Bicycle Mechanics - Rotating Tires

Greetings,

I saw a post in another thread or on another board regarding rotating tires on your bike. I've never done it on any of the bikes I've ridden though I normally would replace both anytime I need to replace one of them.

How about you folks? Anyone rotate your tires?

Zack
319 miles ytd/2181 to go

Yes, I get more wear on my rear tie than my front so I rotate them when one is more visibly worn than the other.

Ditto what Bobatin said. I rotate mine about halfway through the season. It just seems like the right thing to do.

Rear tyres wear with definate shoulders, wheras front tyres wear more evenly. When you buy tyres, buy 3 and expect to replace the rear. Rotating tyres on a bike makes no sense at all.

Originally posted by D*Alex
Rear tyres wear with definate shoulders, wheras front tyres wear more evenly. When you buy tyres, buy 3 and expect to replace the rear. Rotating tyres on a bike makes no sense at all.

Agreed. I tend to subscribe to Sheldon Brown's view on tyre rotation (http://www.sheldonbrown.com/tire-rotation.html).

Originally posted by khuon
Agreed. I tend to subscribe to Sheldon Brown's view on tyre rotation (http://www.sheldonbrown.com/tire-rotation.html).

Ditto. Putting a worn tire on the front is asking for trouble. The perception that the rear tire is more important is a holdover from rear-wheel drive cars. On a bike, safety and handling derive much more from the front, and the front tire should always be in top condition.

When the rear tire is ready to be replaced, replace it with the lightly-worn front tire, and put the new one on the front.

RichC

Ditto Rich's ditto.

Steve "Not a Dittohead" E

I'm glad Zack posted this question. I hadn't thought about it, but now I agree with Sheldon Brown et al crowd.

Move the front tire to the rear when the rear tire wears out and put the new tire on the front.

This is a ritual that I go through every 1,200 to 1,500 miles with our tandems which, if you haven't thought about it, wear through rear tires twice as fast as single bikes. So, from an economic standpoint, it's the only way I can get an honest 2,400 - 3,000 miles out of a tire before it's shot -- assuming we don't cut a tire that SuperGlue can't fix. From a safety standpoint, it also ensures an "old tire" isn't left on the front just because the tread compound "looks" good. Oh, if a front tire gets a cut that can be fixed by a dab of SuperGlue it gets replaced once we're home and sits in queue for use on one of my single bikes or the back tire of the tandem once the current one wears down.

All:

Thanks for the replies and the link. I'm adopting the move to back and new up front rotation cycle.

Zack

JackJones: please read my thoughts below before making a decision, than decide.

I bet all of you that if we took a poll most, if not all of you would say you get more flats in the rear than the front; if this is so, why would you put your best tire on the front? The reason I put my best tire on the rear is not because of the rear wheel drive of old cars, BUT because the rear is more susceptible to flats than the front. The reason the front gets less flats is because you can swerve around hazards only to find the rear does not swerve out of the way as much and catch the hazard, also the front can hit an object and pitch it at an angle that makes it more dangerious for the rear. Also it's easier to fix the front tire.

Now one tire company has recognized this problem and has made a pair of tires to be sold only in pairs where the rear tire is slighty larger with thicker tread and dual kevlar belts whereas the front is lighter, narrower with a thinner tread and only one kevlar belt. That company is Continental new Attack/Force tires advertised in Coloradocyclist. Why would a leading tire manufacture do this? Because they know the rear is more susceptible to flats and it's about time a tire company addressed this; though I feel you should be able to buy these tires separately and not just pairs. Also Rivendell kind of does the same thing with their Ruffy Tuffy for the rear and Rolly Poly for the front thoughts, although these tires are for light touring and commuting, whereas the Continental are for road racing and training.

By the way, I know plenty of riders, including myself, that for years have rode on slightly fatter tire in the rear and narrower tire on the front; I also (including myself again) know plenty of riders that have placed tire liners in the rear and not the front. I now use the Specialize Turbo Armadillos (due to trashy streets and thorny bike paths where I live) so the tire liners are no longer needed, but I still use a slightly larger tire in the rear.

Regarding tires on a tandem, a local couple crashed hard several years ago when they inflated the tires before an outing and didn't bother to check the pressure with a guage. The tires were over-inflated. Only a quarter mile out, they were going down a steep hill when the rear tire blew out. They crashed, and the woman broke her pelvis. She was in training to run her first 26 mile marathon, but due to the severity of her injuries, had to scrap her running plans. Check the pressure! Don't guess!

Originally posted by froze

By the way, I know plenty of riders, including myself, that for years have rode on slightly fatter tire in the rear and narrower tire on the front

This seems totally opposite from BCP and everything I've heard (at least in the mountain biking world). If you're going to run different tire widths, you want a wider front tyre to prevent washout and a narrower rear for less resistance so you can accelerate faster.

Also, as far as fixing a front tyre flat being easier, that may be true provided you're not unconscious after bouncing head first across the ground several times from a high speed front blowout. Besides, I don't think it's that much easier to fix a front flat than a rear and on some bikes (read: those with special suspension hubs/axles) the opposite is true.

Originally posted by froze
JackJones: please read my thoughts below before making a decision, than decide.

I bet all of you that if we took a poll most, if not all of you would say you get more flats in the rear than the front; if this is so, why would you put your best tire on the front? The reason I put my best tire on the rear is not because of the rear wheel drive of old cars, BUT because the rear is more susceptible to flats than the front. The reason the front gets less flats is because you can swerve around hazards only to find the rear does not swerve out of the way as much and catch the hazard, also the front can hit an object and pitch it at an angle that makes it more dangerious for the rear. Also it's easier to fix the front tire.
Rotate front to back, put the new one up front, and if you're really worried about flats: get a tuffy liner. Read Sheldon's article and you'll understand this logic a lot better.

froze: good idea on the poll - I just created one :)

Zack

O.k., but does anyone flip their tires around. A lot of the roads where I ride, have a significant crown to them, and it wears the non-drive side of my tires so I end up getting an assymetrial profile of my tire instead of round. I flip my tires around so the tire wears evenly side to side!

L8R

Originally posted by a2psyklnut
O.k., but does anyone flip their tires around.

It may not be advisable to do this on all tyres since some have tread bias.

I do it at 1000 miles and they wear out at the same rate after that.

Check out tip #4 in this string from "Bicycling Magazine". Not on point, but helpful to know: http://www.bicycling.com/article/0,5073,993,00.html?category_id=365

Originally posted by trmcgeehan
Regarding tires on a tandem, a local couple crashed hard several years ago when they inflated the tires before an outing and didn't bother to check the pressure with a guage. The tires were over-inflated. Only a quarter mile out, they were going down a steep hill when the rear tire blew out. They crashed, and the woman broke her pelvis. She was in training to run her first 26 mile marathon, but due to the severity of her injuries, had to scrap her running plans. Check the pressure! Don't guess!

Sorry, but I'd have to disagree with the assessment that over-inflation caused this blow-out. What is more likely are one of the following scenarios:

1. The rear tire was recently replaced and the tube wasn't installed properly and pinched between the rim bead and the rim which lead to the blow-out.
2. The tire was old and the cloth rim bead -- usually on a wire bead model -- tore which allowed the tube to "escape" from the tire casing and blow out.
3. They ran over something large and sharp that resulted in a blow out.
4. The captain was riding the rear brake on all the way down the hill to control their speed and overheated the rim to the point where either the tire softened up enough to become unseated as the tire pressure increased from the heating and then was pinched as it lifted the tire bead (see 1, above) OR failed inside the tire/rim as the air in the tube expanded.

In regard to #4, it usually takes more than a quarter mile for something like this to happen -- which is actually not all that uncommon for inexperienced tandem tandem teams -- which is why I listed it last. If, however, they were a really heavy team and had been descending a very steep hill for about a mile or were travelling at a high rate of speed (> 45mph) and then dragged the brakes for 1/4 mile it's is possible that the rear rim overheated enough to cause the failure.

Originally posted by OtheloTheMoor
Check out tip #4 in this string from "Bicycling Magazine". Not on point, but helpful to know: http://www.bicycling.com/article/0,5073,993,00.html?category_id=365

Sounds interesting. How do you determine the "flow" as pointed out in the tip? Do tires flow center to edge or edge to center?

Zack

Originally posted by froze
Also it's easier to fix the front tire. Now one tire company has recognized this problem and has made a pair of tires to be sold only in pairs where the rear tire is slighty larger with thicker tread and dual kevlar belts whereas the front is lighter, narrower with a thinner tread and only one kevlar belt. That company is Continental new Attack/Force tires advertised in Coloradocyclist. Why would a leading tire manufacture do this?

The front tire is easier to fix than the rear? I assume what you're actually suggesting is that some folks find it more difficult to remove and re-install the rear wheel since they need to deal with the rear derailleur and chain. Practice or instruction can reduce this difficulty factor to about a 3 second difference in repair time -- otherwise there is no other difference in replacing or patching a tube.

As for recognizing the "problem" Continental has taken a page out of the Shimano play book and created a solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist. As to why they would do this? Well, isn't it obvious - you even answered your own question when you noted that you'd rather buy them one at a time. Continental wants to sell more tires.

Sorry to sound to cynical, but these are bicycle tires we're talking about. The only mystery is figuring out why they cost as much as they do and why road bike tires even have tread pattens since it serves absolutely no useful purpose.

I want to know why tires for my bike cost more than those for my car?

L8R

Raiyn: I have very high regards for Sheldon Brown and he is a very knowledgeable in regards to bicycles. And with all due respect to him, in this one area I disagree with him. Not saying I'm right or he's wrong, it's just my opinion based on my 30 plus years of riding including 12 years of racing. And during those years I have suffered blowouts on tubulars and clinchers both on the front and rear going straight or around turns. I have had more problems handling rear flats than front-when a handling problem happened which was not often. It seemed that with a rear blow out going around a turn, the weight of your body over the rear wheel would make the backend slide out from under you, whereas with the front that was not as severe-BUT that is just my experience and I'm sure others had different experiences, just as UrBanking has had more front flats than rears (see his remarks in the poll).

If you read the poll which ZackJones so kindly did (thank you Zack!!), you will quickly see that rear flats are way ahead of front flats, this has been my personal experience and observational experience as well. Again I ask you all, where's the logic on putting your worse tire on the rear only to suffer even greater flats (due to the worn tire) thus the likely hood of having an accident increases as well?

Because of my experiences though I will continue to practice putting the best tire on the rear and lessening my chances for an accident.

If your rear tire blows it's a lot easier to control than it would be if your front tire did. I'd rather have the flat in the back.

Originally posted by froze
And during those years I have suffered blowouts on tubulars and clinchers both on the front and rear going straight or around turns. I have had more problems handling rear flats than front-when a handling problem happened which was not often.

If you read the poll which ZackJones so kindly did (thank you Zack!!), you will quickly see that rear flats are way ahead of front flats, this has been my personal experience and observational experience as well. Again I ask you all, where's the logic on putting your worse tire on the rear only to suffer even greater flats (due to the worn tire) thus the likely hood of having an accident increases as well?

It's not my goal to change your mind -- do as you wish. However, for the benefit of the folks who are following this thread, you mention "problems" but don't quantify how many times those problems have resulted in a crash?

Let's address which type of flat is more likely to cause an accident. For sake of brevity, let's call it a tie for hard cornering and not split hairs - if the tire goes flat front or rear and a rim makes contact with the asphalt the bike will slide out from under the rider(s). However, let's talk about flats at speed while descending or rolling along on a relatively straight stretch of road. If you have a rear flat you still maintain the ability to steer the bike and to stop it using the more powerful front brake - in other words, you are able to maintain control over the part of the bike that is primarily responsible for steering and stopping. However, if you flat the front tire you only retain full control over your rear wheel's less effective braking abilities which are further degraded because as you apply the rear brake it will still transfer the weight of the rider and bike to the front wheel. Therefore, the rear brake must be applied more carefully so as not to exacerbate the seriously degraded handling qualities of the front wheel. In short, this means you are forced to travel in a straight line until you can stop when you flat a front tire. With a rear flat, you can still carefully steer and stop the bike. Therefore, when all things are considered, a front tire flat is more likely to result in a "problems" that will result in a crash than a rear tire flat when you consider all riding situations.

Now, lets get back to the poll. Even though most flat tires are random events, that rear tires flat more often than front is not surprising nor someting I would contest given that they carry more of the rider's weight, are the sole contact point for the transfer of power from the rider to the ground, and take the brunt from pot holes or other road damage/large debris/obstacles (unless the rider knows how to safely bunny-hop their bike), and often time track though other debris that riders see and steer their front tire around.

So, that road bikes are more likely to have a rear tire flat is not a surprise. However, to assume that the rear tires are flatting more often because they are slightly or even nearly worn out is just silly. A few thousandths of an inch of tire compound is not going to keep anyone from getting a pinch flat (which, in my experience is why you see rear tires flat more often than front) OR prevent a puncture from a sharp object being driven through the casing and into the tube.

Tire Economics: However, I do believe it's rather obvious that the rear tire does wear out at a rate that is several times faster than a front tire. So as a cyclist you can put your new tire on the back where it is more likely to be ruined well before it's been worn out OR put it on the front and have a better chance of getting up to twice as much use from it (e.g., 1,500mi on the front with no appreciable wear before putting it on the rear where it will be worn down in 1,500mi before it needs to be discarded = 3,000mi) before it is junk. From a cost standpoint, there's not much difference in the long run between putting new tires on the front vs the rear but even your arguments recognize that the rear tire is more likely to be damaged which does skew the model to suggest that you will be discarding a rear tire more often than a front due to damage vs tread wear life.
Safety: As a plus, you ensure that the front tire of your bike is the "newest" tire with regard to the compound's adhesive and durability qualities. Taken to it's logical conclusion, a front tire will die from old age before it wears out.

So, with that, do as you wish but carefully consider the facts before drawing conclusions that are not supported by objective data. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll be out changing the rear tire on my Motorcycle which wears out 10x faster than the front tire and isn't interchangable. Thank goodness I don't have to by those in matched pairs.

I am not trying to change your minds here either, if your experiences are different then mine then you need to keep practicing what works for you. Also keep in mind here I'm still talking about road bikes here, my experiences with mountain bikes is limited.

Now I agree with Livingood about having a flat on a fast down hill run, but most folk here probably don't experience that; and the only crash I had due to a blowout was going around a sharp fast downhill turn when the REAR blew and the backend swung around causing the bike to slide out from under me. So I have been lucky or blessed, depending on one's perspective, that I never had more than one serious event due to a blowout and I have had hundreds; my crashes have been a result of cars!

But on the economic side of this issue, it's true the rear does wear faster but my crazy idea is STILL why rotate? I would rather have to buy one new tire every 2,400 miles (that's how long the rear 700x28 last) then have to rotate and go out and buy two. The front will last (using a 700x26) about 3,200 thus I can spread out tire purchases over a period of time; and the front, because I still ride quite a bit, is not dead from old age but from mileage wear out. Also a pinch flat for me is a very rare event, so to say the rear flats due to pinch flats more often is not the case, at least 95% of my flats have been a result of debris. Also as you can tell, I use 2 different size tires so rotating is not an option, but years ago in the race years I rode on tubular that were 19 or 20's all around and still found it to be more practical to not rotate. And to ramble on some more, early on I learned from others to use a slightly wider rear tire (thus the reason Conti's do this with their new Attack/Force tires) due to more weight in rear so wider tire will last longer, prevent pinch flats, and little bit more rubber on the ground to assist in rear stopping traction.

By the way I do use Specialize Turbo Armadillos which last longer than any tire I have ever used and in over 12,000 miles I have not had one flat-but I am no longer racing so the excessive weight of the tire is not a big deal; and if I ever decide to race I would just switch to a lighter tire for the race and train on the Armos.

A agree that a rear blowout during hard cornering is likely to be just as catastrophic as a front blowout during a descent. But the only way to guard against both is (a) keep both tires as new as possible and (b) avoid road debris. I think that hard cornering is a fairly tiny percentage of the time of an entire ride, and a lot of commuters and recreational riders rarely push that hard ever.

In the real world, I think most bicycles in use have more wear on their rear tires. I do think thinner rubber combined with more rider weight is one reason rears flat more frequently, but that's based mostly on subjective data.

In practical terms, for me and the tires I use (generally 700x32 or 28 touring tires), I get *so* much more life on the fronts that they are practically unworn by the time the rear is ready to be replaced. It makes no economic sense to throw out an almost new tire. And yes, I could just leave it on the front, but who wants a five-year old tire on his bike? I generally get about a year -- 5000 miles, give or take -- out of a Conti Top Touring 2000 on the back, and you know what? It's about the same whether it started out as a brand new one or as one that was moved from the front after a year.

There are probably a lot of special circumstances that would change a rider's tire-swapping strategy, and I don't pretend to be familiar with every sub-specialty. My experience is with utility, vehicular, commuting, touring, and long-distance recreational riding using relatively heavy-duty tires.

RichC