It is tougher to get and definitely lower life span with the staggered option but they give a better sporty look.
I usually drive my car on dry cold days during winter, so should work for me I guess.
Tried Tire Rack couldn't get the staggered wheels!

 

You can look up wheels and tires in different sizes on TR.

 

What advantage does front to rear even wear give you?

 

this is often debated.. and I thought I regretted getting the square set up, but for actual snow... it is better.

the advantages are longer life since you can rotate (but rotate forward back, don't switch sides... another subject). For actual snow, a square set up allows the rears to follow the path of the fronts without riding on uncompressed snow.

 

Other than having a set of winter tires last longer over better acceleration not much.

But I do find a narrower tire better in slush and snow.

 

Curious how front to back rotation extends life? You're just slowing the wear rate on one while increasing on the other. The overall wear delta is still the same no? You're just offsetting your purchase time.

I switched to staggered this season with no ill effects in terms of stability. Maybe if the rears were 2x the width of the fronts you'd see an issue with the rear end floating. Either way, once you're in a slight bend the rears riding in uncompressed snow goes out the window.

How do they last longer as a whole? If the f/r wear rate doesn't change between years. Aren't they depleting at the same rate overall?

Maybe I'm being retarded, which is quite possible but...

EDIT: Example assumes rears wear 2x as fast as front and last 2 seasons.

5 season period (staggared)
No Rotation
End of Season 1: F@75%|R@50%
End of Season 2: F@50%|NR
End of Season 3: F@25%|R@50%
End of Season 4: NF|NR
End of Season 5: F@75%|R@50%
---------------------------------------
Tires purchased = 6
Average tread remaining = 62.5%

F/R Rotation
End of Season 1: F@75%|R@50% --> Rotate --> F@50%|R@75%
End of Season 2: F@25%|R@25% --> Rotate --> F@25%|R@25%
1/2 into Year 2: NR
End of Season 3: NF|R@75% --> Rotate --> F@75%|R@100%
End of Season 4: F@50%|R@50%
End of Season 5: F@25%|NR
---------------------------------------
Tires purchased = 6
Average tread remaining = 62.5%

 

My fronts show no appreciable wear after a winter, while the rears are down a few /32s.

If I don't rotate, then the rears will be worn in a few years while the fronts will last double the time.

As that happens the balance of the car will lead towards oversteer.

Staggered
After 1st season F 95% R 75%
After 2nd season F 90% R 50% <-handling leads towards more oversteer
After 3rd season F 85% R 25% <-should be replaced
After 4th season F 80% R DANGEROUSLY worn even at 25% would replace.

Rotating
After 1st season F 95% R 75%
After 2nd season F 70% R 70%
After 3rd season F 65% R 45%
After 4th season F 40% R 40%
After 5th season F 35% R DANGEROUSLY worn

Rotating them keeps the wear even. After 2 seasons the fronts and rears are worn equally. In the winter I am less inclined to try and romp on the throttle so I am willing to give up dry traction in the rear.

They seem to last a bit longer when I rotate. I noticed this on my Rx-7 (F&R 245/45/16 <--- yes laughable). When I went staggered I gained a ton of grip and the tire wear became uneven, but thus the cost of trying to put down power.

I only really gain an extra season doing this, and normally replace my winters every 4 years anyways as I feel that they give up grip being older, not sure if that is due to the compound aging, or just less tread.

You still end up replacing tires, no doubt. But I think the balance between the front and rears is more even.

I guess some people would keep a full tread depth front tire on with a worn rear on the track (where grip matters), but I feel that in the snow/packed or loose that the imbalance between worn and less worn tires is noticeable. Much like when on the track you can appreciate the imbalance.

In the snow when you are trying to coax the car around a round about/corner I prefer a balanced car, this also is the 'feeling' that I like on the track.

Cheers

 

They don't last any longer though. Staggered already upsets the balance of the car (oversteer) so I'm not really seeing your point above.

Edit: Re-read my simulation as % of life then. Assuming % of tread left vs safety doesn't change the wear rates and the fact rotating front to rear doesn't decrease wear.

 

A more correct wording that I should be using is that it evens the wear.

A big difference between your scenario and mine is the amount of wear my front tires experience in the winter.

 

yes... the same volume of tire is being worn off... I just prefer minimizing the numbers of times I need to get new tires mounted.

 

A very marginal difference in tread % front to rear between rotating and not.

Rotating increased the trips to the tire shop in my 5 year scenario.


C'mon gents. Just admit it's personal preference based on emotion rather than logic.

 

I don't like being poked... so here is my logic... (and btw, read "Predictably Irrational", best book I've read in years... mind blowing stuff on how irrational humans minds are wired... seriously read it)


Based on my experience with PA4s (10.5 depth) the wear per season is more like:
Rear - 3/10s per season
Fronts - 2/10s per season


The "initial" rears got 3+2+3 = 8/10s gone, start season 4 with 2.5
The "initial" fronts got 2+3+2 = 7/10s gone, start season 4 with 3.5


I bought new tires, to secure them, while riding on the above set up for the first 6 weeks of the fourth season. When they both needed to go, then I made a trip to replace all 4 now evenly worn... and enjoyed a long burnout on the way there...


How can you be more optimal than that?


btw - I asked an old timer racer there about winter tire width and he supports narrower, citing "mechanical grip" advantages in winter. Real Life "Traction" and textbook "Friction" are not the same thing, especially in sand/gravel/snow varying surface conditions.

 

^ This.

 

I still don't see where tire life was increased in your scenario.

Exactly, there's no one tire that will be the best in every category. Key is to compromise the least over all categories and I'd side with staggered now having switched.

Balance in the dry has improved with zero traction loss on snow and ice.

 

In relation to grip on cold dry roads only, I'll raise my hand for more detail.

I find the physics interesting. It's why I read publications like the one below.
http://www.iaeng.org/publication/WCE...p2381-2384.pdf

I just don't see how a wider winter tire wouldn't have more grip on a cold dry road.

 

This. "Old timer racers" follow old time rules. 30 years ago, narrower tires were absolutely the way to go. Luckily for us, tire technology has improved. Now, narrower tires in the winter are an advantage in some situations, like deep snow and mud, but are a disadvantage in other situations, like cold pavement and packed down snow. In the latter situations, wider is better.

 

Well according to Continental, wider is better. Of course this is a conspiracy by Continental to just sell more tires.

Nokian also dismisses the old adage of narrow winter tires. Again, they're probably just doing it to sell more tires.

 

My view is that 18'' is the way to go and not staggered. You get a smaller tire patch but that is what you want in the snow. You can also rotate front to back season to season.
I bought Replika R170s from 1010Tire.com at $168 CDN each. Not sure I made the best tire choice for real snow environments but for Victoria BC they are adequate,

 

I'll ask that you curb your emotions so the men can have a technical conversation. Cheers

 

:lol: And they say BMW owners are the *****s...

 

appreciate your compliance. I want to lean if/why I made a mistake going with a 255 in the rear this season.

 

Not really compliance, more a realization that this forum has gotten more ****y in the past few months.

My understanding is that the old timers recommend narrow tires based on the known ability of a narrow tire to cut through snow far easier than a wide tire. This isn't disputable.

However, this isn't applicable when there is no snow, or very little, to cut through and you're instead dealing with a dry or wet, but smooth, surface. Then, the increased area and increased water evacuation ability of a wider tire offers better grip.

I have not been able to find actual technical studies comparing the two options. I would rather see that than some arm chair physics but I know I'm likely asking too much.

 

unfortunately we don't always get the perfect situation that a one size fits all works in.
In my case I want a softer low temp rubber with a tread capable of displacing mainly wet slushy snow or copious amounts of winter rain and my experience is a smaller patch seems to work best on 8 of the 11 cars I have had. The roadsters and the B didn't require them.

 

This article explains the different types of forces at play. Evidently English is not the authors' first language:

http://www.iaeng.org/publication/WCE...p2381-2384.pdf

A report from the Washington State Transportation Commission comparing studded to studless winter tires:

https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/re...orts/551.1.pdf

The report is at least interesting.

 

Contact GTS Wheels and ask them who the distributor in Calgary is. If they don't have one, you can see if you can buy directly.

These are the wheels:
http://www.gtswheels.com/wheels/e405.html

8.5 et45 / 9.5 et45 front/rear work good, but 9.5 et50 would be better even better.