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?

Roy Tremblay writes:

What do you think about the 4-tire rotation pattern below?

Total waste of time.

Drive the car until the tires wear out, then buy new ones.

--
Dan Espen

In article , says...

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?

Years ago the recommended patern was the X type where each tire was at
each position at the end of all the swapping. Even the spare tire was
recommended, which would not be a bad idea was it not for the minispare
as tires sort of dry rot even if not on the road.

When radial tires came out,it was recommended to keep the tires on the
same side so they always turned the same direction. Just bought a new
2017 Toyato and the recommended rotation is to keep the tires on the
same side.

Sure wold be a pain to take them off the rim and reverse them. Probably
would put the letering on the wrong side,and if white wall or raised
letters, they would be facing the inside of the car instead of the
outside.

On 7/28/2017 4:38 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article , says...

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?

Years ago the recommended patern was the X type where each tire was at
each position at the end of all the swapping. Even the spare tire was
recommended, which would not be a bad idea was it not for the minispare
as tires sort of dry rot even if not on the road.

When radial tires came out,it was recommended to keep the tires on the
same side so they always turned the same direction. Just bought a new
2017 Toyato and the recommended rotation is to keep the tires on the
same side.

Sure wold be a pain to take them off the rim and reverse them. Probably
would put the letering on the wrong side,and if white wall or raised
letters, they would be facing the inside of the car instead of the
outside.


Pert of me believes the motive for swapping sides was to increase
business for the garages since the entire car would need to be lifted to
remove all tires as opposed to one side each for front and back, which
most garage mechanics can accomplish.

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.

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?

On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 19:44:40 +0000 (UTC), 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?
Lets hope this is not another assume this and assume that diatibe -

The tire companies say rotation direction makes no difference if it is
not a directional tire, but many years of experience have convinced me
I will never knowingly reverse the rotation of my tires. I move them
front to back every time I do my seasonal tire change.

With directional tires it's a total non issue - there is an arrow
saying which way it MUST rotate.

I'll expand a bit - I have never had a tire that was not reversed
suffer a belt failure or tread separation. Every tread separation or
carcass failure I have seen in the last 40? years was either reversed
on rotation or subjected to extreme shock loads or overhweating from
running overloaded and underinflated.

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.

On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 14:38:17 -0700 (PDT), 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.
In order to keep tire wear even - or to put it another way - to get
the most life out of your tires - you rotate them. Otherwize you are
always either throwind away half a set of good tires, or replacing
tires in pairs and likely having different treaded tires front and
rear - which is ALSO not recommended.
The "ideal" is to have MATCHING tires front and rear - with better on
rear than front second best, and better front than rear least
recommended.

The only way to have matching tires front and rear theough the life
of the tires id ROTATE - front to rear.

Having driven competetively with a front wheel drive car I would never
want different treads front to rear.

I DID drive that way in Zambia with my old Peugeot - Dunlops on one
end and Michelin X on the other. Didn't matter which way, it was not
ideal. I found, contrary to the current wisdom, I was better with the
softer, better tread Dunlops on the front - but hydroplaning is not an
issue on dirt roads or in dry weather. In the slop I found being able
to pull myself out of a corner by powering front wheels that could get
some bite was the best way to keep the back bumper behind me - and
that was also true of the Renault rallye car.

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.

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?

On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:46:57 -0700 (PDT), 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?
Immediately? Measurably? Hardly - but yes, you do initially bias the
vehicle to having more worn tires on the front. See my last post
though, same tires on all 4 wheels.

I've already replied to this -- I'm trying to reply to articles which
have been cross posted. Please ignore.


--
Cheers, Bev
My computer doesn't have to be friendly;
civil is entirely sufficient.

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.

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.

On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 20:16:46 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

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.
No, you are missing the point. The car is designed to handle properly
with equal dread front to back. IF you are going to have different
tread depth front to back, bias towards more traction on the rear is
safer than less traction on the rear - but the IDEAL is equal traction
(tread depth and tread design) on both ends.

ALWAYS best to replace tires in sets of 4, and rotate to keep tread
even.
IF necessary to replace tires in axle sets, recommendation is best
tires on the rear. This is "second best" in most situations (where wet
pavement is likely and higway speeds)
There ARE conditions where you definitely want the better traction on
the front - like dirt running, where high speeds are not anticipated.

I rallyed competitively for 3 years with front wheel drive, and with
hand-brake drifting you most definitely wanted the best tires on the
front. I could convince the rear tires to follow anywhere I wanted
them if I could keep control of the front.

actually wrote:

The only way to have matching tires front and rear theough the life
of the tires id ROTATE - front to rear.

Both the H and X pattern result in matching tires front and rear.
The alternating X H puts any one tire on all four corners in a year.
The two tires on any one axle always stay together as a set.

I had always assumed RWD and all four tires the same model & size.

Tire Rack says there are 2 traditional RWD rotation patterns
Rearward Cross & X-Pattern
And 2 traditional FWD rotation patterns
Forward Cross & X-Pattern
And 2 traditional performance patterns for special cases
Front-to-Rear & Side-to-Side
https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiret....jsp?techid=43
http://www.tirereview.com/back-to-ba...vehicle-tires/

The alternating X & H pattern I devised puts each tire on each corner in a
year without compromising the axle pairing.

The disadvantage is that the direction is reversed.

If reversing non-directional radials causes the belts to separate, then
that's the major disadvantage but I can't find anything conclusively
reliable that says belts will separate merely by changing the direction for
non-directional tires.

On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 03:45:13 +0000 (UTC), Roy Tremblay
wrote:

actually wrote:

The only way to have matching tires front and rear theough the life
of the tires id ROTATE - front to rear.

Both the H and X pattern result in matching tires front and rear.
The alternating X H puts any one tire on all four corners in a year.
The two tires on any one axle always stay together as a set.

I had always assumed RWD and all four tires the same model & size.

Tire Rack says there are 2 traditional RWD rotation patterns
Rearward Cross & X-Pattern
And 2 traditional FWD rotation patterns
Forward Cross & X-Pattern
And 2 traditional performance patterns for special cases
Front-to-Rear & Side-to-Side
https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiret....jsp?techid=43
http://www.tirereview.com/back-to-ba...vehicle-tires/

The alternating X & H pattern I devised puts each tire on each corner in a
year without compromising the axle pairing.

The disadvantage is that the direction is reversed.

If reversing non-directional radials causes the belts to separate, then
that's the major disadvantage but I can't find anything conclusively
reliable that says belts will separate merely by changing the direction for
non-directional tires.
I'm not saying they WILL separate - but you are increasing the
chance. Look at how a steel belted radial tire is built, then envision
how the belt works into the rubber carcass and takes a "set".
Now, reverse the rotation, and see what the steel belt tries to do. It
tries to "take a set" the other way. In doing so, IF IT SUCCEEDS, the
belt will get loose in the carcass, where it will cause heat buildup
as well as weaken the bond between the belt and the carcass rubber.
This is particularly dangerous when the rubber hardens a bit with age.
Some tires harden more than others - so some are more of a problem
than others.
Even without the rubber getting hard, having the steel belt shift
inside the rubber carcass is never good.If the bond between the rubber
and steel is compromized, the tire comes apart.

Running a tire with too low pressure, or significantly overloaded,
causes the same problem with the bond between the rubber and the
steel.

On a TOP QUALITY tire you MAY get away with it, but with so many even
American branded tires being thrown together offshore in places like
China, Singapore, Thailand, Viet Nam etc,do you really want to find
out the hard way???

actually wrote:

I'm not saying they WILL separate - but you are increasing the
chance.

I understand what you're saying and I agree with you that it would be very
important if changing the direction of non-directional radial tires causes
a meaningfully valid chance of the belts separating.

I'm not arguing with you aa what you say makes sense.
I am just trying to find reliable sources that back that up or debunk it.

Most source I found say an X pattern is fine, which, unless you remount the
tire on the wheel, results in a change of direction. Almost all the sources
I found said to use what they call the "rearward cross" or the "forward
cross" which also results in at least two tires changing rotation
direction.

All I'm trying to do is find reliable sources to better explain the risk of
reversing the direction of non-directional radials.

Look at how a steel belted radial tire is built, then envision
how the belt works into the rubber carcass and takes a "set".

I have many times heard about this "set" which seems to usually be
mentioned with respect to radials. If this set is real, it can easily be
envisioned to be from both road crown being consistent and camber being
consistent for a period of 4000 miles.

Now, reverse the rotation, and see what the steel belt tries to do. It
tries to "take a set" the other way.

Yep. Makes sense.

In doing so, IF IT SUCCEEDS, the
belt will get loose in the carcass, where it will cause heat buildup
as well as weaken the bond between the belt and the carcass rubber.

Yep. Makes sense.

This is particularly dangerous when the rubber hardens a bit with age.

Maybe. But Yep. Makes sense.

Some tires harden more than others - so some are more of a problem
than others.
Even without the rubber getting hard, having the steel belt shift
inside the rubber carcass is never good.If the bond between the rubber
and steel is compromized, the tire comes apart.

Yep. Makes sense.

Running a tire with too low pressure, or significantly overloaded,
causes the same problem with the bond between the rubber and the
steel.

Yep. But different issue from rotation.

On a TOP QUALITY tire you MAY get away with it, but with so many even
American branded tires being thrown together offshore in places like
China, Singapore, Thailand, Viet Nam etc,do you really want to find
out the hard way???

You are right that the goal in rotation is to get the longest life out of
my non-directional radial tires. If the X pattern causes belt separation,
that would be counter productive.

Yet the X pattern (or modified-X pattern) is recommended in almost every
tire rotation article I can find, even those from Goodyear and Tire Rack
and the car magazines.

So if the X pattern is causing treads to separate, why do they almost all
universally suggest an X pattern (or modified X pattern) for
non-directional radial tires?

I am still searching for a good writeup that seems trustworthy but all the
ones I have found so far are more advertising gimmicks than they are
helpful.

I'm not arguing with your premise which I appreciate that you brought up.
I'm just trying to find supporting evidence.

On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 04:51:12 +0000 (UTC), Roy Tremblay
wrote:

actually wrote:

I'm not saying they WILL separate - but you are increasing the
chance.

I understand what you're saying and I agree with you that it would be very
important if changing the direction of non-directional radial tires causes
a meaningfully valid chance of the belts separating.

I'm not arguing with you aa what you say makes sense.
I am just trying to find reliable sources that back that up or debunk it.

Most source I found say an X pattern is fine, which, unless you remount the
tire on the wheel, results in a change of direction. Almost all the sources
I found said to use what they call the "rearward cross" or the "forward
cross" which also results in at least two tires changing rotation
direction.

All I'm trying to do is find reliable sources to better explain the risk of
reversing the direction of non-directional radials.

Look at how a steel belted radial tire is built, then envision
how the belt works into the rubber carcass and takes a "set".

I have many times heard about this "set" which seems to usually be
mentioned with respect to radials. If this set is real, it can easily be
envisioned to be from both road crown being consistent and camber being
consistent for a period of 4000 miles.

Now, reverse the rotation, and see what the steel belt tries to do. It
tries to "take a set" the other way.

Yep. Makes sense.

In doing so, IF IT SUCCEEDS, the
belt will get loose in the carcass, where it will cause heat buildup
as well as weaken the bond between the belt and the carcass rubber.

Yep. Makes sense.

This is particularly dangerous when the rubber hardens a bit with age.

Maybe. But Yep. Makes sense.

Some tires harden more than others - so some are more of a problem
than others.
Even without the rubber getting hard, having the steel belt shift
inside the rubber carcass is never good.If the bond between the rubber
and steel is compromized, the tire comes apart.

Yep. Makes sense.

Running a tire with too low pressure, or significantly overloaded,
causes the same problem with the bond between the rubber and the
steel.

Yep. But different issue from rotation.

On a TOP QUALITY tire you MAY get away with it, but with so many even
American branded tires being thrown together offshore in places like
China, Singapore, Thailand, Viet Nam etc,do you really want to find
out the hard way???

You are right that the goal in rotation is to get the longest life out of
my non-directional radial tires. If the X pattern causes belt separation,
that would be counter productive.

Yet the X pattern (or modified-X pattern) is recommended in almost every
tire rotation article I can find, even those from Goodyear and Tire Rack
and the car magazines.

So if the X pattern is causing treads to separate, why do they almost all
universally suggest an X pattern (or modified X pattern) for
non-directional radial tires?

They sell tires. Does that give you an (al-be-it) cynical) answer?

I am still searching for a good writeup that seems trustworthy but all the
ones I have found so far are more advertising gimmicks than they are
helpful.

Like I said - they sell tires.
I'm not arguing with your premise which I appreciate that you brought up.
I'm just trying to find supporting evidence.

You won't find it in advertizing copy. If you ask 50 mechanics who
have been in the business, not working for tire shops, since the
advent of Radial tires, you will find the majority say "the experts
say it doesn't make a difference, but I never cross rotate the tires
on my own vehicles"

That says something - no?

I have never had a radial tire carcass failure on a tire that I know
has never been cross-rotated or run too low on pressure. The only
carcass "failure" I have experienced in the last at least 26 years of
driving on vehicles my family has owned was a set of cheap "T" rated
Tiger Paw Touring that got noisy and developed a vibration on our
Taurus. The tires were on the car when we bought it so no history -
and I know there was at least a few times the tire pressure dropped
below spec. They did not come apart, or even fail to the point it was
visibly detectable, but it sounded like bad wheel bearings. Bearings
didn't solve the problem - new tires did.

On 7/28/2017 2:38 PM, 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.


Then, there's the issue of AWD vehicles. Some or all of them are very
sensitive to different tire wear on different wheels, which can cause
extra loading on drive train components. On my Grand Voyager, because it
has a clutch that delivers power to the rear wheels only when the front
wheels are turning faster than the rear wheels in forward motion, I
operate on the assumption that the larger wheels should be on the front
to minimize possible problems. The front tires clearly wear faster, so
occasional rotation back to front will spread out the wear.

On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 11:16:52 PM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
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.

Again, the discussion was about rotating and the whole point to rotating
is so that the tires wear evenly and there is no significant
difference between front and back. But feel free to rotate your tires
after driving through the first turn in your silly example.

On 7/29/2017 10:42 AM, trader_4 wrote:

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.

Again, the discussion was about rotating and the whole point to rotating
is so that the tires wear evenly and there is no significant
difference between front and back. But feel free to rotate your tires
after driving through the first turn in your silly example.


In the past i always bought tires in pairs, never four at a time. It
was about cash flow, not what axle had more wear. I also learned that
FWD cars have front tires wearing faster and if you don't rotate, the
rear tires can cup and even though they have a lot of tread, they make a
lot of noise.

actually wrote:

I have never had a radial tire carcass failure on a tire that I know
has never been cross-rotated or run too low on pressure. The only
carcass "failure" I have experienced in the last at least 26 years of
driving on vehicles my family has owned was a set of cheap "T" rated
Tiger Paw Touring that got noisy and developed a vibration on our
Taurus. The tires were on the car when we bought it so no history -
and I know there was at least a few times the tire pressure dropped
below spec. They did not come apart, or even fail to the point it was
visibly detectable, but it sounded like bad wheel bearings. Bearings
didn't solve the problem - new tires did.

I do realize that I'm the only one you've ever heard of who is proposing
this X H X H pattern such that, in the end, two things are
accomplished
Each tire sits on each of the four corners in the span of a year
Each axle set remains as an axle set at all times

Therefore I appreciate your experience, as we all have had experiences
which have shaped our understanding of the frailties (and strengths) of
vehicle systems.

For example decades ago a neighbor knocked on my door and asked me to come
outside and look at the front rotor of his new girlfriend's car he was
working on in his driveway. He had the front driver side wheel off and I
still didn't even *recognize* the rotor! It was just the fins and nothing
else! This was a lesson that I personally learned which is that brakes work
(sort of ok) even when there's metal on metal. Excepting the heat
generation, the friction coefficient of steel on steel is "E" which isn't
all that bad in brake pads themselves (well, it's not good, but there are
brake pads with the same coefficient of friction as steel on steel).

My experience with tires is similar, in that they withstand a hellofa lot
of abuse, most of the time. I've driven with multiple patches, mysterious
bulbous protrusions in the sidewall, treads worn to the metal belts, screws
protruding for fear of removing them and losing what air was left,
sidewalls cut to the cord, different tread patters, different wheels,
etsetera.

Of course, it only takes one blowout at speed to kill you, but I've been
fortunate in having maybe a score of flats in about a million miles of
driving where none caused me to lose control of the vehicle.

I've only had one catastrophic blowout, where to this day I don't know what
caused it. The tire had a hole in it the size of a bullet, and the inside
of the alloy wheel was dented as if a bullet sliced tangentially past it,
but there was nothing in the carcass as I was there looking when the shop
removed it from the wheel.

So I repeat that it's better to be safe than to be sorry but in my
experience, tires (like brakes) are almost as reliable as anything can
possibly be in life.

Moving forward, I will keep in mind your fair warning that changing the
direction of non-directional radials "can" influence the belts to separate,
but I'll also keep in mind that many people have said that's only for the
older radials (but I haven't read a single reliable report so it's all
individual experience at this point).

I'm more worried, at the moment, that I don't understand why most
tire-rotation patters for RWD cars suggest the "modified X", and not a
full-blown X, with the driving wheels being moved forward on the same side
while the steered wheels are moved aft in an X pattern.

On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 12:33:03 PM UTC-4, Roy Tremblay wrote:
actually wrote:

I have never had a radial tire carcass failure on a tire that I know
has never been cross-rotated or run too low on pressure. The only
carcass "failure" I have experienced in the last at least 26 years of
driving on vehicles my family has owned was a set of cheap "T" rated
Tiger Paw Touring that got noisy and developed a vibration on our
Taurus. The tires were on the car when we bought it so no history -
and I know there was at least a few times the tire pressure dropped
below spec. They did not come apart, or even fail to the point it was
visibly detectable, but it sounded like bad wheel bearings. Bearings
didn't solve the problem - new tires did.

I do realize that I'm the only one you've ever heard of who is proposing
this X H X H pattern such that, in the end, two things are
accomplished
Each tire sits on each of the four corners in the span of a year
Each axle set remains as an axle set at all times

Therefore I appreciate your experience, as we all have had experiences
which have shaped our understanding of the frailties (and strengths) of
vehicle systems.

For example decades ago a neighbor knocked on my door and asked me to come
outside and look at the front rotor of his new girlfriend's car he was
working on in his driveway. He had the front driver side wheel off and I
still didn't even *recognize* the rotor! It was just the fins and nothing
else! This was a lesson that I personally learned which is that brakes work
(sort of ok) even when there's metal on metal. Excepting the heat
generation, the friction coefficient of steel on steel is "E" which isn't
all that bad in brake pads themselves (well, it's not good, but there are
brake pads with the same coefficient of friction as steel on steel).

My experience with tires is similar, in that they withstand a hellofa lot
of abuse, most of the time. I've driven with multiple patches, mysterious
bulbous protrusions in the sidewall, treads worn to the metal belts, screws
protruding for fear of removing them and losing what air was left,
sidewalls cut to the cord, different tread patters, different wheels,
etsetera.

Of course, it only takes one blowout at speed to kill you, but I've been
fortunate in having maybe a score of flats in about a million miles of
driving where none caused me to lose control of the vehicle.

I've only had one catastrophic blowout, where to this day I don't know what
caused it. The tire had a hole in it the size of a bullet, and the inside
of the alloy wheel was dented as if a bullet sliced tangentially past it,
but there was nothing in the carcass as I was there looking when the shop
removed it from the wheel.

So I repeat that it's better to be safe than to be sorry but in my
experience, tires (like brakes) are almost as reliable as anything can
possibly be in life.

Moving forward, I will keep in mind your fair warning that changing the
direction of non-directional radials "can" influence the belts to separate,
but I'll also keep in mind that many people have said that's only for the
older radials (but I haven't read a single reliable report so it's all
individual experience at this point).

I'm more worried, at the moment, that I don't understand why most
tire-rotation patters for RWD cars suggest the "modified X", and not a
full-blown X, with the driving wheels being moved forward on the same side
while the steered wheels are moved aft in an X pattern.

How's Mad Roger doing today?
Enjoy your mental masturbation!

On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:13:06 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:

Roy Tremblay writes:

What do you think about the 4-tire rotation pattern below?

Total waste of time.

Drive the car until the tires wear out, then buy new ones.

+1
I never in my life rotated a tire, or had them rotated.
For a while I bought my tires used for 5-20 bucks a pop.
Now I buy 4 quality new tires when the old ones wear out.

On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 10:42:07 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 11:16:52 PM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
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.

Again, the discussion was about rotating and the whole point to rotating
is so that the tires wear evenly and there is no significant
difference between front and back. But feel free to rotate your tires
after driving through the first turn in your silly example.

Apparently you haven't been paying attention.

On 7/28/17 2:44 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

The one thing I think I know about tire rotation is do it promptly
on schedule or not at all. It's especially important on all wheel drive
like Subies.

Vic Smith writes:

On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:13:06 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:

Roy Tremblay writes:

What do you think about the 4-tire rotation pattern below?

Total waste of time.

Drive the car until the tires wear out, then buy new ones.

+1
I never in my life rotated a tire, or had them rotated.
For a while I bought my tires used for 5-20 bucks a pop.
Now I buy 4 quality new tires when the old ones wear out.

Yet this thread goes on and on about you've got to do this,
and that. Seems like people like their rituals.

Same with the "winterizing" the lawn mower.
I just stop using it in the fall. In the spring it starts right up.
I've got at least 50 years of not rotating my tires and not
winterizing the lawn mower under my belt. No ill effects
noticed so far.

--
Dan Espen

On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 11:18:22 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 7/29/2017 10:42 AM, trader_4 wrote:

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.

Again, the discussion was about rotating and the whole point to rotating
is so that the tires wear evenly and there is no significant
difference between front and back. But feel free to rotate your tires
after driving through the first turn in your silly example.


In the past i always bought tires in pairs, never four at a time. It
was about cash flow, not what axle had more wear. I also learned that
FWD cars have front tires wearing faster and if you don't rotate, the
rear tires can cup and even though they have a lot of tread, they make a
lot of noise.
Another good reason to "rotate"

On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 16:15:14 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 10:42:07 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 11:16:52 PM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
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.

Again, the discussion was about rotating and the whole point to rotating
is so that the tires wear evenly and there is no significant
difference between front and back. But feel free to rotate your tires
after driving through the first turn in your silly example.

Apparently you haven't been paying attention.
Too mentally broke to pay attention.

On 7/29/2017 11:22 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 11:18:22 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 7/29/2017 10:42 AM, trader_4 wrote:

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.

Again, the discussion was about rotating and the whole point to rotating
is so that the tires wear evenly and there is no significant
difference between front and back. But feel free to rotate your tires
after driving through the first turn in your silly example.


In the past i always bought tires in pairs, never four at a time. It
was about cash flow, not what axle had more wear. I also learned that
FWD cars have front tires wearing faster and if you don't rotate, the
rear tires can cup and even though they have a lot of tread, they make a
lot of noise.
Another good reason to "rotate"


The rear tires on my Regal had 50,000 mils and could have easily gone
another 10+ but I could not stand the noise any more. I've rotated since.

On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 11:29:26 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 16:15:14 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 10:42:07 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 11:16:52 PM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
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.

Again, the discussion was about rotating and the whole point to rotating
is so that the tires wear evenly and there is no significant
difference between front and back. But feel free to rotate your tires
after driving through the first turn in your silly example.

Apparently you haven't been paying attention.
Too mentally broke to pay attention.

Clare, you just keep attacking me, for no reason. I didn't say a damn thing about you or anything you said in this thread. What I said fully agreed with what you're saying. You claim to have me blocked, yet you keep taking these cheap shots at me, for no reason. WTF is your problem? Going senile? Go **** yourself.

On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 8:36:06 PM UTC-4, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 7/28/17 2:44 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

The one thing I think I know about tire rotation is do it promptly
on schedule or not at all. It's especially important on all wheel drive
like Subies.

And what bad happens if you go say 50% or 100% past schedule and then rotate them?

On 7/30/17 6:18 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 8:36:06 PM UTC-4, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 7/28/17 2:44 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

The one thing I think I know about tire rotation is do it promptly
on schedule or not at all. It's especially important on all wheel
drive like Subies.

And what bad happens if you go say 50% or 100% past schedule and then
rotate them?

I ruined a set when I did it. They were worn in a specific
pattern and the change was too much apparently. Anyhow, that's what
the tire shop guy said.

On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 22:41:12 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:

Vic Smith writes:

On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:13:06 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:

Roy Tremblay writes:

What do you think about the 4-tire rotation pattern below?

Total waste of time.

Drive the car until the tires wear out, then buy new ones.

+1
I never in my life rotated a tire, or had them rotated.
For a while I bought my tires used for 5-20 bucks a pop.
Now I buy 4 quality new tires when the old ones wear out.

Yet this thread goes on and on about you've got to do this,
and that. Seems like people like their rituals.

Same with the "winterizing" the lawn mower.
I just stop using it in the fall. In the spring it starts right up.
I've got at least 50 years of not rotating my tires and not
winterizing the lawn mower under my belt. No ill effects
noticed so far.

Same here. I don't even run it out of gas. Same with the weedwhacker.
I think doing the rituals offend or confuse the machines, making them act up.

On 07/30/2017 07:03 AM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 22:41:12 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:

Vic Smith writes:

On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:13:06 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:

Roy Tremblay writes:

What do you think about the 4-tire rotation pattern below?

Total waste of time.

Drive the car until the tires wear out, then buy new ones.

+1
I never in my life rotated a tire, or had them rotated.
For a while I bought my tires used for 5-20 bucks a pop.
Now I buy 4 quality new tires when the old ones wear out.

Yet this thread goes on and on about you've got to do this,
and that. Seems like people like their rituals.

Same with the "winterizing" the lawn mower.
I just stop using it in the fall. In the spring it starts right up.
I've got at least 50 years of not rotating my tires and not
winterizing the lawn mower under my belt. No ill effects
noticed so far.

Same here. I don't even run it out of gas. Same with the weedwhacker.
I think doing the rituals offend or confuse the machines, making them act up.

They don't like being ignored either. I don't whack weeds very often
and was shocked to find that THAT LITTLE THING was the carb and needed
to be cleaned. I couldn't put it back together again although I have
cleaned MC carbs successfully. Enough. Nothing but electric whackers
and mowers from then on.

--
Cheers, Bev
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey
and car keys to teenage boys." -- P.J. O'Rourke

On Sun, 30 Jul 2017 07:50:02 -0500, Dean Hoffman
wrote:

On 7/30/17 6:18 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 8:36:06 PM UTC-4, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 7/28/17 2:44 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

The one thing I think I know about tire rotation is do it promptly
on schedule or not at all. It's especially important on all wheel
drive like Subies.

And what bad happens if you go say 50% or 100% past schedule and then
rotate them?

I ruined a set when I did it. They were worn in a specific
pattern and the change was too much apparently. Anyhow, that's what
the tire shop guy said.
straight or left to right rotation?

On 7/30/17 12:38 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jul 2017 07:50:02 -0500, Dean Hoffman
wrote:

On 7/30/17 6:18 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 8:36:06 PM UTC-4, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 7/28/17 2:44 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

The one thing I think I know about tire rotation is do it promptly
on schedule or not at all. It's especially important on all wheel
drive like Subies.

And what bad happens if you go say 50% or 100% past schedule and then
rotate them?

I ruined a set when I did it. They were worn in a specific
pattern and the change was too much apparently. Anyhow, that's what
the tire shop guy said.
straight or left to right rotation?

I don't remember.

On Sun, 30 Jul 2017 12:46:14 -0500, Dean Hoffman
wrote:

On 7/30/17 12:38 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jul 2017 07:50:02 -0500, Dean Hoffman
wrote:

On 7/30/17 6:18 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 8:36:06 PM UTC-4, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 7/28/17 2:44 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

The one thing I think I know about tire rotation is do it promptly
on schedule or not at all. It's especially important on all wheel
drive like Subies.

And what bad happens if you go say 50% or 100% past schedule and then
rotate them?

I ruined a set when I did it. They were worn in a specific
pattern and the change was too much apparently. Anyhow, that's what
the tire shop guy said.
straight or left to right rotation?

I don't remember.
I can see side to side doing it - - -