Per:

Well, I've driven numerous rear wheel drive vehicles with studded tires on
the rear only, never found it to be a problem. Only had one get away from
me, that was a 79 bus, was going along at about 40 in what would have been a
55 zone without the snow when some fool pulled out of a driveway ahead. They
took up both lanes as they turned, leaving me no room to swerve around them.
I had to brake hard, knowing what would happen. Spun around about 3 times,
watching the telephone poles go by, hoping I didn't hit one. Landed in the
ditch between the poles, didn't hit a thing. Composed myself, started it up,
drove it right up out of the ditch and continued my trip.

Never had a rear wheel drive car with studs on all four, so I can't say if
they handle better, and never had a front wheel drive with any studs at all.

John
-----Original Message-----
From: Per Lindgren <lindgre@ONLINE.NO>
To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Date: Monday, December 27, 1999 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: More counter-intuition re traction (some token VW content)

>"John P. Flaherty" wrote:
>
>> Interesting addition to this thread. Here in Maine, a new law took effect
>> this winter. It requires that front wheel drive cars which use studded
snow
>> tires must use them on all four wheels. Rear wheel drive's still just
need
>> them on the back wheels. Any other states with similar laws?
>
>This sounds dangerous, to only have studs on the rear. Here in Norway, you
can
>have two studless and two "summer" tires on the car, but not two studed and
two
>others. Either four studed or none. Also, if you damage the car on slippery
>roads, without proper tires (m+s markings) you can risk no compensation for
>damages. (So, it is understood, but not a written law, that m+s marked
tires are
>required in the winter)
>
>PerL
>87 Syncro 112i
>