Put New Tires on the Back
I’m still wading through my materials from the Southern Trial Lawyers convention and will post some of the tidbits/highlights. Rob Ammons gave a presentation about a wrongful death case they handled where the decedent was a teenaged boy who’s car fishtailed out of control, spun across the median and was slammed into by a truck going the opposite direction. Several law firms turned the case down before it came to Rob.
When researching the case, they found that the car had four bald tires and the young man had gone to Wal-Mart the day before to buy two new tires. The new tires had been put on the front of the car. Brand new tires with good gripping traction on the front with bald tires on the rear made the car extremely susceptible to fishtailing and spinning out of control. Even at low speeds.
Whenever you get new tires and can’t afford to buy four at a time, put the tires on the back of the car. Apparently there is a lot of research to support this, but it’s not getting down to the mechanics in the shops.
If you are interested I have a report that shows some cars have a 1 in 50 chance of being in an accident because of tire placement Thanks Harvey
I JUST FOUND THIS OUT !!! COULD NOT BELIEVE IT. TRIED TO GET COSCOS TO PUT 2 NEW TIRES ON THE FRONT OF MY VAN AND THEY TOLD ME IT WAS COMPANY POLICY THAT THEY HAD TO PUT THEM ON THE REAR.....BUT THEY COULD TAKE THE TWO REAR TIRES AND PUT THEM ON THE FRONT AND PUT THE TWO NEW TIRES ON THE REAR.....MAD NO SENSE TO ME AT ALL BUT INSTEAD I BOUGHT 4 NEW TIRES.
WERE THEY OR OTHER TIRE RESALERS SUED BECAUSE NEW TIRES WERE PUT ON THE FRONT ?
ACTUALLY COSCO DID NOT TELL ME ABOUT THIS POLICY AND ON THEIR OWN PUT THE 2 NEW TIRES ON THE REAR OF MY CAR AND WHEN I SAW THAT SOME ADJUSTMENTS WERE MADE AND THE GAVE ME 4 NEW TIRES FOR THE PRICE OF 3...A SPECIAL THAT THEY SOMTIMES HAVE,
I WAS TOLD BY THE MANAGER THAT MANY TIMES WHEN THEY TELL POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS THAT THEY MUST PUT THE NEW TIRES ON THE REAR EVEN THOUGH THE CUSTOMERS WANT THEM ON THE FRONT THAT THE CUSTOMERS WALK OUT AND GO ELSWHERE.
C'EST LA VIE
LOU
someone needs to inform the "20 year experienced" service manager Shane Donaldson about this information. He made it clear that it would be "dangerous" for my new tires to be placed in the rear instead of the front. He works at the dealership of Bayway Lincoln Mercury in Houston Texas. I drive a navigator 2006 that had a bent tire rod in the rear and therefore needed the rear tires replaced ie. that was what was on the bill said and was explained on the phone...but in reality, did I really get stiffed...b/c the front tires were brand new the old ones were in the back...how do I know they even replaced the rear ones with the front ones..there was no alignment report for me to see. Help...your input is appreciated.
There is much debate over loss of control accidents with various opinions from experts and the public. What the average person and some experts are not aware of is that there can be as high as 950 pounds or more weight on the front axle of their vehicle than the back. A 3000lb car with a weight ratio of 65% front weight and 35% rear weight will weigh 1950lb on the front and 1050 on the rear. After you use 10 gallon of fuel one of the front wheels has as much traction as both rear combined. So a car that feels like a limousine on the front holds like a golf cart on the back. If you analyze single vehicle accidents you will find most of them had better tires on the front than the back or a very large weight difference. In fact the worst balanced cars have 4 times as many fatalities as cars designed with better balance. How are you going to tell how fast is too fast under these conditions when it is possible for a balanced car to handle fine on a slippery surface at 50 mph and an unbalanced car to loose control at 20 mph and both to feel the same to the drivers.
