Yes it is, you don't see anyone who gives cares about handling not replacing all four tires at the same time.
That means you have underlying suspension problems that need repair if your tires are 'wearing in' to their respective corners. Or perhaps you're driving an expensive super car with a suspension that is so finely set up that it has tires designed for use in only one location in which case you can afford to replace all four tires.
The most dangerous thing is a person who has a completely wrong understanding of something but thinks he's correct. I don't even know where to start with the nonsense you just posted above. The better tires go on the rear of a front engine car because of the weight balance of said car and the fact that understeer is much easier to control than oversteer.
ok, "vector sum" 100kgf vertical load, with 0.6 g's cornering force - what is the resolved load angle? what is the total load? relate those to the capacities of a 32006 roller and a 7006 ball bearing.
correction: "you don't see anyone who's not been brainwashed not replacing all four tires at the same time".
well, i'm not driving a p.o.s. with solid axles front and rear, that's for sure! solid axles are the only way you can get "even wear", and even then, simple rotation direction still influences wear pattern.
i don't think you're dangerous brent - i just think the victim of an inadequate education and chronic lack of curiosity that might encourage self-learning.
there is a reason. see above.
no, it's just like i said. i avoided geometry and engineering terms as much as i could, but apparently i still failed to make it simple enough.
in the mean time, here's something for you to read and think about:
formatting link
because there's stuff here you don't know, you think there's informational incongruence. but rather than pay attention to the facts and try to figure out /why/ i might be saying stuff you're not familiar with, you're entirely focused on the fact that i don't suffer fools gladly - thus missing the point, and more importantly, failing to learn from it.
Knowedgable people don't have two tires wearing out with the other two in perfect condition. Or maybe you'll order your next new car with pre-worn front tires? :)
You really need to be quiet, because each statement you make shows you to be more and more ignorant. Go to your car, open the glove box. In there you'll probably find a book called the owners manual. The manufacturer of your vehicle wrote it. In there you'll find the specified tire rotation those engineers recommend to keep wear even so you can replace all four tires at once.
I've forgotten more than you think you know.
You don't know jack shit. You're full of myth and rumor.
Go for it, use all the terms you want, dollars to doughtnuts you'll use them wrong.
The f*ck? You're really wacked.
You're the fool here. You don't know mechanical tolerancing but think you do. You don't know how to do vector sums but think yourself an engineer or something. I could go on with the ignorance you've displayed.
Here you go mr tightest arc:
formatting link
Sliding is avoided by turning at different rates:
formatting link
Furthermore:
formatting link
now consider the weight distribution of the car on normal force and hence the friction. and more:
formatting link
and we can't miss this:
formatting link
Now maybe you can figure out why your "tighest arc" isn't the driving the factor.
Four good tires are better than two shitty tires on the front and two good ones on the rear. The overall level at which the car slides is increased. When you wear down the tires more or less evenly you spend more time with four good tires and less time with two shitty tires and two good tires. When all four are bad you replace them all and have four new tires instead of having two somewhat less crappy tires and two new tires.
what is the tire rotation pattern recommended by bmw? what is it for ferrari? what is it for porsche? more importantly, /why/ do those performance car manufacturers make those recommendations?
it was a serious question. any high school math grad should be able to handle the first two parts. all you need for the latter is an internet connection.
You're so ignorant that you couldn't even properly define the problem because you don't understand vectors or mechanical systems. Not only did you not define the suspension in question you don't even define the key aspect of the mounting/wheel geometery. Furthermore your problem as posed continues the ignorant idea that a tapered roller bearing is a direct replacement for an angular ball bearing and vice-versa. They aren't as I previously explained to you with illustrations.
no, applied load is independent of "suspension geometry". you're either making an attempt at a red herring, or proving significant misunderstanding. besides, it's just a simple high school trig question that also happens to be a real live applicable engineering application - it's exactly the kind of example as to /why/ we bother with trig in the first place.
no, i'm quoting specific bearings whose specs you can look up and compare with the results from the trig question above.
you haven't explained anything - all you've done is assert a bunch of stuff you're making up because you don't know enough to say. and have continued to do so despite all the big red flags in your path saying "go back and learn where you're going wrong". really, you're totally distracted from the facts - and the opportunity to learn something you apparently need to know.
You're asking for the load applied to the bearing by giving the loads on the TIRE. The fact that you don't know how to add vectors becomes clearly evident in that you feel the relationship between the bearing and the tire (contact patch actually) is not relevant.
You can't solve a problem with only unknowns. That's something you should have learned in HS.
Your problem assumes both are using the same design. This is a huge error because you don't use the same design for two different bearing types. This has been the on-going problem with your thinking.
Translation: You're ignorant and didn't bother to read.
That's what you're doing, I've given you far more time than you're worth. At each step you realize that you're ignorant so you take another face saving tactic and ignore the hammering you got. Trouble is each attempt you make at saving face reveals a deeper ignorance.
You don't have a clue and are not worth any more of my time.
For the record, we're talking about an '08 Impala. GM recommends regular rotation, and it's clear from wandering around the parking lot at work which cars have been getting rotations and which have not. The outsides of the front tires get all kinds of chewed up.
I would argue that you are correct that there are "underlying suspension problems" with these cars, but they are not ones that are repairable.
Ok, Using only the information you provided, the tire, and the whole suspension has to be assumed to be a rigid body while accepting the obvious error that one bearing type can be swapped for the other without changing the design. This means no calculations are required and the force components on the bearings of all four wheels are the forces you gave. If you want it at each wheel, you then have to make the unrealistic assumption that each tire has the same grip and the car itself is rigid (the later isn't too bad) and divide by 4. See how easy it when you're ignorant?
You've clearly been weak in logic and continue to be. Your recommendations are logically incompatible. Read the quoted portion from BMW again, it says 'do not move tires from one axle to the other'. That means you cannot move tires from the rear to the front. That's the 'no rotate' source you specified. Do not move from one axle to the other. It doesn't say, don't move accept when buying two new tires, it says don't move the tires.
Combined with avoiding a condition of having more worn tires on the rear the logical implication is that if front tires are worn all four must be replaced. Which is what I stated in the first place, replace all four for best results.
Thanks for playing, maybe you'll get the home version of this game on your way out.
but /why/ brent? what is the reason they say this? that is the question you're simply not addressing. there /is/ a very good reason, and it's /not/ wear. what is it?
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.