the case against tyre rotation

[labman]

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
I think rotation increases wear. I do prefer the good tires up front for snow traction. Being stuck is the worst.


I would rather be stuck than have the back end come around. Of course, I never had a real traction problem with FWD as long as the snow wasn't so deep the weight of the car was on the floor pan and not the tires.

 

[SteveSRT8]

On a balanced platform with proper weight distribution and alignment (this excludes most "wrong wheel drivers") there is absolutely no need for rotation.

 

[Dieselbob]

I don't care what kind of car it is. If it wears out one end significantly more than the other end, than either the factory specs are wrong or the manufacturer doen't know know what they are doing. If poor dumb bankrupt GM can get this right, the almighty Bavarian Motor Works should be able to do it. It may be that these cars would be better off with something other than the factory spec. My alignment shop will make adjustments based on the type of tires and the intended useage. You might give up a couple tenths on the autocross, but you might see more practical wear rates on the road. All four corners of the car should be working together.

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: Dieselbob
I don't care what kind of car it is. If it wears out one end significantly more than the other end, than either the factory specs are wrong or the manufacturer doen't know know what they are doing. If poor dumb bankrupt GM can get this right, the almighty Bavarian Motor Works should be able to do it. It may be that these cars would be better off with something other than the factory spec. My alignment shop will make adjustments based on the type of tires and the intended useage. You might give up a couple tenths on the autocross, but you might see more practical wear rates on the road. All four corners of the car should be working together.

I take it you don't own a BMW...

They are setting up the alignment for neutral tending towards understeer handling and absolute grip. They do know what they are doing, its just even tire wear is not an important factor. I run my autocross alignment on my Neon and the front tires wear unevenly but used tires are practically free and it still takes a long time to wear the front tires out. Makes my car several tenths faster on the autocross course so I'm happy with my alignment.

 

[Dieselbob]

From my experience with stock car racing, if you're wearing out tires on one end, side or corner of the car due to cmaber, caster or toe settings, what you are really doing is using a crutch to cover for some other chassis ailment. Sometimes you can't do anything about it if you want to go fast, but if the chassis is TRULY right, you shouldn't see much eneven wear. Stock car crew chiefs famously use a ton of camber to get the car to cut in the corner. If you get greedy, it wears the tires out on the straights. The guys that don't have to resort to this don't wear out tires and usually finish up front. I'd say the BMW settings are a crutch because it's either impractical or too expensive to give the car what it actually needs.

 

[IndyIan]

I kind of agree with you, but do you think a fast stockcar setup would wear the tires evenly just driven to work everyday?
That's what BMW is trying to do, win on sunday and then drive the same car the rest of the week on the street... They chose to win on sunday over good tire wear the rest of the week.

 

[Papa Bear]

99.99% of us don't give a hoot about "stock car set-ups".

I want to be able to pick up the grandkids and go for a drive without wearing out the tires.
I rotated the tires yesterday on the Uplander and they needed it (fronts wearing faster than the rears but no signs of uneven tire wear due to Caster/camber/toe issues). Rotating will help me balance the wear so I can buy a set (4) of tires later rather than sooner.

 

[Old Mustang Guy]

On your typical front wheel drive vehicle you will get significantly increased wear on the front edges if you don't rotate. Since I buy at Discount, I take my front drivers in for free rotation at 6k. They end up wearing evenly and then I replace them before any of the tires could be considered "bad".

 

[MrHorspwer]

I don't trust anybody who spells tire, "tyre"

 

[Kiwi_ME]

That UK site is written in the same narrow-minded, obstinate tone you find in the Haynes car manuals.

Suzuki recommends tire rotation in my FWD car, and you would expect the fronts to show the uneven wear.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Dieselbob
This is totally stupid! If you have a noticable wear difference between ANY of your tires, you either have an alignment issue or you aren't rotating them often enough. If you do it right, all tires should be within a 1/32" of each other at all times.


Exactly. Unless you have to pay more on labor to rotate the tire than the amount of money the tire is worth (which is what BMW dealer is hinting at).

 

[Wilhelm_D]

Originally Posted By: Dieselbob
Sometimes you can't do anything about it if you want to go fast, but if the chassis is TRULY right, you shouldn't see much eneven wear.


Generally I concur.

Rotating the tires simply obscures the wear patterns which diagnose the alignment/suspension issues.

Once you learn to read wear patterns, you can fine tune the alignment.

The only exception is that on many FWD cars the rears tires are simply along for the ride. Once I shoot the front tires, I sometimes move the back to the front simply so the tires that were on the rear don't fail from age.

This "best tires on the back" can be a bit overblown with FWD and ESC.

 

[fsskier]

If you are paying for tire rotation, you will never come out on it. I like leaving the tires in one spot, it also keeps alignment problems from being hidden by constant rotation.

Our Escorts would wear the rear tires "cuppy" with the tread blocks taller at the front then at the rear... for no obvious alignment reason. I would reverse the rear two tires (about every 25K miles) to correct this, and keep them from getting obnoxiously noisy!

Our commuter Escort, doing all interstate, can get 100K miles out of a set of Michelin X-ones!! Now, if you rotated them every 5 k miles, that would be 20 rotations. If you paid 20 bucks a time, that would be $400, now what kind of increased tire life could possibly pay for that..... as much as the tires cost??? Not to mention your time.

"Free" rotations may submit you to constant badgering about your alignment, ball joints, shocks, every other quick buck scheme that some tire shops are famous for!!

 

[crinkles]

So I rotated mine this morning in the shed. The wife helped with picking rocks out of the tread. after 5,000 miles there is a difference between total wear in the front and the back. I don't measure it though, and my wife concurred ( for the layman's opinion).

now I got to take it down and back up the hill again to test at high speed.

 

[MONKEYMAN]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
He snowed you


It would not be the first time. Problem was, the nearest Michelin's were in a warehouse on the East Coast (according to the Manager). I live in the Midwest. Ended up with Cooper CS4's. Maybe it snowed three times that day, once outside and two times at the tire shop.

 

[Bror Jace]

Good thread.

"I don't trust anybody who spells tire, 'tyre' "

LOL!

I take it you don't like performance engines with more valves than horsepower?

I agreed with Craig in Canada about the reasons for the best tires being on the back ... it's to reduce oversteer in abrupt/extreme maneuvers ... and it is a recommendation from a time before ESC.

I think the problem is that drivers are used to the way the car feels as it turns in ... but with rear tires more worn than the fronts, in an emergency situation they can loop the car. This is probably also why about 2psi less is recommended for the rear tires as compared to the fronts.

Me? I drive front-wheel-drive cars and often replace the tires two at a time because the fronts wear twice as fast as the rears (especially if you corner enthusiastically). As for rotations, I feel it necessary to swap the tires left-to-right and change the direction of the rotation ... to reduce the chances of cupping. I've had many sets of tires 'cup' (tread blocks wear in a forward-canted fashion) which is noisy and terribly annoying. Changing the direction of rotation reduces this ... and can even reverse it if you catch it earlier enough.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: Bror Jace
This is probably also why about 2psi less is recommended for the rear tires as compared to the fronts.

I thought it was just the opposite. They recommend higher PSI in the rear. Higher PSI in the rear will cause the rears to lose grip earlier in a sharp turn, but will also make this break-away less abrupt because it'll happen at a lower speed where it'll be easier for the driver to correct it.

On both our cars, the recommended PSI for rear axle is higher. But maybe it has something to do with them being RWD (or mostly RWD in case of the C300). Or maybe it is related to weight distribution? A typical FWD car is front-heavy, so it needs higher PSI up front to safely carry that weight?

 

[ahoier]

When I told my father I was going to rotate my tires, he told me no don't do that, just buy your tires in pairs and keep it at that. His reasoning was that by rotating them, keeping all treads equal (or close to.....within a tenth or two) you'll end up needing all four tires at the same time, down the road.

But I still rotate and balance mine every 5-6k; when I get my oil changed the re-balance and rotation is included.

 

[Audi Junkie]

I rotate for seasons. Mostly, I put junk tires up front for summer, to wear them out. I have so many sets (pairs) that I can save good tires for winters and use junk in the summers.

A good plan is for fwd to buy 2 new ones every Fall and put up front, rotating the old ones to the rear. It's not the cheapest way to go, but you'll always have traction. Also, you can juggle good ones to the rear and then back up front for the next winter, but always I rotate with seasons in mind.

 

[Torino]

Let us apply the phenomenological theorem here---HUH????