On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 10:55:30 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 7:47:05 PM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 6:04:25 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 5:38:22 PM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 5:13:00 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 5:00:32 PM UTC-4, Meanie wrote:
On 7/28/2017 3:44 PM, Roy Tremblay wrote:
What do you think about the 4-tire rotation pattern below?
X H X H year 1
X H X H year 2
etsetera

Basic assumptions:
Assume the alignment is within spec.
Assume the fronts consistently wear differently than do the rears.
Assume that F-B differential wear is symmetric per axle.
Assume the spare is a donut and therefore out of the picture.
Assume a rotation every change of seasons (about 4K miles roughly).
Assume bidirectional tread.
Assume whitewalls on one side (otherwise I could flip them on the rim).
Assume USA crowns, which is to say almost no crown most of the time.

How does the logic of this X H X H rotation pattern look to you?

Assume tires go on in year 1, front to back, numbered:
1 2
|
3 4

The first X-pattern rotation in Spring of year 1 gets us:
4 3
|
2 1

The H pattern in Summer of year 1 gets us to:
2 1
|
4 3

The X pattern of Fall of year 1 gets us to:
3 4
|
1 2

And then, finally, the Winter H pattern of year 1 gets us back to:
1 2
|
3 4

At the end of the year, with this X H X H pattern I devised, I think
the tires would have been on every combination but always as a set per axle
because my fronts wear differently than do my rears.

If I flip them on the rim, does that help in giving me rotation options?



Far too much thought into it. I've rotated front to back and nothing
more. If the car has proper alignment, the tires wear fairly even all
around with proper rotation. Without rotation, the front's usually wear
sooner due to the turning.

+1

That;s all I do and it's worked fine, even wear. There is also the issue
of what kind of tires? Some tires have directional patterns and can't
be reversed, I also think there was some issue with steel belted tires
too, where they recommended not reversing the direction once installed.
But who cares? The simple front to back works for me. I also suspect
this new poster may be Mad Roger, with another rabbit hole?


Theoretically, we should never, ever rotate our tires.

When rear wheel drive was the norm, it was standard practice (and a good
idea) to always keep the best tires on the rear of the car. Better drive
traction yes, but more importantly less chance of fishtailing and losing
control on wet roads.

Then we switched to front wheel drive and everyone thought "best tires on
the front...best tires on the drive wheels". For some reason, we all forgot
about the physics behind hydroplaning and fishtailing. That didn't change
just because the drive wheels are now in the front.

Fast forward to today. Walk into any tire shop and buy 2 tires. They will
point to the big sign on the wall that says "If you buy 2 tires we will
mount them on the rear." It has been proven that having the best tires on
the rear is safer for all vehicles, front wheel drive or rear wheel drive.
Blame the physics.

From TireRack:
"When tires are replaced in pairs in situations like these, the new tires
should always be installed on the rear axle and the partially worn tires
moved to the front. New tires on the rear axle help the driver more easily
maintain control on wet roads since deeper treaded tires are better at
resisting hydroplaning."

OK, so now walk into that same tire shop and buy 4 new tires. The second
the technician makes that first turn out of the bay and into a parking spot,
the front tires are worn more than the rears. 5000 miles down the road it's
supposedly time to rotate the tires, right? Wait, didn't we just read that
the best tires should always be on the rear? Didn't the sign in the shop
say that they will only install 2 new tires on the rear?

If it has been proven that having the best tires on the rear is the safest
configuration, why would anyone rotate the more-worn front tires to the rear?
I guess it's so you can wear the good ones from the rear down a little faster
and then - wait for it - put them back on the rear.

The whole point of rotation is so that there isn't one set that's worn
significantly more than the other, so IDK what faulty starting point
this came from. Simple front to back has worked fine on all my vehicles.

Are you disputing the fact that if you start with 4 new tires the front
tires are essentially *immediately* more worn than the rears? Immediately,
as in after the first turn?

Silly diversion down another rabbit hole. The point to rotating tires is so that they wear approximately evenly.

The point to keeping the best tires on the rear is to avoid losing control.