Keith,
Unfortunately they're not enforcing the law. They only write it up as an additional ticket after the idiot has caused an accident and blocked the road.
Keith,
Unfortunately they're not enforcing the law. They only write it up as an additional ticket after the idiot has caused an accident and blocked the road.
snailmont5oh wrote: I feel so inadequate when I read this thread. My wife's '14 Impala got Firestone Winterforces a month after we bought it, on Tire Rack's cheapest wheel. They're okay in most situations, but man, will that thing *stop*. I use Cooper/Mastercraft on my '96 F-150 4x4. The reason for the "slash" there is that I'm transitioning from Mastercraft to Cooper. The reason for this is that the tread blocks on the Coopers are straight, which makes them easier for me to re-sipe with my dirt-track style tire grooving iron. The truck has a real unique tire rotation system. When I need new snows, they go on the winter wheels, on the front axle. The ones that were on the front last year go to the back. The ones that were on the back last year go to the summer wheels, on the front, and the ones that were fronts last summer go to the back. The summer rears are bald, and get thrown away. I got four Auto Socks for my birthday last year, so if the E36 M3 really hits the fan, I'm covered. I intentionally got the truck stuck in 2wd (in about 18" of snow on an uphill grade), put the Auto Socks on, and drove out. They're neat. I can't imagine what it would go through with them on all four.
Actually, the tires with the best traction should be on the rear axle on all cars/trucks to prevent oversteer conditions.
I'm another guy who votes for The Nokians.... but as with a few others... my need now (Portland, Or) is far less then my need was back in NE Pa (Poconos)
docwyte wrote: Keith, Unfortunately they're not enforcing the law. They only write it up as an additional ticket *after* the idiot has caused an accident and blocked the road.
It would be pretty hard to enforce any other way unless they had a checkpoint to inspect everyone's tires. Preferably on an upslope 
Still, it gets people thinking about it and it's got consequences, so I'll take it over nothing.
outasite wrote:snailmont5oh wrote: The truck has a real unique tire rotation system. When I need new snows, they go on the winter wheels, on the front axle. The ones that were on the front last year go to the back. The ones that were on the back last year go to the summer wheels, on the front, and the ones that were fronts last summer go to the back. The summer rears are bald, and get thrown away.Actually, the tires with the best traction should be on the rear axle on all cars/trucks to prevent oversteer conditions.
Actually, I tried that with my first four-wheel-drive, and I found that, if the rear has the tires with the best traction, even in two-wheel-drive, then the vehicle didn't stop or steer for E36 M3. I would much rather deal with oversteer than continuously running into E36 M3. Why is oversteer so often regarded as the enemy?
When the 4wd is engaged, the effect is much more pronounced.
Keith Tanner wrote:docwyte wrote: Keith, Unfortunately they're not enforcing the law. They only write it up as an additional ticket *after* the idiot has caused an accident and blocked the road.It would be pretty hard to enforce any other way unless they had a checkpoint to inspect everyone's tires. Preferably on an upslope
I'd be okay with a law like the law in Germany where, if you are involved in a collision and were driving over 135km/h, you are automatically partially at fault.
Not a citable offense, but if you get in a collision, your lack of proper a-tire is admission of partial guilt.
Human nature is a funny thing, doing it this way may net more people actually going for winter tires, which is the end goal, is it not?
G_Body_Man wrote: A friend of mine says that the main difference between Hakkas and Blizzaks are that Blizzaks start to get pretty sketchy around 80 MPH.
I ran into that on my aforementioned A2 Golf. I found that dragging the brakes slightly made the car settle down, no more sketchiness. Full throttle in 3rd gear with left foot grazing the brake! Can't upshift, the drag from the brakes and the effort of driving over/through snow made the car slow down, if you wanted to go over 75-ish you needed third gear.
I'd pull in to the BP a half mile off the Interstate, and my back window would be covered in thrown-up snow and my brakes would be clouds of steam, especially the little 7" rear drums that I think the Westmoreland plant put on my car to use up the last of the leftover Rabbit parts before the plant shut down.
I reiterate, I have never had a car as good a winter car as that Golf was. There is magic in light weight, front drive, and good tires. Granted, the heavy cars (current car is 2900 or 3200lb depending on who you believe) don't dance over rutted snow so they "feel" stable, but when they start to slide, they stay sliding with little chance of recovery, and that is kinda scary. Light cars bounce all over the damn place but that is because they have grip. When they slide, they slide only a little and then they go back to gripping the road.
snailmont5oh wrote: Actually, I tried that with my first four-wheel-drive, and I found that, if the rear has the tires with the best traction, even in two-wheel-drive, then the vehicle didn't stop or steer for E36 M3. I would *much* rather deal with oversteer than continuously running into E36 M3. Why is oversteer so often regarded as the enemy? When the 4wd is engaged, the effect is much more pronounced.
I agree. There shouldn't be a massive grip difference end to end, but I'd rather have a little more grip up front than in the rear. Oversteer is correctable (up to a point), understeer is much less so. Only time that might bite is during a fast stop where the rear end might come around.
But the reason for the typical "better tires on the rear" recommendation is the average driver. To them, oversteer is terrifying and they'll panic and mash the brakes or something stupid. So they're pretty much guaranteed to hit something.
I agree it definitely depends on the car, to some extent. My TDI is capable with all-seasons. Of course, it's better on snow tires, I'm not sure it's worth the additional cost/space unless I'm running dedicated summer tires.
Blizzak W965's on my '95 Cummins 4x4 - that was a serious eye-opener. It was like those tires bent the laws of physics. Nothing that big and heavy (the truck weighed almost 6000 lbs. empty) should be able to stop and turn on ice and snow that well. It was simply amazing.
To me, the argument for snow tires is not how well they help you "go" - it's how well they help you "stop".
I only have experience with Blizzaks, but I'd be willing to give Nokians a try. Especially if they last longer than the "hero-grip" layer on Blizzaks. I also feel Blizzaks are not all that great on dry or wet roads, but my last ones were WS50's. Newer ones may be better.
snailmont5oh wrote:outasite wrote:Actually, I tried that with my first four-wheel-drive, and I found that, if the rear has the tires with the best traction, even in two-wheel-drive, then the vehicle didn't stop or steer for E36 M3. I would *much* rather deal with oversteer than continuously running into E36 M3. Why is oversteer so often regarded as the enemy? When the 4wd is engaged, the effect is much more pronounced.snailmont5oh wrote: The truck has a real unique tire rotation system. When I need new snows, they go on the winter wheels, on the front axle. The ones that were on the front last year go to the back. The ones that were on the back last year go to the summer wheels, on the front, and the ones that were fronts last summer go to the back. The summer rears are bald, and get thrown away.Actually, the tires with the best traction should be on the rear axle on all cars/trucks to prevent oversteer conditions.
For GRMers oversteer is fun/exciting. I learned to drive on gravel roads in the 60s so tail out/4 wheel drifting was the norm. Most drivers have no idea what to do when their car/truck starts to oversteer. If they decelerate/brake quickly when the car/truck oversteers bad things happen. So…, most of the cars/trucks produced understeer and the drivers slow/brake and all is good.
I replace tires when they are 6/32 so I don't have to experience poor traction in adverse conditions.
In reply to snailmont5oh: First, you should always replace tires in "fours".
especially on a 4wd vehicle. The slight difference in diameter can cause a bind that can affect traction.
Extreme case: Old 4cyl Jeep pickup. Bald tires on front New tires on the back. In 4wd on pavement it would stall the engine.
I learned the hard way that putting new tires on the front only can cause the car to become very loose.
I learned to drive stick on a RWD Mazda 626 with new front tires and bald rear tires. On gravel. SO much fun.
Interestingly, almost every Miata we got in here for salvage had a front hit. Almost no "spin off the road" accidents with a couple of memorable exceptions.
iceracer wrote: In reply to snailmont5oh: First, you should always replace tires in "fours". especially on a 4wd vehicle. The slight difference in diameter can cause a bind that can affect traction. Extreme case: Old 4cyl Jeep pickup. Bald tires on front New tires on the back. In 4wd on pavement it would stall the engine. I learned the hard way that putting new tires on the front only can cause the car to become very loose.
I agree with you in an all-wheel-drive, or full-time 4wd situation, but all the trucks I've had have been part-time 4wd, which means that the transfer case is locked in 4wd. This type of system requires that you don't use it on dry pavement. My truck actually has 3.54 gears in the front and 3.55 gears in the rear, from the factory. It makes the front want to lead when the 4wd is in.
[/hijack]
That old Jeep had no center differential in what you call locked.
Agree, most fulltime or part time AWD have a center differential. On some systems it can be locked.
My father told the Jeep owner to put the new tires on the right side an the bald tires on the left.
Axles have differentials. 
In reply to iceracer:
Even then, a vehicle with a locked transfer case should've had serious problems as soon as the operator attempted to negotiate a turn, due to the fact that the rear axle describes a smaller circle than the front, once again putting the system in a bind.
We will be moving to the mountains in Colorado, perhaps as early as next summer. The last time I lived there the go-to snow vehicle was my '67 beetle with studded snow tires on the back. Having spent the last 30+ years in tropical Texas, this thread is gold to me.
So, if you have to replace your snow tires every two years does it really make sense to have a second set of rims?
In reply to Basil Exposition:
Unless you drive like a maniac on dry roads or run really soft studless ice tires (e.g. Blizzak) you should get more like 6 winters out of a set of snows, not 2.
So I have needed tires on my Suburban for over a year now. I don't drive it much in the summer as I have the Delica, RX-7, and REPU for that time of year. The Suburban is in a sort of funk lately, and I'm unsure if I am going to replace it, but if I don't(likely keeping,cuz I'm cheap) what are your thoughts on the Nokian Rotiiva At tires? I would use them year round as they are allegedly an all season tire. Remember my Suburban is a 2wd in the land of ice and snow. I would need 265/70-16 to match what I have on the truck now. Amazon has them around $119 a piece. I've seen them elsewhere online for around the same. I had Hakka's on my Hemi Ram quad cab 2wd years ago, and loved them, but no experience with the Rotiiva's.
In reply to Mazdax605:
It's a mountain snowflake stamped tire, so it can't be that bad, priced about the same as any other snow rated AT in that size so I don't see how you could go wrong.
Well this weekend we finally got some real snow like I haven't seen in December in quite some time. It started snowing Friday evening and didn't stop till this morning.
I mounted the tires up yesterday afternoon and then promptly headed out to the back 40 to test them out. at this point we had around 8-10" in most places bombing through the field momentum was certainly your friend however I was able to stop and then get going from a dead stop without much trouble provided I eased into the throttle (easy to do with the tdi)
On the roads that weren't plowed the tires were really impressive. Turning is a bit like the first time on Hoosiers, you're amazed a tire can provide this much grip in this type of condition. Braking was on par with the blizzaks I've ran in the past or possibly a touch better. even performing "panic stops" at 50mph the car would only trigger 3-4 ABS pulses before coming to a quick controlled stop.
I don't have any slick road/black ice scenarios yet as it was cold enough all weekend that we mostly had dry roads with lots of snow on top of them. I'll report back after we get a freezing rain or go ice racing (whichever comes first)
So far my impression is that these are every bit as good as the Blizzaks I've ran and as expected they're better by a fair amount than the General/Hankooks I've run before that. If they last longer than the Blizzaks did I'll consider them worth the money/recommendation.
The snow is deeper than it looks, my jetta is 2.5" taller suspension than the avg mk4 and the tires are 2" bigger diameter as well.
So, after some discussion in this thread, I'm going to be selling off my no-name, non-studded (but studdable) snows and getting something else for the 2000 Civic that is the designated TSD rally mule. I'm enough of a retro-grouch that I prefer studded snows....Hakka 7s or 8s are at the top of the list, but I'm sure top shelf price. I'd been eyeing up Altimax Arctics (with studs) for around $370 delivered from Tire Rack, but found a very lightly used set of four Firestone Winterforce in the right size, already studded, and mounted on wheels for $200. At full price, I'd probably take the Generals over the Firestones, but at almost half price....how good/bad are they?
Usage is < 1,000 miles/year, dirt seasonal/secondary roads, next to no pavement, deep snow on roads that may or may not be plowed. Since I'm running C-Speed, said roads have typically been polished up to a nice icy surface by the AWD A-Speed guys. 
In reply to snailmont5oh:
Worn and new tires can have a detrimental effect when in 4wd due to difference in circumference.
Unless the transfer case has a differential.
Bump for a slight update. Mounted the wheels on my brother in laws subaru forester (they look surprisingly good on it) and then drove over to WI to do some ice racing. We netted 1st and 2nd fastest rubber tire time of the day and after the morning runs were ahead of one of the studded cars. So i'd say their ice grip can certainly compete with any of the other top tires.
I've put about 6k miles on them over the last 2 months and they still look pretty new especially in comparison to how I'd expect blizzaks to look with similar miles. I'll have to get an exact tread measurement this evening, I'm swapping back over to the all terrains since we're expecting weather in the 60's this weekend.
Overall I'm very happy with the purchase and would recommend anyone considering tires in the blizzak price range give these a try, I think they represent a better cost per mile and you give up nothing in performance.
When we started our Street Legal class, street studded tires were the norm. Shortly after it was shown that Blizzaks were competitive. The street studs slowly died.
Some wanted a return to studs so the Nokian 7's and 8's were vote a spec tire. So now we have two classes. Even so unstudded cars are sometimes beating them. The Nokians do lose studs so their longevity compared to unstudded is an issue.
As far as the Blizzaks wear issues, my WS 60's aged out (9_years) before they hit the dreaded tread depth. Mu estimation is about 30K miles. My new WS 80's on my Fiesta keep amazing me.
In reply to Keith Tanner: Typical when a RWD spins. See it all the time at the ice races. The car spins then crosses the track/road in to the snow bank/guard rail.
You'll need to log in to post.
