Logic for or against the tire-rotation pattern X > H > X > H
 

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?

Logic for or against the tire-rotation pattern X > H > X > H
 

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

Logic for or against the tire-rotation pattern X > H > X > H
 

On 07/28/2017 01:13 PM, 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.

I wish that wheels were reversible. No matter what pattern you use the
outside edge is always the outside edge and gets the most wear.



--
Cheers, Bev
Q: How many lawyers does it take to grease a combine?
A: One, if you feed him in real slow.

Logic for or against the tire-rotation pattern X > H > X > H
 

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.

Logic for or against the tire-rotation pattern X > H > X > H
 

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.

Logic for or against the tire-rotation pattern X > H > X > H
 

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.

Logic for or against the tire-rotation pattern X > H > X > H
 

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.

Logic for or against the tire-rotation pattern X > H > X > H
 

On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 4:13:12 AM UTC+8, Dan Espen wrote:
>
> Total waste of time.
>
> Drive the car until the tires wear out, then buy new ones.
>
I drive RWD cars, and I found the front and rear wore out at the same
time (unless there was an alignment problem).

Logic for or against the tire-rotation pattern X > H > X > H
 

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.

Logic for or against the tire-rotation pattern X > H > X > H
 

On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 9:44:45 AM UTC-10, 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?

My guess is that tire rotation is mostly a device used by tire companies to get people to come into their shops on a regular basis. I've never done it nor am I likely to ever start. I don't have enough time and money to just toss it into the wind.