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

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.

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 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

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.

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 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 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.

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 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 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.

trader_4 posted for all of us...



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?

BINGO BINGO BINGO

--
Tekkie

On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 16:12:13 -0400, Tekkie®
wrote:

trader_4 posted for all of us...



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?

BINGO BINGO BINGO
My thought exactly -

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 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.

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 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.