Date:         Sun, 26 Dec 1999 21:51:41 -0600
Reply-To:     chris smith <chris.smith@AQUILA.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         chris smith <chris.smith@AQUILA.COM>
Subject:      Re: More counter-intuition re traction (some token VW content)
Comments: To: Judith Barr/Leo Girard <lgirard@BMTS.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 01:40 AM 12/26/99 -0500, Judith Barr/Leo Girard wrote:
>Hi all,
>I have been interested in the discussion re tire width & traction. It
>reminded me of another counter-intuitive statement I read about two years
>ago re snow tires on front wheel drive vehicles.
>This was attributed to a race car driver of some repute (I forget the name
>at the moment). He said if you were to put TWO snows on a front wheel drive
>vehicle they should go on the BACK. Make sense to anyone?
>By the way my 85 Vanagon is much better in the snow (35 cm-14" at present)
>than my front wheel drive Taurus.

The racer was Jackie Stewart.  His explanation was very sound.  To keep
control of the car in a skid it is very important not to let the back-end
get ahead of the front end.  He said that if you can accomplish that, 95%
of the rest is controllable with proper training.  Having driven a very
large variety of both front and rear wheel drive cars in the snow, I agree.
 When i was young and thought that i knew better, I tried many times to
control a car with good traction up front and bald-worn-out tires in the
rear.  When things got bad, the rear end would always throw the car out of
control.  1 Oak tree and 1 Nova later, I learned.  Now, even in my 4wd
"Command Track" cherokee the best tires stay in back.  So far no major
spills <insert wood knocking sounds here>.

Your results may vary
Offer not available where restricted by law
See complete rules for details

Chris Smith
'82 Westy
'74 Thing
Too much other stuff