can front wheel bearings be damaged

???

it's not. and i wasn't looking at "all four wheels", just the loading on a single bearing [since that is what we were discussing] with the vectors stated.

the 1000kgf load is vertical. with 0.6g lateral loading added [the bit where the vectors come in], you get 600kgf of horizontal. that gives you the force vector triangle, and thus it's simple trig to determine that the /resultant/ vector load is 1166kgf at 31.0° from vertical.

i'll let you relate that to the capacities of the two bearings cited - both load and angle.

no, it's not "divide by 4". given the above, i think elaboration is pointless.

Reply to
jim beam
Loading thread data ...

I don't see how a mechanic could damage the wheel bearings unintentionally. I think that by replacing worn noisy hard riding used tires with soft riding quiet new tires that the sound of grinding bearings was no longer buried in ambient noise and became more apparent.

Anyone who thinks that a car can hit a very large and deep pothole and not damage something is probably not the most reliable source of information anyway.

Reply to
John S.

Those Ford MUTT Jeeps had independent four wheels suspension.If they went 'airborne' sometimes the wheels would fold inward. I prefer solid rear axel suspension like my old clunkers have, including my 1948 Willys Jeep. cuhulin

Reply to
cuhulin

2200 lbs on one tire..

You're even a bigger idiot, actually something beyond that because I already explained fixturing to you. Your "/resultant/ vector load" being applied to the bearing is the height of stupidity. Let me ASCII sketch for you.

TIRE TIRE W W H HUBorKnkl H knuckle E-OB--IB VS E--WB L HUBorKnkl L Knuckle L L TIRE TIRE ^ If you want it at each wheel, you then have to make the

You're the one putting 2200lbs on a single wheel with no elaboration as to how it got loaded that way.

It's been pointless for me to elaborate for some time because you refuse to understand systems, instead you want to part swap and neglect many other factors to arrive at fantasy result that supports your blathering. Trouble is, fantasy results are only good in your imginary world.

Reply to
Brent

You're not dealing with the logical problem of your argument. nice try.

Thanks for playing, don't forget your copy of the home game.

Reply to
Brent

??? I grew up in western PA. Hitting large and deep potholes is a daily occurrance there, or at least was in the 70's and 80's. Most of the time you could avoid them, but sometimes there were just so damn many of them that you couldn't avoid hitting one or two.

nate

Reply to
N8N

Re-read the OP. He hit a very large and deep pothole at speed. Granted, for him at speed might be 5 mph and the pothole might be 2" x

1/4", but probably all the numbers are much higher.
Reply to
John S.

on the contrary. you need to man up to the question brent. /you/ are the one avoiding it.

Reply to
jim beam

it could be 10,000kgf or 100kgf. doesn't matter to the vector angle - where this bearing stuff came from.

brent, the bearing has absolutely no idea what it's attached to. all it knows is the load, and what direction it's coming from. the "fixture" is completely irrelevant, as per the math as outlined above.

this is a red herring, but i can't resist: "suspension bushings acting like torsional springs"??? what kind of load do you think they exert? what percentage is it of the primary load???

but brent, you were the one who said loading was a function of vectors [actually the most accurate statement you've made]. but then you said that loading was a function of machining tolerances [bizarre]. here you are saying it's a function of beam deflection [even more bizarre]. you're badly confused.

buses use tapered rollers. how many g's do you think a bus experiences when cornering? what would be the vector angle resultant? how does that compare to a vw [golf/rabbit] gti that uses angular ball bearings and the lateral force i cited earlier?

doesn't matter to the trig brent.

"systems" is math brent. you don't have any.

Reply to
jim beam

You're just trying to deflect your ignorance, again.

Perhaps you should explain how four indentical new wheels and tires become different without wear or damage being involved. Remember, BMW states that even when all wheels and tires are the same size... Or are you going to suggest that a moron may damage something in the process of rotating?

But even if you can do that, you're still left with a huge logical problem. If you follow a no-rotation recomendation you can't pull off a

2 new tires, keep the least worn tires on the rear program when the fronts wear faster.

Don't go away mad, just go away.

Reply to
Brent

Vector angle? Trying to sound clever, but your underlying ignorance continues to be demonstrated. Here's a hint, vectors have direction, so vector angle is redundant.

Yep. Total ignorance. Total willful ignorance. Go study support types, degrees of freedom, etc.

Buh-bye.

Reply to
Brent

he /is/ the op.

and while it's highly unlikely and only really possible if the bearing is either defective or badly under-spec, it /is/ technically possible to brinell a bearing like this. if the bump is within the range of suspension travel, load would not be high enough to do it, but if the suspension and tire had bottomed, then you could get a high load transient several times the normal running load, and a low spec or low hardness bearing could brinell at that point. much like bearings commonly brinell when being abused by techs with hammers.

Reply to
jim beam

the no-rotation directive is for a very solid technical reason. you need to go back in this thread and re-read it.

Reply to
jim beam

they're /your/ words brent!

"vector angle is redundant"????????????????

how does a bearing know what's supporting it brent?

how does a bearing know what degrees of freedom a steering knuckle has brent?

you need to go study remedial math. seriously - your teachers failed you BADLY.

Reply to
jim beam

Um, I *am* the OP.

nate

Reply to
N8N

It might have bottomed, the suspension on the car is stupid soft, but I kind of doubt it seeing as I was doing about 55-60 MPH at the time (onramp.) On the flip side, it was the LF wheel that hit the hole, so that side was more loaded than normal at the time.

I just don't remember having these kind of issues with the cars my parents drove, which typically only got the bearings packed/replaced when the brakes were done, and the brake service intervals for those cars tended to be very long as my parents were typically not aggressive drivers and the family cars were usually stickshifts. Upon reflection, since the late 80's their regular daily use car was a VW Golf which also had cartridge-type front wheel bearings, and if they were ever replaced on that car, I don't remember it. I do recall having a bad *rear* wheel bearing on that car, which were traditional tapered rollers, but those seem to have been undersized for the application as I also had problems with them on my own '84 GTI as well and have heard the same from others.

nate

Reply to
N8N

Of course, potholes can put a lot of stress into many suspension areas. I have never seen a wheel bearing problem that I could trace back to that, but maybe it happens.

More than that, some of the early unibody cars, and apparently some of the later ones, can be bent badly enough by this that alignment can become difficult. But that has nothing really to do with the wheel bearing scenario.

My daughter's rice rocket was bent so badly that one mechanic passed on the alignment, and I took it to a frame shop so that it could be massaged back into range so that it could be aligned.

Reply to
hls

double row angular ball. the failures i've seen are usually associated with technician abuse such as pounding out a sticky driveshaft with a hammer rather than using a press that pushes against the hub without loading the bearings.

often it's caused by "excessive maintenance". in the old days, bearing seals and greases were poor, so regular re-packing was required. that practice has stuck through today [much like 3k mile oil changes], even though it's usually no longer necessary. thus bearings get over-preloaded, under-preloaded and contaminated from dirty fingers. bearing hygiene is absolutely critical, and replication of factory cleanliness almost impossible to achieve.

and as i said up thread, if not loaded within angular range, a roller element can be loaded on one end and it will wobble in the race causing it to become barrel-shaped and then further oscillate as it rolls. very noisy.

Reply to
jim beam

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.