Through the medium of your excellent magazine I would like to instigate what might turn out to be a long-drawn-out argument of the “for and against” type.
I own a 1958 standard VW which has to date clocked just over 50,000 miles (which I might add has been, with the exception of a broken clutch cable and dicky voltage regulator, trouble free). Being independently sprung on each corner my method of wheel shuffling is to change the lh front wheel for the rh, the lh rear wheel for the rh one every 2,000 miles; this operation is carried out twice, and then every 4,000 miles I change the front for the rear.
I am still using the original tyres (Veith) and there is yet some 3/16 in of tread left on all of them. It is my contention (rightly or wrongly) that this fantastic mileage is attributed solely to the fact that this car is equipped with cable-operated brakes, and not hydraulic. I think that with the latter the tendency is to leave the braking rather late, and consequently increasing the drag between tyre and road. With the former, one realises that more pedal pressure is required than with the hydraulic type, And one automatically increases the braking distance by possibly 100% (as opposed to hydraulic types), thereby reducing the wear by 50%.
I hasten to add that I can bring “old faithful” to a halt from 30 mph in 28 ft with just myself on board. I also wish to add that, in common with motorcycle practice, my fronts come on just a shade before the rear (one notch on the adjuster), thereby throwing all the weight on the front.
MB Vickers-Jones. Leconfield.