me was, 'we cannot rotate be we have a solution' and bingo, new tires were sold. A technicality and opportunity rolled into one.

These were 1yr old tires that mostly drive, "an 8 mile round trip commute.". This does not sound like dangerous, worn-out tires. More like, freshly broken in.

We won't know more unless InhalingBullets gives us the details which he may not have.

 

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Anyone who puts the better tires in front should have his licence revoked unless and until he passes a college-level course in the physics of vehicular motion. This is basic physics, people!


I'd love to hear the physics of why better tires on the front is a bad thing. Yeah, the vehicle will be more tail happy, but that's not a bad thing if you know how to drive, and considering many vehicles understeer badly anyway in stock form, they probably won't be too prone to kicking the tail out unless we're talking about a huge difference in grip up front vs in back.

 

[KitaCam]

Originally Posted By: rslifkin
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Anyone who puts the better tires in front should have his licence revoked unless and until he passes a college-level course in the physics of vehicular motion. This is basic physics, people!


I'd love to hear the physics of why better tires on the front is a bad thing. Yeah, the vehicle will be more tail happy, but that's not a bad thing if you know how to drive, and considering many vehicles understeer badly anyway in stock form, they probably won't be too prone to kicking the tail out unless we're talking about a huge difference in grip up front vs in back.


Insurance companies assume NOT

The policy of better/more tread at the rear SHOULD be based on a standard measure but the ZERO TOLERANCE policy is there to cover those who don't want to measure and accept responsibility/liability.

 

[Jarlaxle]

If the rear tires lose traction, the vehicle must spin! This is basic physics! If the rear tires on a FWD car break loose on a turn...you're dead. It is that simple!

 

[martinq]

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
If the rear tires lose traction, the vehicle must spin! This is basic physics! If the rear tires on a FWD car break loose on a turn...you're dead. It is that simple!

You are banned from rotating your tires!!!