Don't know what "optimal" is. DT recommends every 5-6k miles. I've gone as long as ~7.5k miles. Do it to equalize any minor wear differences, as well as to maintain my tire tread wear warranty through DT.
"Optimal" Tire Rotation = 1/4 of Expected Life?
- Thread starter tombo
- Start date
- Status
My tires come with a manufacturer warranty.
The first stipulation required if you wish to claim this warranty is that the tires are rotated between 6,000-8,000 miles.
I am told that more frequent rotations will not adversely affect this warranty.
The first stipulation required if you wish to claim this warranty is that the tires are rotated between 6,000-8,000 miles.
I am told that more frequent rotations will not adversely affect this warranty.
Originally Posted By: Or
Originally Posted By: tombo
Given that OEM tires seem to last only about 28-30K for many people, that would equate to 7K - 7.5K per rotation. On the other hand, if one bought a set of tires that was expected to last, say, 50K miles, the ideal rotation frequency would be 12.5K miles. Is there a flaw in my logic?
Ginormous flaw is disregarding the different physics at each corner and how it influences relative wear rate. Starting a wear pattern and not correcting it before it goes too far is what this thinking leads to. The "carrot" analogy above by raytsengwas brilliant. Every few thousand is optimal, and varies by tire type and vehicle. No set rule.
Unless your car is perfectly corner balanced at all times, there will be uneven wear due to different loads on each tire.
On Acuras, I find the right front always has the most wear, then the left front, then the right rear, and the left rear sees almost no wear. The right front is the corner with the engine.
With the same size tires at every corner, I always rotate front to back and cross to the front, and do it every oil change on my own car, which is every 6000 km.
On the 1er, it is staggered, so I rotate the tires left to right every oil change, also every 6000 km.
You want to change the direction of the tire as the leading edge of the tread wears faster than the trailing edge on the drive tires. You want to even out that wear as much as possible. Also, if the tires remain too long on the rear, they will develop scalloping on the inside edge, especially if the rear is loaded with cargo or passengers.
The more they are rotated the better.
Originally Posted By: tombo
Given that OEM tires seem to last only about 28-30K for many people, that would equate to 7K - 7.5K per rotation. On the other hand, if one bought a set of tires that was expected to last, say, 50K miles, the ideal rotation frequency would be 12.5K miles. Is there a flaw in my logic?
Ginormous flaw is disregarding the different physics at each corner and how it influences relative wear rate. Starting a wear pattern and not correcting it before it goes too far is what this thinking leads to. The "carrot" analogy above by raytsengwas brilliant. Every few thousand is optimal, and varies by tire type and vehicle. No set rule.
Unless your car is perfectly corner balanced at all times, there will be uneven wear due to different loads on each tire.
On Acuras, I find the right front always has the most wear, then the left front, then the right rear, and the left rear sees almost no wear. The right front is the corner with the engine.
With the same size tires at every corner, I always rotate front to back and cross to the front, and do it every oil change on my own car, which is every 6000 km.
On the 1er, it is staggered, so I rotate the tires left to right every oil change, also every 6000 km.
You want to change the direction of the tire as the leading edge of the tread wears faster than the trailing edge on the drive tires. You want to even out that wear as much as possible. Also, if the tires remain too long on the rear, they will develop scalloping on the inside edge, especially if the rear is loaded with cargo or passengers.
The more they are rotated the better.
Last edited:
I don't necessarily think 1/4 of life would be perfect if you had a tire good for 50-100k miles. i think you could then break it down even further to 1/8 or 1/12(but an interval of 4) I'd think keeping rotations to 10k and under would help wear rather than a 100k tire getting rotated every 25k. 25k is a long time and they may already be wearing too irregular.
I rotate them by putting the best two for my drive tires for winter.
Tires end up wearing pretty good and for a lot of miles.
I don't know about optimal, but I've long swapped tires front to back, never side to side, at around 1/3rd of what I estimate their likely life to be, so around 18-20K for most AS tires.
This seems to work in that all four are about equally worn when they need to be replaced.
It's pretty well understood that the front tires in a FWD car see most of the wear with the rears doing little more than holding up that end of the car. I have never seen any significant variation in wear from one side to the other, but only at either end.
The bonus part is that using two floor jacks to lift a side at a time and an impact to spin the lug bolts off, it takes very little time to do this and it need only be done once in the life of a set of tires.
Time savings play a roll in the optimization of any non-critical maintenance practice.
This seems to work in that all four are about equally worn when they need to be replaced.
It's pretty well understood that the front tires in a FWD car see most of the wear with the rears doing little more than holding up that end of the car. I have never seen any significant variation in wear from one side to the other, but only at either end.
The bonus part is that using two floor jacks to lift a side at a time and an impact to spin the lug bolts off, it takes very little time to do this and it need only be done once in the life of a set of tires.
Time savings play a roll in the optimization of any non-critical maintenance practice.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
I don't know about optimal, but I've long swapped tires front to back, never side to side, at around 1/3rd of what I estimate their likely life to be, so around 18-20K for most AS tires.
This seems to work in that all four are about equally worn when they need to be replaced.
It's pretty well understood that the front tires in a FWD car see most of the wear with the rears doing little more than holding up that end of the car. I have never seen any significant variation in wear from one side to the other, but only at either end.
The bonus part is that using two floor jacks to lift a side at a time and an impact to spin the lug bolts off, it takes very little time to do this and it need only be done once in the life of a set of tires.
Time savings play a roll in the optimization of any non-critical maintenance practice.
Just for a data point. On customer cars that can not be rotated from side to side due to directional tires, I always see the right side tires more worn than the left side tires. Not a lot mind you, but easily 1mm or a bit more.
I don't know about optimal, but I've long swapped tires front to back, never side to side, at around 1/3rd of what I estimate their likely life to be, so around 18-20K for most AS tires.
This seems to work in that all four are about equally worn when they need to be replaced.
It's pretty well understood that the front tires in a FWD car see most of the wear with the rears doing little more than holding up that end of the car. I have never seen any significant variation in wear from one side to the other, but only at either end.
The bonus part is that using two floor jacks to lift a side at a time and an impact to spin the lug bolts off, it takes very little time to do this and it need only be done once in the life of a set of tires.
Time savings play a roll in the optimization of any non-critical maintenance practice.
Just for a data point. On customer cars that can not be rotated from side to side due to directional tires, I always see the right side tires more worn than the left side tires. Not a lot mind you, but easily 1mm or a bit more.
P
Originally Posted By: mightymousetech
Just for a data point. On customer cars that can not be rotated from side to side due to directional tires, I always see the right side tires more worn than the left side tires. Not a lot mind you, but easily 1mm or a bit more.
Can't unidirectional tires be remounted on the wheels so they can then be installed on the opposite side of the vehicle?
Originally Posted By: mightymousetech
Just for a data point. On customer cars that can not be rotated from side to side due to directional tires, I always see the right side tires more worn than the left side tires. Not a lot mind you, but easily 1mm or a bit more.
Can't unidirectional tires be remounted on the wheels so they can then be installed on the opposite side of the vehicle?
Last edited:
In 30yrs of vehicle ownership, I've not found that rotating tires saved me anything. I know we've talked about this many times over the years. Best case it requires you to eventually replace 4 tires instead of 2. In cases where someone is paying a shop to do it, you're spending more money than not rotating and replacing 2 tires at a time.
I do understand that it's best for even tire wear and AWD/4x4 should have even tire diameters at all times. I typically rotate my Subaru tires every 10-15K miles. On my FWD, whenever I have the ambition. I've never bought a set of top end tires. Usually mid rangers for me.
I do understand that it's best for even tire wear and AWD/4x4 should have even tire diameters at all times. I typically rotate my Subaru tires every 10-15K miles. On my FWD, whenever I have the ambition. I've never bought a set of top end tires. Usually mid rangers for me.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Wonder why that should be the case?
See my post further up. On Acuras, the right side of the vehicle is heavier than the left.
Wonder why that should be the case?
See my post further up. On Acuras, the right side of the vehicle is heavier than the left.
Originally Posted By: ArcticDriver
P
Originally Posted By: mightymousetech
Just for a data point. On customer cars that can not be rotated from side to side due to directional tires, I always see the right side tires more worn than the left side tires. Not a lot mind you, but easily 1mm or a bit more.
Can't unidirectional tires be remounted on the wheels so they can then be installed on the opposite side of the vehicle?
I was talking about directional tires.
P
Originally Posted By: mightymousetech
Just for a data point. On customer cars that can not be rotated from side to side due to directional tires, I always see the right side tires more worn than the left side tires. Not a lot mind you, but easily 1mm or a bit more.
Can't unidirectional tires be remounted on the wheels so they can then be installed on the opposite side of the vehicle?
I was talking about directional tires.
Originally Posted By: mightymousetech
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Wonder why that should be the case?
See my post further up. On Acuras, the right side of the vehicle is heavier than the left.
I always thought it was because the right side of the road seems to have more potholes, worse pavement on it. Even after a winter clean up the right side of the car seems to take more of beating with tar and other junk on it compared to the driver's side. It seems on front wheel drive Toyotas most of the weight would be on the driver's side front esp with one person driving the car, the battery on that side, along with the transmission pan/dipstick etc. But Hondas have seemed the same way to me.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Wonder why that should be the case?
See my post further up. On Acuras, the right side of the vehicle is heavier than the left.
I always thought it was because the right side of the road seems to have more potholes, worse pavement on it. Even after a winter clean up the right side of the car seems to take more of beating with tar and other junk on it compared to the driver's side. It seems on front wheel drive Toyotas most of the weight would be on the driver's side front esp with one person driving the car, the battery on that side, along with the transmission pan/dipstick etc. But Hondas have seemed the same way to me.
Originally Posted By: ArcticDriver
P
Originally Posted By: mightymousetech
Just for a data point. On customer cars that can not be rotated from side to side due to directional tires, I always see the right side tires more worn than the left side tires. Not a lot mind you, but easily 1mm or a bit more.
Can't unidirectional tires be remounted on the wheels so they can then be installed on the opposite side of the vehicle?
Yes, if you don't mind spending the money to have them remounted. The cost to reinstall is roughly the cost of one tire. Esp for a common size, mid tier tire.
P
Originally Posted By: mightymousetech
Just for a data point. On customer cars that can not be rotated from side to side due to directional tires, I always see the right side tires more worn than the left side tires. Not a lot mind you, but easily 1mm or a bit more.
Can't unidirectional tires be remounted on the wheels so they can then be installed on the opposite side of the vehicle?
Yes, if you don't mind spending the money to have them remounted. The cost to reinstall is roughly the cost of one tire. Esp for a common size, mid tier tire.
Originally Posted By: SatinSilver
Originally Posted By: mightymousetech
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Wonder why that should be the case?
See my post further up. On Acuras, the right side of the vehicle is heavier than the left.
I always thought it was because the right side of the road seems to have more potholes, worse pavement on it. Even after a winter clean up the right side of the car seems to take more of beating with tar and other junk on it compared to the driver's side. It seems on front wheel drive Toyotas most of the weight would be on the driver's side front esp with one person driving the car, the battery on that side, along with the transmission pan/dipstick etc. But Hondas have seemed the same way to me.
RWD will want to wear RR tire faster than LR; on an open diff RR is what typically will break loose. Has to do with the engine turning clockwise, causing the car to twist counter clockwise. You'd think that would plant the RR but it seems to unload it instead (and is why on a "loose" chassis it's LF that gets air under the tire first). Maybe how the pinion wants to climb up the ring gear... 4x4 will want to spin LF and RR, same reasons. Equal and opposite reaction to an action.
FWD seems to suffer similar effects but I'm not quite sure why. LF gets more wear. There is more weight on that side typically but I don't think that is it. For all I know it could be because we tend to corner harder on right hand turns--cloverleafs, turning onto a highway, or just making tight turns into our driveways, those 90 degree turns that is.
Originally Posted By: mightymousetech
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Wonder why that should be the case?
See my post further up. On Acuras, the right side of the vehicle is heavier than the left.
I always thought it was because the right side of the road seems to have more potholes, worse pavement on it. Even after a winter clean up the right side of the car seems to take more of beating with tar and other junk on it compared to the driver's side. It seems on front wheel drive Toyotas most of the weight would be on the driver's side front esp with one person driving the car, the battery on that side, along with the transmission pan/dipstick etc. But Hondas have seemed the same way to me.
RWD will want to wear RR tire faster than LR; on an open diff RR is what typically will break loose. Has to do with the engine turning clockwise, causing the car to twist counter clockwise. You'd think that would plant the RR but it seems to unload it instead (and is why on a "loose" chassis it's LF that gets air under the tire first). Maybe how the pinion wants to climb up the ring gear... 4x4 will want to spin LF and RR, same reasons. Equal and opposite reaction to an action.
FWD seems to suffer similar effects but I'm not quite sure why. LF gets more wear. There is more weight on that side typically but I don't think that is it. For all I know it could be because we tend to corner harder on right hand turns--cloverleafs, turning onto a highway, or just making tight turns into our driveways, those 90 degree turns that is.
Originally Posted By: ArcticDriver
Can't unidirectional tires be remounted on the wheels so they can then be installed on the opposite side of the vehicle?
Technically yes, but at least some tire changers can be a little hard on the rubber and the wheels. I'm not sure if I'd want to be subjecting either of them to that very often, and that's ignoring the cost of the service.
Can't unidirectional tires be remounted on the wheels so they can then be installed on the opposite side of the vehicle?
Technically yes, but at least some tire changers can be a little hard on the rubber and the wheels. I'm not sure if I'd want to be subjecting either of them to that very often, and that's ignoring the cost of the service.
I just rotate my tires every 5k miles when I'm changing the oil. I was able to get 40k miles on OEM tires on the GLI. Pretty much every other GTI/GLI with the OEM tires in 225/40/18 was only able to get 28k miles tops. I don't know if they rotated frequently, but it helped me get more useful tread life out of the original tires. Plus it costs me nothing to rotate.
I think you hit the nail on the head. Multiples of 4, and not exceeding 10K (or whatever your personal max is). The main point is that rotating 5 or 6 times over the life of a tire is actually worse than 4 (but not as good as 8 or 12 times).
Here's why: In an extreme example, consider someone doing a "religiously change at 6K" vs. "expected life of tire divided by multiples of 4 not to exceed 10K" for a tire that is expected to last 36K.
Here's the math: 36/6 = 6 rotations over the life of the tire. That means a tire following a four spot pattern (e.g, DF/DR/PF/PR) would spend two out of the six rotations in spot 1 and 2, but only one time in spot 3 and 4. That equates to 2/6 x 36=12K of the mileage spent in spot 1 and 2 and just 1/6 x 36K = 6K miles each spent in spots 3 and 4. So if spot #1 is the passenger front on a Subaru FWD, then that tire will be considerably more worn than the tire that began in a different spot. If it was rotated 4 times, then it would have 9K mileage on that tire at 36K. Not a huge difference between 9K vs. 12K, but on the other hand, it's 33% more.
Here's why: In an extreme example, consider someone doing a "religiously change at 6K" vs. "expected life of tire divided by multiples of 4 not to exceed 10K" for a tire that is expected to last 36K.
Here's the math: 36/6 = 6 rotations over the life of the tire. That means a tire following a four spot pattern (e.g, DF/DR/PF/PR) would spend two out of the six rotations in spot 1 and 2, but only one time in spot 3 and 4. That equates to 2/6 x 36=12K of the mileage spent in spot 1 and 2 and just 1/6 x 36K = 6K miles each spent in spots 3 and 4. So if spot #1 is the passenger front on a Subaru FWD, then that tire will be considerably more worn than the tire that began in a different spot. If it was rotated 4 times, then it would have 9K mileage on that tire at 36K. Not a huge difference between 9K vs. 12K, but on the other hand, it's 33% more.
I think you hit the nail on the head. Multiples of 4, and not exceeding 10K (or whatever your personal max is). The main point is that rotating 5 or 6 times over the life of a tire is actually worse than 4 (but not as good as 8 or 12 times).
Here's why: In an extreme example, consider someone doing a "religiously change at 6K" vs. "expected life of tire divided by multiples of 4 not to exceed 10K" for a tire that is expected to last 36K.
Here's the math: 36/6 = 6 rotations over the life of the tire. That means a tire following a four spot pattern (e.g, DF/DR/PF/PR) would spend two out of the six rotations in spot 1 and 2, but only one time in spot 3 and 4. That equates to 2/6 x 36=12K of the mileage spent in spot 1 and 2 and just 1/6 x 36K = 6K miles each spent in spots 3 and 4. So if spot #1 is the passenger front on a Subaru FWD, then that tire will be considerably more worn than the tire that began in a different spot. If it was rotated 4 times, then it would have 9K mileage on that tire at 36K. Not a huge difference between 9K vs. 12K, but on the other hand, it's 33% more.
Here's why: In an extreme example, consider someone doing a "religiously change at 6K" vs. "expected life of tire divided by multiples of 4 not to exceed 10K" for a tire that is expected to last 36K.
Here's the math: 36/6 = 6 rotations over the life of the tire. That means a tire following a four spot pattern (e.g, DF/DR/PF/PR) would spend two out of the six rotations in spot 1 and 2, but only one time in spot 3 and 4. That equates to 2/6 x 36=12K of the mileage spent in spot 1 and 2 and just 1/6 x 36K = 6K miles each spent in spots 3 and 4. So if spot #1 is the passenger front on a Subaru FWD, then that tire will be considerably more worn than the tire that began in a different spot. If it was rotated 4 times, then it would have 9K mileage on that tire at 36K. Not a huge difference between 9K vs. 12K, but on the other hand, it's 33% more.
Last edited:
- Status
