So you are basically saying "Ignore what the TIRE EXPERTS say and listen to me"
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tirete....jsp?techid=52
"The ability to sense and control predictable understeer with the new tires on the rear and the helplessness in trying to control the surprising oversteer with the new tires on the front was emphatically proven."
"When replacing only two tires, the new ones go on the front.
The truth: Rear tires provide stability, and without stability, steering or braking on a wet or even damp surface might cause a spin. If you have new tires up front, they will easily disperse water while the half-worn rears will go surfing: The water will literally lift the worn rear tires off the road. If you're in a slight corner or on a crowned road, the car will spin out so fast you won't be able to say, "Oh, fudge!""
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...nked-10031440/
"Stop with the “even ifs.” No matter if your vehicle is front-, rear-, or all-wheel-drive, a pickup, a sporty car, or an SUV: If you buy only two new tires, you should put them on the back, according to tire manufacturer Michelin North America."
https://blog.allstate.com/new-tires-rear/
"The worn rear tires have less tread and lower hydroplaning resistance. They can lose their grip on wet roads, causing the rear end of the vehicle to swing around out of control."
http://www.discounttire.com/dtcs/infoTiresRear.do
As I stated above: Wilwood and Tilton make some pretty good cash from Brake Bias valves that are specifically designed to reduce rear braking force to improve handling. WHY would they do such a thing? Because a car that locks the rear brakes before the fronts is a hazard. Perhaps they are smoking crack too?
Although you ARE correct that our car has an electronic brake bias system that mostly negates the effects of a minor discrepancy between front & rear traction, but it still cannot negate physics.