Are new tires best in front or back?

true, but 25 plus years ago a tire store in California insisted on putting the new tires on the front of a girlfriend's VW beetle. When I told them they were WRONG, they inferred I didn't know what I was talking about. Thare are probably still some idiots who think new tires should go on the front, but, thanks to your good efforts, there are probably fewer of the automotively ignorant.

true, but 25 plus years ago a tire store in California insisted on putting the new tires on the front of a girlfriend's VW beetle. When I told them they were WRONG, they inferred I didn't know what I was talking about. Thare are probably still some idiots who think new tires should go on the front, but, thanks to your good efforts, there are probably fewer of the automotively ignorant.

FINALLY SOMEONE SAYS IT RIGHT. I WORK FOR MERCEDS BENZ AND IT HAS BEEN A PRACTICE TO PUT NEW TIRES ON THE REAR FOR THIS RESON, YOU CAN STEER OUT OF TROUBLE BUT IF THE REAR END STARTS TO SLIDE ITS TO LATE TO RECOVER. CASE IN POINT, MY BROTHER IN LAW ALMOST DIED DRIVING HIS SLK WITH BAD TIRE IN THE REAR, TIRE COMPANY SOLD HIM NEW TIRES AND PUT THEM IN THE FRONT ONLY. HE LOST CONTROL ON A TURN IN THE RAIN AND TOTALLED THE CAR, LUCKILY HE WAS IN A BENZ ,

They are correct. Look at NASCAR drivers....probably the best drivers in the world for negotiating out of a blown tire. Almost EVERYTIME a rear tire blows,the car goes into the infield or causes a multicar wreck. When a front one blows.....they usually steeer out of it. Not always,but most of the time.

As an auto mechanic myself, I can't agree with this. Apologies.

Before I move on, I will note that yes, it is EASIER to stop understeer resulting from lack of front end grip, but that does not necessarily make it SAFER. If you are an unskilled driver its likely the better option, but if you have a reasonable amount of skill, you'll be less likely to crash by putting the good tires on the front and taking on the potential for oversteer.

I live in northern Ohio, and every year I repair crash damage that resulted from worn tires on one end or another, and nine times out of ten its when the tires in the FRONT were worn that something went wrong. The sole exceptions are when the rear tires were worn to near-baldness and could not provide any natural grip on a road that was not bone dry. I've always found that a reasonably competent driver can control an oversteering car better than and understeering one, and I've several times personally shattered people's notions to the contrary.

Perhaps the incidents which occur in my area are because of idiot out-of-towners who have never driven through anything close to a northern Ohio winter, but we nonetheless advise new tires go on the front to ALL of our custoemrs, and we have been thanked for it on MANY occasions when a customer has told us a story of saving an oversteering car in a situation where if they'd UNDERsteered it would have been impossible to recover ad complete their turn(left into a parking lot, usually) before oncoming cars would have hit them. Most recently we were told this by a 71-year-old woman who had always put the good tires on the back before coming to us, and had a few times in the past been in a crash because of it.

I've been in this situation myself. I've ALWAYS had a safer outcome to an incident with the good tires on the front. Nowadays I make enough money that I never have to replace just two tires, but our customers continually inform us that putting them there turns out to be better for them.

Experience out here says the experts are wrong. They can talk about the general behavior of the car all they want, but the skill of the driver does a whole lot more than positioning of the tires ever will. And because of that, anytime someone tries to challenge my stance on this, I am personally capable of climbing into virtually any car and proving it.

The "experts" are simply try to protect the company from idiots who would sue them over their own stupidity, regardless of where the tires were put. The information only helps people who probably shouldn't actually be allowed to drive in less-than-perfect weather.

I completely agree with Formula Fox. I have driven FWD drive cars in Minneapolis, KC & Omaha for the past 16 winters and I've always done better in bad weather with the better tires in front.

Once you start to understeer in the snow, that's it - you're going in that direction and there's very little you can do to change it. I simply don't understand how one can say "you have a better chance of maintaining control of the car if the front wheels slide than if the rear wheels slide". No. That just isn't true. You're not in control - you're going in a straight line whether you like it or not. If you oversteer, and you have good tires in front, a quick flick of the wheel towards where your back-end is going will lock it back in and you can go on your merry way.

As an Alaskan, I drove this whole last winter with the better studded tires on the rear and older worn summer tires on the front.
I have a 1986 VW Vanagon with rear engine/rear wheel drive, “Detroit” locking differential.
I figure that the condition of the front tires dictates my speed. If I had the traction up front, the rear would be over taking me all the time! Provided I could get the van moving to begin with.
If I drive fast enough that the front would fail to take a corner, then I am going too fast for conditions!
This is first year that I haven’t had studs all the way around. When I did, I’ve always had the more worn tires/studs in the front.
This strategy has worked well for me for the last 24 1/2 years and the 345,000 miles I’ve clocked on the odometer.
As I see it, from ice on the ground all winter perspective, new tires should go on the rear on a rear wheel drive.
The debate over front wheel drive rages on….. In early 80’s I had a VW rabbit with studded front and non-studded rear and what excitement I had taking a corner and having the rear end wrap 360 around the front.
Tough decision over needing traction in front so that you can even get going! vrs traction on the rear so you don’t spin out. With studs on all 4, the Rabbit was much less likely to spin out. But when it did, it was still the rear racing the front down the road! It is probably right to have better traction in rear to head off a spin out, but with more worn tires/studs in front, one risks likelihood of being stuck spinning front tires on ice more often. Many people in Alaska chance the better tire up front in order to keep from getting stuck.
I understand that in the trucking industry, they put new tires on the front, for sake that the tire is new and uninjured from hitting any road hazards. The front tire is rotated into the back joining 3 other tires. If a rear tire blows, 3 others are there to cover. If the front tire blows, heaven help you!

LeEric, the problem is that you don't HAVE to be going too fast for conditions for something to happen. I would expect that as an Alaskan you would know this(I have family in Alaska, all of whom agree with me on this matter). You can be driving in a perfectly safe manner for the conditions, and all you have to do is hit the brakes in a way that shouldn't cause a problem, and BAM! all of a sudden you're sliding. Remember, we're dealing with WORN TIRES, they will NOT behave the same way a proper tire will. Even the most safe driving habits guarantee nothing at all. Its better to favor some level of potential control over going straight on into another car or a guardrail.

gotta agree with formula fox on this one. every time i hear the "goods on the rear" argument they NEVER talk about driver skill/training. after 36 years of driving both fwd and rwd cars on both public roads and racetracks, i've never had a fwd car lose the rear end unless i was trying to make it happen. rwd...different story. most drivers simply have not been trained well enough and don't know what to do when experiencing either understeer or overstreer conditions.

I had an argument with my boss today on a car that came in. She wanted two tires but needed all 4. Policy says better on the rear but with the way her alignment was wearing the tires it would be hard to go from Nashville TN back home to Memphis TN. How do i know this well the two tires we replaced blew out as she was on her way to Nashville. I said that the tires wouldn't make the drive. He said in a very insulting manor that the industry standard is that the better go on the rear. For fear of insulting his lack of knowledge i did as i was told. i just hope she got home safely.

I don't think this makes much sense at all. Last night I hit a pothole on the right side of my car that completely destroyed both passenger side tires. I took it in to buy 2 new ones and told the girl that I only wanted 2 tires (of course she recommended 4) and to just put them on the front. She told me that it was much better to put them on the back instead. This was at a walmart, and the girl at the counter looked about 20, and probably somewhat clueless, so instead of arguing I told her to just let the mechanics do whatever is best. I naturally assumed they would put them on the front, but when they were done I was surprised to see the new ones on the back and the worn ones on the front. I drive a Honda Civic, it's front wheel drive of course, and I really can't fathom how this makes any sense at all. The front tires will wear so much faster than the back ones, and when they do I'm going to lose both traction and mpg and I'll have to go back in to have another pair added in no time I'm sure. I live in Lawrence Kansas and I know how to drive a car in bad conditions. Not having good tread up front is a TERRIBLE idea. You might not lose control of the rear of the car, but you're definetly going to lose control of the front. I don't know if anyone realizes this but whichever way the front of the car is going, the rear is going to follow, and in the case of icy conditions it's probably going to be straight into a ditch.

luke- i work at a walmart and have documentation from both bridgestone and goodyear stating that new tires should be applied to the rear axle. you shouldn't let the girl's age dictate her intelligence. i know walmart's tire and lube express' often get a bad rapport, but many of the stores run a professional and knowledgeable business. i challenge all of the old school/ i've been driving "x" of years people and "auto mechanics"(aren't we all) to do your research. just do a search on google or youtube.

Front tires wear faster!

If the back tires have suffecient tread then leave them there until time to rotate.

If you put new tire on the back then how can you ever expect to rotate to the front?

The fronts will then be useless at time of rotation and you will need 2 more tires and the cycle will continue.

I keep seeing these reports from tire manufacturers and dealers. These people all have one thing in common, they are trying to sell tires. I can't help but think their reports are biased. Show me a study and report from a third party that is unbiased and I might start believing them.

I do agree that putting new tires on the rear will help the rear tires have more traction in a situation where they would slip and allow the driver to lose control however, I think there are many more situations where the front wheels could slip causing the driver to lose control than the rear. I think that the best tires should be where most of the braking and control of the vehicle should be. Even on RWD vehicles, I feel the best tires should be up front for safety reasons. There is no use in being able to get moving if you can't stop safely.

John - Depends I suppose how "bad" the front tires are. You might need new tires anyway when it comes time to rotate.

If they're less then 6/32 you might avoid Snow/Ice conditions with them. Less then 4/32 rain/wet conditions. 2/32 they need replacement.

So assuming the "two tire only" replacement is due to normal wear and tear... the other two aren't far behind. Then you'll rotate in another two fresh tires in back (with the almost new rotating to the front).

One might suggest as long as your tires (all 4) are above 6/32 you should have plenty of tread to avoid the Hydroplaning that is probably being considered more likely in a "typical" 2 tire swap.

At some point 4 tires is the only option. But if a driver pays attention to the tread... They can plan to cycle in a pair of tires while the others are still "good" (say 4/32-6/32) so they don't have the risk of running near 2/32 tires with NEW tires (in Winter/Rain Season).

I'd suspect this is the concern tire makers/installers are worried about when putting fresh in the back... Because many drivers aren't planning ahead. They want to run their vehicle in a a dangerous (or nearly so) configuration... when they really do need 4 good tires (but want to save a few bucks).

"Fresh on the back" is just the best option to maintain control of the vehicle. If the vehicle can't be controlled safely on the "old" tires then they need replacement too. No ifs, ands, or buts.

I was always told to put the new tires or better tires on the front regardless of front or rear wheel drive because you steer with the front of the car. Have you ever tried to control a car with a front wheel blow out...I have and it is not easy. Very dangerous it is much easier to control a car if you have a rear wheel blow out because you still have control of the front of the car and can steer to safety much easier. I will always keep my better tires on the front no matter what! ! !

The argument for putting the new tires on the back makes perfect sense when you're talking about driving in snow or icy conditions. But I live in LA where snow and ice just don't happen. Is it STILL preferable to put the new tires on the back in warm climates?

While I wouldn't disagree with the notion that your "better" tires should go on the rear, doesn't that mean you'd never rotate your tires on a front wheel drive car?

On a FWD car, your fronts wear faster that your rear. Rotating the fronts to the back mean that you're putting a tire with more wear on the rear of the vehicle. Even if it's just a matter of a MM or two, rotating tires on a FWD car results in a violation of the manufacturers "rule" that good tires should go on the back.

Further complicating this is that if I decide to not rotate my tires in order to keep the "better two" on the rear, and then attempt to replace my two "bad" tires, places like the Tire Rack have a policy of replacing the rear two when only a set is purchased.

What's a FWD owner to do? Rotate his two bad tires to the back where they don't belong, or fail to rotate your tires like you're supposed to do?

While I wouldn't disagree with the notion that your "better" tires should go on the rear, doesn't that mean you'd never rotate your tires on a front wheel drive car?

On a FWD car, your fronts wear faster that your rear. Rotating the fronts to the back mean that you're putting a tire with more wear on the rear of the vehicle. Even if it's just a matter of a MM or two, rotating tires on a FWD car results in a violation of the manufacturers "rule" that good tires should go on the back.

Further complicating this is that if I decide to not rotate my tires in order to keep the "better two" on the rear, and then attempt to replace my two "bad" tires, places like the Tire Rack have a policy of replacing the rear two when only a set is purchased.

What's a FWD owner to do? Rotate his two bad tires to the back where they don't belong, or fail to rotate your tires like you're supposed to do?

Well I learned the hard way about the pair of tires.
Had 2 new tires put on my 07 Eclipse. The was on the rear of car new, Had tires bal and rotated after 3k miles had no problems with them at all.
Then one friday night driving home in a heavy rain, on I-95 soon as car went from asphal to cement bridge. cars rearend spun around so fast did not have a chance to do anything. did a 180 at 60 mph so I was done. hit the grass going backwards tell it stoped car was totaled out as motor had a big hole in it from somthing on the road side in the high grass.

I will never just do 2 tires again its 4 for me as I was one lucky man that night.

The tires on the rear theory is terribly flawed. First, where is the independent credible "research" study. An industry study? (just think of the lies told to us by big oil, tobacco, pharma) A bunch of guys fooling around in a parking lot isn't credible either. Secondly, how realistic are the conditions of these videos the tire dealers show? The videos I've seen show someone speeding through an open space flooded with water twisting, turning, and jerking the car in different directions. Of course, the car's going to hydroplane. Fool around in a parking lot long enough and you'll realize you can do one on purpose. Logic also reminds us that we can still hydroplane even with brand new tires on and that there is no way to accurately calculate the odds because of differing conditions. Thirdly, the videos these tire dealers show us use mostly rear wheel drive vehicles and expect us to accept that rear and front have no difference when we know it's a world of a difference, but I guess most people don't even realize what they're looking at on these videos. Thirdly, how credible is a video? I can show you all kinds of things on the internet and Youtube; it doesn't mean any of its real; it's the internet, come on. Fourth, do we simply trust the manufacturer's word? I was told this was an "industry recommendation" and it seems that the big companies now all blindly follow it because they're told to. These industry recommendations are basically making us burn through tires faster and/or buy all four at once; more money in their pocket. It would be like a computer company telling you to upload all you want. There's not an independent study that backs up these claims. I'm not a race car driver, but I've been driving for over 25 years in some of the worst conditions in the rainy pacific northwest and wintry northeast and I've never had a problem. Of course, the one time I do, they'll blame it on my tires. How about we just accept that accidents happen and try driving a little more careful?

Larry, I agree we should all accept that accidents will happen. Here's why I think two new tires go on front. When we drive in the rain and are following someone we are told to stay in there tire tracks b/c the water has been displaced. So therefor the car will have more contact with the road. If I wasn't following someone I would think then the two new tires on the front would displace more water, than two tires on the front with no tread and allow the rear more contact with the road.

I've been in the tire business for many years and have run two successful shops. I can tell you from looking at the research that having two bad tires in the back is a really bad idea. This is why the manufacturers and dealers are wanting the two new in the rear. It is correct though that front wheel drive cars are obviously going to wear the two front tires out much faster. Here is what I do at my shop. If the rear tires already have good tread, I install the new tires on the front and always have them rotate every six thousand miles or when required. You don't want to put two new tires on any vehicle and leave two bald ones in the back because that could result in an accident that you would potentially be liable for. If a person comes in with four wore out tires, they need to install them in the back till they can get the other two replaced. You always want to have a good amount of tread in the back to hold you on the road. On a rear wheel drive, the two new tires always go in the back.

I agree with Skip. Experience is the best teacher. Best tread s/b on the back - always. Last year, I left for work early due to steady rainfall, knowing my tires were worn, wanting to take my time, I was going approx. 47mph in a 55 zone when the rear end of my Camry spun around so fast I could practically read the license plate. I spun 1 1/2 times, crossed center line and ended-up in a parking lot on the other side. Luckily no one was coming the other way. Fifteen years prior, same thing, while accelerating on wet pavement to merge onto a new section of I-40. I spun across (4) lanes and wound up facing on-coming traffic as my car sat just inches from the cement divider. Lucky again. A few month prior to that, riding w/ my brother, his front tire blew-out on a long narrow two lane brige. He managed to drive nearly a mile without wavering until we reached a safe place to stop.

FANTASTIC CONVERSATION!!!!!! First off, if a customer has 4 tires that are not relatively equal in tread depth and condition of tread than they are NEGLECTING their tire maintenance. That's right tires need maintenance. You should never have to buy less than 4 tires or less than 5 tires if you have a full size spare. proper maintenance keeps tires filled with air, rotated around (even full size spares) so that all tires enjoy the same tread wear, periodic alignment checks to keep that wear minimum, and balancing because tires just won't wear at precisely the right amount to keep them balanced through thte life of the tire. I almost forgot, this improves fuel mileage as well. It almost sounds like the tire manufacturers have found that it is easier to unblame their tires from the cause of an accident if the wheels on the front can't grip and go straight (e.g. the wheels must have locked up, must be a braking problem) as apposed to the front tires weren't sliding so it must have been the tires couldn't hold the road. @Walt, if you were doing 40mph in your Camry would you have still gotten into an accident? There is no such thing as an accident. If a car crashes or just loses control then someone was driving beyond the abilities of the vehicle or a component malfunction. If you think 47mph was slow enough (sorry Walt but you were the last post and I can still see your name as I post, no offense just example) then maybe you just made a bad decision. The tire manufacturers aren't interested in our safety, they are interested in not paying for court costs and keeping that money in their pockets and if they sell a few more tires with that gimik then that's bonus for them. If someone has a crash because of a half set of worn out tires then somewhere they made a bad decision, either they didn't take the advice of someone recommending 4 tires, or getting a balance and rotate, or checking air pressure, or checking alignment, or balancing or worse yet getting their car serviced regularly somewhere that did not take the time to explain and EDUCATE them on proper tire maintenance. I admit I drive fast but I still feel like the turtle in the race because I don't drive out side of mine or my vehicles abilities and get out of the way of the one behind me that wants to go faster. Let them find that bad patch of road first, gives me more time to react. CHEERS!!!!

Only a fool would put rag tires on the front of a car...good tires always go on the front...anyone who say's otherwise is stupid...AND DON'T GIVE THAT PROFFESSIONAL OPINION B.S....

Hi Tom and Ray,

I bought 4 new times in January 2011. I recently took my car in for an oil change and asked from them to check the tires. The front tire tread is 6/32nds and the rear tread is 9/32nds. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area - no snow but rain.
The mechanic told me I should rotate the front tires to the rear on my next visit. Now I am confused because I am reading that you are supposed to leave the best tires on the rear. Do you have any advice for me?

Thanks in advance!
Mary

I think it depends on the amount of tread left on whether you should rotate to the back. If you never rotate then the front tires will go bad (3/32nds or less) and need replacing while the back tires may still be good for another 15k miles before they get to less than 3/32nds or less. If you just buy two and put them on the back and try to get more value then your stuck with two ok tires on the front and two great tires on the back. I think that is where performance in bad road conditions can make it difficult on the driver because of the amount of gap in treads from front to back.

So keep rotating every 6k miles or every two oil changes until the front tires are 3/32nds. Once that happens (then if you properly rotated) the back should be around 4-5/32nds. Then replace all four. If you want to keep the two 5/32nd tires to rotate back in a few years later to maximize cost you can. When the above scenario comes back (front is 2-3/32 and the rear are 5/32), then you can throw the two from storage on the front and then you'll have two sets of 5/32nds on the ground and that may last you another 6-10k miles then you can replace all 4.

I just bought 4 new Yokohama tires for my 2009 mini van with 30k miles (avg 10k per yr). I never rotated the tires. The tires were rated at 60k, but I had to replace at 30k. The fronts were probably 1-2/32nds and the rear probably 6/32nds. It vaguely crossed my mind to keep the two rear as spares, but I heard my wife's voice... "You what?! You kept the two old tires to hoard space in the garage as homes to spiders!! For what, so you can rotate back in to save a few bucks over the unknown future lifespan of the van. Forget that just get 4 new, it's safer and if you are that anal about saving money you should have rotated them in the first place and that would have gotten you the extra 10+k miles." So I didn't keep them.

Interesting note, I went to Yokohama's website and under Tire Care and Safety and NO mention at all about tire rotation. Tire pressure, alignment, balancing etc... covered there but not rotation. I think they are wise to the conundrum, that if the back two should always be the best two then why rotate at all. They probably believe tire rotation is really good, but then they are exposed by indirectly promoting to having the two best on front for a period of time. And it's not "reasonable" for customers to keep track of tire tread depth on their own, rotate and drive conditions accordingly. Just keep the conversation on when to change tires with new ones and the two new on back policy helps keep selling four.

if you have a front wheel drive car it is best for the new tires to be on the front, because the rear of the car fallows the front and if the front slides off the road so does the rear, cause the front uses 70% to 90% of the brakes and it cant get traction or hold its grip your going to crash. you'r car's steering is up front and 70%-90% of you'r brakes are the front ones and if you can control the heavy end of you'r car then the rear end will fallow and stay on the road

I have lived in Colorado for 39 years. Sun, rain, snow, ice, etc.
I have also been a master mechanic for a good bit of that time.
I can tell you we get some pretty nasty, quickly changing road conditions. If you happen to have to engage in a panic stop or evasive maneuver, (who hasn't?), and you have the bad tires on the front, You ARE going to be involved in a crash. You'll have no steering and no brakes. The new tires on the back end of you're vehicle will only serve the purpose of adding extra weight and therefore extra damage to the crash.
If you're driving to fast for conditions, that's your fault, not the tires'. The lesson is, learn to drive. If you can manage that, the good tires on the front are a lot more likely to save your ride and more importantly, your life.
Not to mention proving you're not an idiot for believing an "industry" study meant to vacuum out your wallet...

As someone who drives Honda Civic FWD, I can tell you this whole new tires to the rear is complete BS. I drove with never putting new tires on the rear, they lasted 5 years before they got replaced for drying out not tread ware. The tread wares so slowly on FWD cars chances are they will rot well before they go bald. These people who keep saying "Well your tail end will swing around etc." BS again, you know how hard it is to turn the rear of a FWD car around with really jerking the steering wheel? Its not easy. So from 94-2012 (sold the Civic) I drove with new tires only ever being put on the front, never had one problem other then pissy tire sales man trying to get me to put them on the back so next time I come in he gets to sell me 4. Always go with logic.

I understand the arguement. My problem is when they assume that the 2 tires that are on front of the vehicle that you want to put on the back of the vehicle are bad tires. I had 2 good tires on the front of my vehicle but I wanted the new tires to go on the front and the older (not bald or bad tires to go on the back). The saleman tried to convince me otherwise, and I understand that if a tire is not within the standards that it shouldn't be on the vehicle in the first place. But when the tires are good tires I don't buy the argument (or the tires for that matter) that the new tires needs to be in the back. If that were the case, I would always need new tires on the back of my vehicle.

I understand all of the arguments here -- both for and against new tires in the back. All I've got to say is that you do NOT want bald tires in the back. With a FWD car, all you've got to do is take a turn too quickly, and all of a sudden you'll be pointed back the way you came. I'm a very experienced winter driver --both FWD and RWD, and I've got to say that once a FWD loses traction in the back, good luck trying to avoid spinning around.

Let's look at the situation from a 20,000 foot view for a front wheel drive car: The function of front tires is to control the car, provide ~70% (Majority) of the braking forces, put acceleration forces to the ground, and hold up the majority of the car's weight (engine and tranny are above the front tires). Rear tires are responsible for ~30% Braking and to help keep car going straight. Braking, Turning (Control) and Accelerating make up most of what we do while driving and we rely on the front tires to do most of it. Good front tires are crucial to do them safely.
Let's look at the cons for putting bad tires on the front: You will not be able stop as good - Major safety factor as we use and rely on the brakes all the time, If a front tire blows out, the ability to confidently control the vehicle is significantly compromised and another safety issue (Remember the other steering you are left with is a worn tire), also there is a loss of traction turning (another safety issue), then we have a possible issue of getting moving, which may be harder to do, depending on conditions.
The Videos and blogs you find on the internet pertain mainly to wet conditions and if we put blinders on and look only at that issue, they have a great point, but if we take off the blinders, and look at all of the other reasons for putting new tires on front, has significant safety and control benefits over putting new tires on the rear philosophy
The "safety" points stated by manufacturers about putting new tires on the rear are focusing on the ONLY positive reason for new tires on rear, which is an extreme circumstance of the rear sliding (Driving too fast for conditions ?) and nothing else. I hope anyone not replacing all 4 tires remembers that they still have 2 "less than optimal" tires and driving habits should always be more cautious and conservative.
Manufacturers want to keep from getting sued and to sell more tires, period. I wonder if there's data on how many accidents happen due to lack of braking or control with bad tires in front and new tires on rear ? If you live in an area with routinely wet conditions, you probably ought to get 4 new tires as hydroplaning front tires is a bad situation too - no steering is a big problem !
I'm sure that someone will try to pick this apart, but you have to look at the whole picture.