I always rotate, but I try to do it before the rear starts to flatten out. Usually 500-1000 miles, depending on how fast the tire wears. Then I replace both once the rotated rear is done. I wouldn't want to put one new tire on the front and keep an old one on the back. I'd rather just replace both once the rear is done, even if the front looks like it still has life left. Don't want to turn this into a tire debate, but I can get a ton of miles out of 4000s II's, so I'm not concerned about getting every last bit of tread out of every tire.

When you use up a rear and move the front there, it is nearly pristine. There is no aesthetic downside. Rotating like you do only makes sense if you are trying to use up both tires at exactly the same time, perhaps so you can replace them both with a different brand/model/color/etc.

I'd wager most rear punctures occur with really worn tires which situation occurs much more frequently on the rear than the front. I'll reverse my position here and admit that rear punctures likely do occur more often than front for this reason. Yes, moving a slightly used front to the rear ever so slightly exacerbates this effect as the rear tire is always at least a little worn. I think that aspect is very minor however.

I'm not understanding what you are saying. I wouldn't ever want to "use up" a rear tire then put it up front.

This is exactly why I rotate when I do...have them be worn out (or close enough) at the same time. I have no scientific reason why I rotate the rear up front when I do, but I'd be a little sketched out if the front was really flat. Even if it does not affect the performance in any way, I feel better when I rotate the tire up front and it still looks newish.

I never suggested that. I said, "When you use us a rear and move the front there...." The understood corollary is that the used up rear is discarded.

I love how you know that stat.
Just as a total guess, I would say that over the last 30K miles I've probably got 30 rear flats and 15 front flats.

Used to rotate, but with 4000SII no need, as the sidewalls on the front are usually pretty beat up by the time the rear is worn out so they both get swapped out.

scott s.
.

I feel this way (and that's what I do with car tires - only buy 2 new at a time and rotate front to back), but in reality, I'm lazy with my bike where I do the maintenance myself and sometimes just slap the new one on the rear. Especially when it's a tire/rim combo that's really hard to mount.

The tires will last the same amount if you rotate or not.


If a front tire lasts 3000 miles on the front and 1000 miles on the rear, a front tire with 1000 miles on it will now last 667 miles on the rear.


This means you are now changing your rear tire 33% more often, cutting into your riding time and getting fatter and slower.


Before you know it you are no longer able to ride a road bike and will have to buy an e-bike to keep up with your friends.


Ebikes cost a lot, so now your tire rotating has set you back thousands, your friends laugh at you and all of your KOMs will be flagged for cheating.

Not exactly true. Or maybe not always true. The rotation recommended here prevents the front tire from languishing for years (for a low mileage bike) and possibly suffering dry rot, ozone damage or other age-related damage. Those could cut into the eventual total mileage of the tire.

And before you say anything, yes, I'm reaching! ;)

I hate to admit this, but on the topic of tire change/rotation I agree 100% with the PenMan.

By the way, the average mileage calculation for the front-to-back, new front rotation scheme gets very complex really fast. Seems to end up after a while at one tire per 750 miles like the simpler scheme.

Just did the calculation: Okay, the function determining tire mileage under the 1000 rear miles, 3000 front miles oscillates around buying one new tire every 750 miles gradually settling on 750 at around the 7th tire purchased. Due to the first tire replacement at 1000 miles, however, the average mileage/tire stays sitnificantly above 750 miles for much longer than that. So for most folks, the average tire purchase mileage over a pretty long period will stay several % above 750 miles. Keeping the tires in place and riding each if them to end of life will always be at a tire replacement on aversge every 750 miles. Surprisingly, I was right at the outset. Best mileage is obtained with the rotating scheme, even if only by a little bit.

Surely you know how much I value your support. ;)

You're not reaching.

I'm lazy and never rotate my tires, just replacing them when they're worn, which means that I replace lots of rear tires, but hardly ever replace the front one.

I've noticed that my front tyre of my Ritchey which is approaching 2 years old, and is lightly worn, is showing cracking due to dry rot. This is not a bike that has sat unused for a long time either, it gets used at least 2-3 days of the week.

So now I'm thinking I should probably be rotating my tires to avoid this in future.

That's what I'm talking about! :)

Changing tyres is a waste of time. When it's time for tyres, buy a new bike.

Ooh, I like that.

I would replace it if you do a lot of climbing and descent. Install the new one on the front and more the front one to the rear.

this is one crazy ass thread! LOL!