Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Tire Rotation Strategy

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
To satisfy both camps. I think it might make sense to rotate the right side tires but don’t rotate the left side ones. So both sides of the discussion would be covered.
This is genius. Someone should do this and document the whole thing. We can find the one true religion!
I would but I don’t drive that much and I swap tires for winter road trips and pay no attention to which position they were in.
 
This thread is giving me a headache.

So should I rotate my tires or not? :(

If your climate is appropriate use winter tires and swap tires twice a year, putting the best tires on the back, otherwise unconcerned with the rotation.

If in Florida or Cal etc. I guess you have to pick which tire god to pray to. There is no solid scientific data either way, just theories and statements from various authorities that have not shared their data. I find the German and Swedish ministers from BMW and Volvo to be most persuasive.

I would think that people keen on Tesla and EVs would be more open to sound rational theories that persuasively question conventional wisdom and old dogma, but apparently not.
 
If your climate is appropriate use winter tires and swap tires twice a year, putting the best tires on the back, otherwise unconcerned with the rotation.

If in Florida or Cal etc. I guess you have to pick which tire god to pray to. There is no solid scientific data either way, just theories and statements from various authorities that have not shared their data. I find the German and Swedish ministers from BMW and Volvo to be most persuasive.

I would think that people keen on Tesla and EVs would be more open to sound rational theories that persuasively question conventional wisdom and old dogma, but apparently not.

Reading through the comments on the TMC forum it appears that on the Model 3 the rear tires often wear out faster than the front tires. So if I were to measure the tires after 10,000 miles and find that the rear tires are at 5/32 and the front tires are at 7/32, why wouldn’t I want to rotate them to even out the wear?
 
  • Like
Reactions: afadeev
I would think that people keen on Tesla and EVs would be more open to sound rational theories that persuasively question conventional wisdom and old dogma, but apparently not.

First of all, stop mischaracterizing my posts. I am perfectly open to any theory but I won't subscribe to it until I see concrete evidence. So far, I have seen none.

Second, I have concrete evidence to the contrary. I have 4 Michelin Primacy MXM4 235/40R18 tires on 4 18" Aero wheels on a RWD LR Model 3. When I picked it up, all 4 tires were at 7.9 mm tread depth. 5,000 miles later, the tread depths decreased as expected, with the rear tires decreasing over 1mm more than the front tires. That puts them at nearly twice the wear rate. Extrapolating that wear rate results in the rear tires getting to 2.5mm (wear limit) in nearly half the miles that the front tires will.

Why is this? Simple -- regen. A RWD Tesla applies 100% of the acceleration force from the rear tires, and nearly 100% of the deceleration force also from the rear tires. This differs from other vehicles (for example, BMWs and Volvos) that apply over 2/3rds of their deceleration force (braking) from the front tires which could result in far more even front/rear wear.

The theory that BMW and Volvo are promulgating is debatable whether it is sound or rational. While it may have some applicability to their particular vehicle models, it doesn't make any sense to attempt to apply it globally for all tires and vehicles. Plus I have contrary evidence on my own personal RWD Model 3, with hard data.

You should be more careful of using words like "dogma", as it seems you have elevated BMW & Volvos advice to exactly that, and are blindly following it without so much as looking at a tread depth gauge.
 
  • Funny
  • Like
Reactions: bhzmark and afadeev
Reading through the comments on the TMC forum it appears that on the Model 3 the rear tires often wear out faster than the front tires. So if I were to measure the tires after 10,000 miles and find that the rear tires are at 5/32 and the front tires are at 7/32, why wouldn’t I want to rotate them to even out the wear?
That would be a perfectly sensible thing to do. Wear the tires until the average wear is half the usable tread depth and the rotate them. This allows you to see if you have an alignment problem and wear all your tires down to the wear bars.
 
  • Like
Reactions: afadeev
First of all, stop mischaracterizing my posts. I am perfectly open to any theory but I won't subscribe to it until I see concrete evidence. So far, I have seen none.

Second, I have concrete evidence to the contrary. I have 4 Michelin Primacy MXM4 235/40R18 tires on 4 18" Aero wheels on a RWD LR Model 3. When I picked it up, all 4 tires were at 7.9 mm tread depth. 5,000 miles later, the tread depths decreased as expected, with the rear tires decreasing over 1mm more than the front tires. That puts them at nearly twice the wear rate. Extrapolating that wear rate results in the rear tires getting to 2.5mm (wear limit) in nearly half the miles that the front tires will.

Why is this? Simple -- regen. A RWD Tesla applies 100% of the acceleration force from the rear tires, and nearly 100% of the deceleration force also from the rear tires. This differs from other vehicles (for example, BMWs and Volvos) that apply over 2/3rds of their deceleration force (braking) from the front tires which could result in far more even front/rear wear.

The theory that BMW and Volvo are promulgating is debatable whether it is sound or rational. While it may have some applicability to their particular vehicle models, it doesn't make any sense to attempt to apply it globally for all tires and vehicles. Plus I have contrary evidence on my own personal RWD Model 3, with hard data.

You should be more careful of using words like "dogma", as it seems you have elevated BMW & Volvos advice to exactly that, and are blindly following it without so much as looking at a tread depth gauge.

I am from the camp of rotation, not because of what everyone is saying, but from the old age practice...

After reading all of this, I am curious. I am in the same exact boat as you with my current wear but with 19's. But I am thinking, if I had all 4 tires of the same exact brand and size, and my rears would wear twice as fast as my fronts, AND I am looking to keep the same exact tires moving forward. One option would be to not rotate, wait until my rear wears to the point of needing to be replaced while my fronts are still valid at 50% and buy 2 new rear tires. Then when the fronts wear to the point of needing to be replaced, I would buy 2 new tries for them while my rears would have gotten to the 50% mark at that point. And continue that pattern moving forward.... Only difference would be that I would be replacing 4 new tires at once instead of 2 tires. One thing I have sometimes experienced when I rotated my tires were a different feel to my steering if the wear pattern was slightly different from the back to the front and I would think this would not be a factor if I didn't rotate and just changed the tires when their time was up.

Again I am still actively rotating on both my truck and car and I also actively check and validate my alignment also. I do this purely on the bases of it needs to be done.... But as I keep reading both sides of the argument, both seem to have valid arguments...
 
  • Like
Reactions: afadeev
One option would be to not rotate, wait until my rear wears to the point of needing to be replaced while my fronts are still valid at 50% and buy 2 new rear tires. Then when the fronts wear to the point of needing to be replaced, I would buy 2 new tries for them while my rears would have gotten to the 50% mark at that point. And continue that pattern moving forward

One of the alleged benefits of not rotating is better handling and safety. How is that possible if two tires are worn and two other tires are new? This does not make sense to me.

I would think that to reap any handling and safety benefits, that certainly all 4 tires must be replaced at the same time.
 
One of the alleged benefits of not rotating is better handling and safety. How is that possible if two tires are worn and two other tires are new? This does not make sense to me.

I would think that to reap any handling and safety benefits, that certainly all 4 tires must be replaced at the same time.

I understand and I would agree but again reading and thinking it through..... You are either driving on all 4 tires that at the last 25% mark are getting closer to their wear mark (one set a little more than the other set) OR you will always have 2 newer tires on the car (either front or back) at all times with no rotation.... I dont know, I think both options have their negatives once the tires are wearing down past their 50% mark......
 
Last edited:
After reading my own post I seem to not have explained my thoughts as well as I should have. My point was at the 25% mark with rotation you are driving a car that has 4 tires with lower thread which means less traction tires compared to no rotation that at all time you would have at least 2 tires with at least 50% more thread / traction on the car at all times..... Now on a RWD car having the car with much less "meat" in the rear with no rotation would mean you are driving it like you had rotated yours tires AND you are reaching your 25% mark in the rears, BUT then since you are not rotating, you also have fronts that are 50% better than those rears..... Am I overthinking this and thinking having 2 tires at all times that have more meat is better than having 4 tires when they have reached their 25% mark thread count and lower....
 
I dont know, I think both options have their negatives once the tires are wearing down past their 50% mark......

That's certainly true, but it's a matter of risk/cost. The handling characteristics, stopping distance, noise, and cornering capability of all tires degrades throughout their tread wear life. The question is, at what point does it degrade enough such that spending money on a new set of tires is warranted? Worn tires will still stop the car, accelerate the car, and turn. But how much degradation of those performance characteristics are you willing to tolerate before spending close to $1000? 5%? 20%? More?

Having 2 worn tires and 2 new tires will also present some type of performance degradation. Does anyone have any data whether 2 new + 2 fully worn are better or worse than 4 partially worn? I haven't seen any.

Even things like the required/desired performance margin come into play. If I have 4 partially worn tires down to 5/32"s, maybe that's OK and within my comfort zone of safety and performance in summer conditions on dry pavement. But maybe I go buy new ones if cold/wet weather is coming up.

Ultimately, all of these questions come down to how much performance do you want out of your tires. If anyone really wants maximum possible performance and safety from their tires at all times, then they should buy a new set every 500 miles. Or is that impractical and does not represent real-world considerations? ;)
 
Am I overthinking this and thinking having 2 tires at all times that have more meat is better than having 4 tires when they have reached their 25% mark thread count and lower....

I would say that is very vehicle-dependent. What's the drive axle? What's the braking/regen/deceleration axle? What's the weight distribution of the car? Does the car tend to understeer or oversteer when pushed towards the limit? When pushing traction to the limit, is that from drag racing (straight line) or road course (turning)?

On a RWD Tesla that's drag racing, having the 2 worn tires in the rear would be the worst case scenario. On a FWD Civic that's on a road course, having the 2 worn tires in the rear would be the best case scenario.
 
Ultimately, all of these questions come down to how much performance do you want out of your tires. If anyone really wants maximum possible performance and safety from their tires at all times, then they should buy a new set every 500 miles. Or is that impractical and does not represent real-world considerations? ;)
Not quite true. Tires need to be broken in and have the molding release compound removed. It's best to have that done professionally and then replace after 500 miles. :D
https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/techpage.jsp?techid=66
 
I gave direct factual evidence against your claim that rotation has a benefit.

No, not really.
You just claimed you could not find any evidence to the contrary, and then entertained us with CarTalk transcript.

One man's lack of knowledge is hardly an evidence of anything other than that man's limitations.


I am from the camp of rotation, not because of what everyone is saying, but from the old age practice...

+1
If you track your car, you KNOW fronts wear out the outside shoulders way faster than the rears wear out the inside shoulders.
Takes about 1-2 sessions to figure out, and start rotating tires front<->back to even out the wear.

But I am thinking, if I had all 4 tires of the same exact brand and size, and my rears would wear twice as fast as my fronts, AND I am looking to keep the same exact tires moving forward. One option would be to not rotate, wait until my rear wears to the point of needing to be replaced while my fronts are still valid at 50% and buy 2 new rear tires. [...]

That sounds reasonable, until you find out that the old tire model may have been superseded by another, or in the intervening years a much better and/or cheaper tire options have become available.
Long story short, it's always better and easier to have the full freedom to shop for a new better/cheaper set of 4 tires, then be anchored to replacing 2 old model tires.

Again I am still actively rotating on both my truck and car and I also actively check and validate my alignment also. I do this purely on the bases of it needs to be done....

I can see a debate worth having if rotating tires was a chore, or cost serious money.
For me it's simple: rotate them each time I swap between summer/winter rubber, or each time I swap between summer/track tires and pads.

If you DIY tire swaps in your garage, it's brain-dead obvious the right thing to do.
If you pay someone else to do it for you, then do the math.

a
 
better handling and safety. How is that possible if two tires are worn and two other tires are new? This does not make sense to me.

I would think that to reap any handling and safety benefits, that certainly all 4 tires must be replaced at the same time.

this is an area where I agree with the (slightly newer) conventional wisdom. New/better tires go in the back.

better rear tires reduce risk of oversteer
better front tires reduce risk of understeer

oversteer generally leads to much worse outcomes than understeer. Understeer is just plowing ahead -- oversteer means spinning out of control into other lanes and cars and ditches.

Replacing tires two at a time, always putting the new ones on the rear, will always keep better tires on the rear providing better safety with always better tires in the rear, instead of having tires nearly worn at the rear because they were rotated down from the front.

6 Common Tire Myths Debunked


Rear tire blowouts v. front tire blowouts...
 
You just claimed you could not find any evidence to the contrary, and then entertained us with CarTalk transcript.

The facts are:

1) German engineers at BMW state very clearly that for safety and handling reasons they recommend to NOT rotate tires.
2) Volvo engineers state very clearly in even more detail, which every pro-rotation person ignores, the very good and sensible reasons to NOT rotate.

It is a fact those manufacturers -- one with a well-deserved reputation for safety, the other with a well-deserved reputation for handling -- advise to NOT rotate tires.

Sorry those facts conflict with the story you tell yourself about how rotating has benefits of . . . . what? it allows any unusual wear to be distributed over the tire? Why is that even a good thing beyond delaying the purchase of new tires?

Don't think that we don't notice that you utterly fail to engage at all with the good points made in the Volvo service bulletin, and only try to refer to the Car talk points -- and again, not engaging with the points made but only to characterize it as "entertaining." Disparagement and attacks are a poor substitute for engaging with the facts and reasons and science.

At best tire rotation saves a few pennies by delaying the need to buy new tires, at cost of the risks of jacking your car and lug nuts, whether yourself or others, and putting more worn tires at the rear.

I see no benefit that outweighs the costs.
 
Last edited:
this is an area where I agree with the (slightly newer) conventional wisdom. New/better tires go in the back.

better rear tires reduce risk of oversteer
better front tires reduce risk of understeer

oversteer generally leads to much worse outcomes than understeer. Understeer is just plowing ahead -- oversteer means spinning out of control into other lanes and cars and ditches.

Replacing tires two at a time, always putting the new ones on the rear, will always keep better tires on the rear providing better safety with always better tires in the rear, instead of having tires nearly worn at the rear because they were rotated down from the front.

6 Common Tire Myths Debunked


Rear tire blowouts v. front tire blowouts...


So with the video and blow out details, If you really wanted to save on your total costs, you could run the car with no rotation and replace the front tires when closer to the minimal thread depth and replace the back ones more often for best traction and safety. instead of rotating them to even out wear and run all 4 towards their lower thread depths....

Interesting thoughts and details. Again I have always been rotating and about to rotate my rears next week since they are worn more than my fronts... And the reason for this rotation is to gain a little more milage before I change ALL 4 of my tires to switch from the factory tires to the new Bridgstone Turanza Quiettrack tires.... But moving forward I may actually refrain from my rotation practice and concentrate on a more active rear replacement and only changing out my fronts closer to their thread depth recommendations.

BUT I will still actively make sure my cars alignment is in check since I think that is a very important factor.
 
But moving forward I may actually refrain from my rotation practice and concentrate on a more active rear replacement and only changing out my fronts closer to their thread depth recommendations.

BUT I will still actively make sure my cars alignment is in check since I think that is a very important factor.

That's a good strategy. And your post made me realize that if one were to use a consistent tire rotation schedule, the vehicle will have tires with less tread depth on the rear axle (non-optimal) for some significant time after whenever the more worn tires were moved to the rear until the front wear caught up to the rears.
 
Recently one of my friends suggested me to get hands-on the Milton Havey-Duty Digital Pressure Gauge & Inflator which is the best tool for car tires to fill up the air and also gauge the air. However, the valve assembly of this tool is made of plastic according to Top 11 Best Digital Tire Pressure Gauges [Aug. 2020] - Reviews and I actually need a reliable one.

I need expert opinions on choosing the best car tire pressure gauge and also a torque wrench that's under $100.

Thanks.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: lUtriaNt