A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Technology
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

can front wheel bearings be damaged



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 30th 10, 11:17 PM posted to rec.autos.tech
N8N
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,477
Default can front wheel bearings be damaged

....by mounting or rotating tires? I don't see how, BUT keep reading.

At my last oil change, I got new tires installed on my company car. I
immediately noticed an increase in road noise, but chalked it up to
the different tread of the new tires (Uniroyal Tiger Paw vs. Goodyear
Integrity) and since the old, OEM tires were so awful, I figured it
was a small price to pay for actual traction.

I just got an oil change again last week, about 7K miles later. I
asked that the tires be rotated and balanced while there because the
car is a notorious tire eater ('08 Impala.) When I got the car back
the mechanic said that I should take the car to the dealership and see
if they would warranty the front wheel bearings because both felt
loose, and he said that typically one should see no perceptible play
in them. I ASSume that these are not the tapered rollers that I know
and love but are one piece cartridge bearings so no adjustment is
possible. I had to take the car to the dealer anyway to get a
malfunctioning door lock fixed (fleet people wouldn't let regular
garage fix it for reasons unknown to me...) and they replaced both
front wheel bearings under warranty and immediately I noticed a
reduction in road noise.

Now, I can't think of a mechanism by which simply undoing and redoing
the lugs would cause a wheel bearing to fail... right?

I suppose it is possible that they just went bad right about that
time... I remember I had one get really loud on the last Imp that I
had but that was maybe 20K miles later (60K vs. 40K miles) funny thing
was that not three days after I had it replaced I hit a very large and
deep pothole at speed and trashed it *again* - wow, they're not real
strong are they? (I saw the pothole but thought it was a patch so
didn't swerve around it) but anyway, it just seems odd to me that they
would both go bad exactly as I had the tires replaced...

nate
Ads
  #2  
Old November 30th 10, 11:39 PM posted to rec.autos.tech
Brent[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,430
Default can front wheel bearings be damaged

On 2010-11-30, N8N > wrote:
> ...by mounting or rotating tires? I don't see how, BUT keep reading.
>
> At my last oil change, I got new tires installed on my company car. I
> immediately noticed an increase in road noise, but chalked it up to
> the different tread of the new tires (Uniroyal Tiger Paw vs. Goodyear
> Integrity) and since the old, OEM tires were so awful, I figured it
> was a small price to pay for actual traction.
>
> I just got an oil change again last week, about 7K miles later. I
> asked that the tires be rotated and balanced while there because the
> car is a notorious tire eater ('08 Impala.) When I got the car back
> the mechanic said that I should take the car to the dealership and see
> if they would warranty the front wheel bearings because both felt
> loose, and he said that typically one should see no perceptible play
> in them. I ASSume that these are not the tapered rollers that I know
> and love but are one piece cartridge bearings so no adjustment is
> possible. I had to take the car to the dealer anyway to get a
> malfunctioning door lock fixed (fleet people wouldn't let regular
> garage fix it for reasons unknown to me...) and they replaced both
> front wheel bearings under warranty and immediately I noticed a
> reduction in road noise.


> Now, I can't think of a mechanism by which simply undoing and redoing
> the lugs would cause a wheel bearing to fail... right?


> I suppose it is possible that they just went bad right about that
> time... I remember I had one get really loud on the last Imp that I
> had but that was maybe 20K miles later (60K vs. 40K miles) funny thing
> was that not three days after I had it replaced I hit a very large and
> deep pothole at speed and trashed it *again* - wow, they're not real
> strong are they? (I saw the pothole but thought it was a patch so
> didn't swerve around it) but anyway, it just seems odd to me that they
> would both go bad exactly as I had the tires replaced...


If for some reason they hit the hubs with a big hammer then maybe...
otherwise I can't see how changing the tires would do it. Perhaps the
different tire noise made the bearing noise more noticible?

I am guessing that the impala has ball bearings in the front? The
problem with ball bearings is they can't take much lateral load. Tapered
roller bearings are superior as they are designed to take lateral and
radial loads.

As to play, it should be zero. Mazda (FWD cars I am most familiar with)
has a spec of 0.5mm of play max. My experience is they can get noisy and
still have no measurable play.

  #3  
Old November 30th 10, 11:51 PM posted to rec.autos.tech
[email protected] cuhulin@webtv.net is offline
Banned
 
First recorded activity by AutoBanter: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,416
Default can front wheel bearings be damaged

On the web,

http://www.devilfinder.com
2008 Chevrolet Impala front wheel bearings problems
cuhulin

  #4  
Old December 1st 10, 03:31 AM posted to rec.autos.tech
jim beam[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,204
Default can front wheel bearings be damaged

On 11/30/2010 02:17 PM, N8N wrote:
> ...by mounting or rotating tires? I don't see how, BUT keep reading.
>
> At my last oil change, I got new tires installed on my company car. I
> immediately noticed an increase in road noise, but chalked it up to
> the different tread of the new tires (Uniroyal Tiger Paw vs. Goodyear
> Integrity) and since the old, OEM tires were so awful, I figured it
> was a small price to pay for actual traction.
>
> I just got an oil change again last week, about 7K miles later. I
> asked that the tires be rotated and balanced while there because the
> car is a notorious tire eater ('08 Impala.) When I got the car back
> the mechanic said that I should take the car to the dealership and see
> if they would warranty the front wheel bearings because both felt
> loose, and he said that typically one should see no perceptible play
> in them. I ASSume that these are not the tapered rollers that I know
> and love but are one piece cartridge bearings so no adjustment is
> possible. I had to take the car to the dealer anyway to get a
> malfunctioning door lock fixed (fleet people wouldn't let regular
> garage fix it for reasons unknown to me...) and they replaced both
> front wheel bearings under warranty and immediately I noticed a
> reduction in road noise.
>
> Now, I can't think of a mechanism by which simply undoing and redoing
> the lugs would cause a wheel bearing to fail... right?
>
> I suppose it is possible that they just went bad right about that
> time... I remember I had one get really loud on the last Imp that I
> had but that was maybe 20K miles later (60K vs. 40K miles) funny thing
> was that not three days after I had it replaced I hit a very large and
> deep pothole at speed and trashed it *again* - wow, they're not real
> strong are they? (I saw the pothole but thought it was a patch so
> didn't swerve around it) but anyway, it just seems odd to me that they
> would both go bad exactly as I had the tires replaced...
>
> nate


if you're in the rust belt, maybe they hammer the wheels to break them
free if they don't come off on their own? that'll brinell the bearings
quite successfully. oh, and they're likely cheap chinese bearings since
it's g.m, so no longevity there.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum
  #5  
Old December 1st 10, 03:32 AM posted to rec.autos.tech
jim beam[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,204
Default can front wheel bearings be damaged

On 11/30/2010 02:39 PM, Brent wrote:
> On 2010-11-30, > wrote:
>> ...by mounting or rotating tires? I don't see how, BUT keep reading.
>>
>> At my last oil change, I got new tires installed on my company car. I
>> immediately noticed an increase in road noise, but chalked it up to
>> the different tread of the new tires (Uniroyal Tiger Paw vs. Goodyear
>> Integrity) and since the old, OEM tires were so awful, I figured it
>> was a small price to pay for actual traction.
>>
>> I just got an oil change again last week, about 7K miles later. I
>> asked that the tires be rotated and balanced while there because the
>> car is a notorious tire eater ('08 Impala.) When I got the car back
>> the mechanic said that I should take the car to the dealership and see
>> if they would warranty the front wheel bearings because both felt
>> loose, and he said that typically one should see no perceptible play
>> in them. I ASSume that these are not the tapered rollers that I know
>> and love but are one piece cartridge bearings so no adjustment is
>> possible. I had to take the car to the dealer anyway to get a
>> malfunctioning door lock fixed (fleet people wouldn't let regular
>> garage fix it for reasons unknown to me...) and they replaced both
>> front wheel bearings under warranty and immediately I noticed a
>> reduction in road noise.

>
>> Now, I can't think of a mechanism by which simply undoing and redoing
>> the lugs would cause a wheel bearing to fail... right?

>
>> I suppose it is possible that they just went bad right about that
>> time... I remember I had one get really loud on the last Imp that I
>> had but that was maybe 20K miles later (60K vs. 40K miles) funny thing
>> was that not three days after I had it replaced I hit a very large and
>> deep pothole at speed and trashed it *again* - wow, they're not real
>> strong are they? (I saw the pothole but thought it was a patch so
>> didn't swerve around it) but anyway, it just seems odd to me that they
>> would both go bad exactly as I had the tires replaced...

>
> If for some reason they hit the hubs with a big hammer then maybe...
> otherwise I can't see how changing the tires would do it. Perhaps the
> different tire noise made the bearing noise more noticible?
>
> I am guessing that the impala has ball bearings in the front? The
> problem with ball bearings is they can't take much lateral load.


not true. most fwd cars use double row angular contact ball bearings -
they most definitely are designed for and can take substantial lateral load.


> Tapered
> roller bearings are superior as they are designed to take lateral and
> radial loads.


they can take higher loads for a given size, but they have no tolerance
for loads outside their normal config - in that regard, ball bearings
are more tolerant, hence their use on fronts where there's all kinds of
stuff going on.


>
> As to play, it should be zero. Mazda (FWD cars I am most familiar with)
> has a spec of 0.5mm of play max. My experience is they can get noisy and
> still have no measurable play.
>



--
nomina rutrum rutrum
  #6  
Old December 1st 10, 03:30 PM posted to rec.autos.tech
hls
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,139
Default can front wheel bearings be damaged


"N8N" > wrote in message news:71710639-2921-

> Now, I can't think of a mechanism by which simply undoing and redoing
> the lugs would cause a wheel bearing to fail... right?


No, me either. The mechanic felt the looseness and this was
confirmed by the noise you got with the new tires.. I'm going to
vote that the new tires amplified the need for the new bearings
but had nothing to do with them being worn.




  #7  
Old December 1st 10, 09:08 PM posted to rec.autos.tech
Brent[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,430
Default can front wheel bearings be damaged

On 2010-12-01, jim beam > wrote:
> On 11/30/2010 02:39 PM, Brent wrote:
>> On 2010-11-30, > wrote:
>>> ...by mounting or rotating tires? I don't see how, BUT keep reading.
>>>
>>> At my last oil change, I got new tires installed on my company car. I
>>> immediately noticed an increase in road noise, but chalked it up to
>>> the different tread of the new tires (Uniroyal Tiger Paw vs. Goodyear
>>> Integrity) and since the old, OEM tires were so awful, I figured it
>>> was a small price to pay for actual traction.
>>>
>>> I just got an oil change again last week, about 7K miles later. I
>>> asked that the tires be rotated and balanced while there because the
>>> car is a notorious tire eater ('08 Impala.) When I got the car back
>>> the mechanic said that I should take the car to the dealership and see
>>> if they would warranty the front wheel bearings because both felt
>>> loose, and he said that typically one should see no perceptible play
>>> in them. I ASSume that these are not the tapered rollers that I know
>>> and love but are one piece cartridge bearings so no adjustment is
>>> possible. I had to take the car to the dealer anyway to get a
>>> malfunctioning door lock fixed (fleet people wouldn't let regular
>>> garage fix it for reasons unknown to me...) and they replaced both
>>> front wheel bearings under warranty and immediately I noticed a
>>> reduction in road noise.

>>
>>> Now, I can't think of a mechanism by which simply undoing and redoing
>>> the lugs would cause a wheel bearing to fail... right?

>>
>>> I suppose it is possible that they just went bad right about that
>>> time... I remember I had one get really loud on the last Imp that I
>>> had but that was maybe 20K miles later (60K vs. 40K miles) funny thing
>>> was that not three days after I had it replaced I hit a very large and
>>> deep pothole at speed and trashed it *again* - wow, they're not real
>>> strong are they? (I saw the pothole but thought it was a patch so
>>> didn't swerve around it) but anyway, it just seems odd to me that they
>>> would both go bad exactly as I had the tires replaced...

>>
>> If for some reason they hit the hubs with a big hammer then maybe...
>> otherwise I can't see how changing the tires would do it. Perhaps the
>> different tire noise made the bearing noise more noticible?
>>
>> I am guessing that the impala has ball bearings in the front? The
>> problem with ball bearings is they can't take much lateral load.


> not true.


It is for typical ball bearings.

> most fwd cars use double row angular contact ball bearings -
> they most definitely are designed for and can take substantial lateral load.


compared to regular ball bearings, but nothing like what a roller can
handle.

>> Tapered
>> roller bearings are superior as they are designed to take lateral and
>> radial loads.


> they can take higher loads for a given size, but they have no tolerance
> for loads outside their normal config - in that regard, ball bearings
> are more tolerant, hence their use on fronts where there's all kinds of
> stuff going on.


What do you mean "outside their normal config"? Using parts as they
aren't supposed to be used can result in failure. Tapered roller
bearings did the job on front ends for years, it's just about cost.
There are even sealed double row tapered roller bearings.

  #8  
Old December 2nd 10, 01:49 AM posted to rec.autos.tech
jim beam[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,204
Default can front wheel bearings be damaged

On 12/01/2010 12:08 PM, Brent wrote:
> On 2010-12-01, jim > wrote:
>> On 11/30/2010 02:39 PM, Brent wrote:
>>> On 2010-11-30, > wrote:
>>>> ...by mounting or rotating tires? I don't see how, BUT keep reading.
>>>>
>>>> At my last oil change, I got new tires installed on my company car. I
>>>> immediately noticed an increase in road noise, but chalked it up to
>>>> the different tread of the new tires (Uniroyal Tiger Paw vs. Goodyear
>>>> Integrity) and since the old, OEM tires were so awful, I figured it
>>>> was a small price to pay for actual traction.
>>>>
>>>> I just got an oil change again last week, about 7K miles later. I
>>>> asked that the tires be rotated and balanced while there because the
>>>> car is a notorious tire eater ('08 Impala.) When I got the car back
>>>> the mechanic said that I should take the car to the dealership and see
>>>> if they would warranty the front wheel bearings because both felt
>>>> loose, and he said that typically one should see no perceptible play
>>>> in them. I ASSume that these are not the tapered rollers that I know
>>>> and love but are one piece cartridge bearings so no adjustment is
>>>> possible. I had to take the car to the dealer anyway to get a
>>>> malfunctioning door lock fixed (fleet people wouldn't let regular
>>>> garage fix it for reasons unknown to me...) and they replaced both
>>>> front wheel bearings under warranty and immediately I noticed a
>>>> reduction in road noise.
>>>
>>>> Now, I can't think of a mechanism by which simply undoing and redoing
>>>> the lugs would cause a wheel bearing to fail... right?
>>>
>>>> I suppose it is possible that they just went bad right about that
>>>> time... I remember I had one get really loud on the last Imp that I
>>>> had but that was maybe 20K miles later (60K vs. 40K miles) funny thing
>>>> was that not three days after I had it replaced I hit a very large and
>>>> deep pothole at speed and trashed it *again* - wow, they're not real
>>>> strong are they? (I saw the pothole but thought it was a patch so
>>>> didn't swerve around it) but anyway, it just seems odd to me that they
>>>> would both go bad exactly as I had the tires replaced...
>>>
>>> If for some reason they hit the hubs with a big hammer then maybe...
>>> otherwise I can't see how changing the tires would do it. Perhaps the
>>> different tire noise made the bearing noise more noticible?
>>>
>>> I am guessing that the impala has ball bearings in the front? The
>>> problem with ball bearings is they can't take much lateral load.

>
>> not true.

>
> It is for typical ball bearings.


what is a "typical" ball bearing? single row? double row? 15 °
angular contact? 30° angular contact? full compliment? there's a
/lot/ more to this than you seem to be considering.


>
>> most fwd cars use double row angular contact ball bearings -
>> they most definitely are designed for and can take substantial lateral load.

>
> compared to regular ball bearings, but nothing like what a roller can
> handle.


again, you're not considering any of the other factors. rollers are
great for a narrow range of angular loads - the rollers need to be
loaded evenly long their length, not just one end. if they're loaded
outside of that, they don't roll evenly and all kinds of issues occur.
now, you can load them outside of that range if the loading is light,
but then your bearing ends up being overkill.


>
>>> Tapered
>>> roller bearings are superior as they are designed to take lateral and
>>> radial loads.

>
>> they can take higher loads for a given size, but they have no tolerance
>> for loads outside their normal config - in that regard, ball bearings
>> are more tolerant, hence their use on fronts where there's all kinds of
>> stuff going on.

>
> What do you mean "outside their normal config"?


they're to be used for their specified loading angle which is very
narrow. see above.


> Using parts as they
> aren't supposed to be used can result in failure. Tapered roller
> bearings did the job on front ends for years, it's just about cost.


nope. nothing gives a greater range of load angle tolerance than double
row angular ball. that's why they're used.


> There are even sealed double row tapered roller bearings.


yes there are, but that's irrelevant to the above.



--
nomina rutrum rutrum
  #9  
Old December 2nd 10, 04:20 AM posted to rec.autos.tech
Brent[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,430
Default can front wheel bearings be damaged

On 2010-12-02, jim beam > wrote:
> On 12/01/2010 12:08 PM, Brent wrote:
>> On 2010-12-01, jim > wrote:
>>> On 11/30/2010 02:39 PM, Brent wrote:
>>>> On 2010-11-30, > wrote:
>>>>> ...by mounting or rotating tires? I don't see how, BUT keep reading.
>>>>>
>>>>> At my last oil change, I got new tires installed on my company car. I
>>>>> immediately noticed an increase in road noise, but chalked it up to
>>>>> the different tread of the new tires (Uniroyal Tiger Paw vs. Goodyear
>>>>> Integrity) and since the old, OEM tires were so awful, I figured it
>>>>> was a small price to pay for actual traction.
>>>>>
>>>>> I just got an oil change again last week, about 7K miles later. I
>>>>> asked that the tires be rotated and balanced while there because the
>>>>> car is a notorious tire eater ('08 Impala.) When I got the car back
>>>>> the mechanic said that I should take the car to the dealership and see
>>>>> if they would warranty the front wheel bearings because both felt
>>>>> loose, and he said that typically one should see no perceptible play
>>>>> in them. I ASSume that these are not the tapered rollers that I know
>>>>> and love but are one piece cartridge bearings so no adjustment is
>>>>> possible. I had to take the car to the dealer anyway to get a
>>>>> malfunctioning door lock fixed (fleet people wouldn't let regular
>>>>> garage fix it for reasons unknown to me...) and they replaced both
>>>>> front wheel bearings under warranty and immediately I noticed a
>>>>> reduction in road noise.
>>>>
>>>>> Now, I can't think of a mechanism by which simply undoing and redoing
>>>>> the lugs would cause a wheel bearing to fail... right?
>>>>
>>>>> I suppose it is possible that they just went bad right about that
>>>>> time... I remember I had one get really loud on the last Imp that I
>>>>> had but that was maybe 20K miles later (60K vs. 40K miles) funny thing
>>>>> was that not three days after I had it replaced I hit a very large and
>>>>> deep pothole at speed and trashed it *again* - wow, they're not real
>>>>> strong are they? (I saw the pothole but thought it was a patch so
>>>>> didn't swerve around it) but anyway, it just seems odd to me that they
>>>>> would both go bad exactly as I had the tires replaced...
>>>>
>>>> If for some reason they hit the hubs with a big hammer then maybe...
>>>> otherwise I can't see how changing the tires would do it. Perhaps the
>>>> different tire noise made the bearing noise more noticible?
>>>>
>>>> I am guessing that the impala has ball bearings in the front? The
>>>> problem with ball bearings is they can't take much lateral load.

>>
>>> not true.

>>
>> It is for typical ball bearings.

>
> what is a "typical" ball bearing? single row? double row? 15 °
> angular contact? 30° angular contact? full compliment? there's a
> /lot/ more to this than you seem to be considering.


A typical ball bearing, an inner race, a cage and an outer
race. No special angles or bull****, just a ball bearing as found in
all sorts of things, from the very small to the rather large.
He http://www.crestock.com/images/10500...1054559-xs.jpg
shouldn't need to spell this out so I wonder if you're just playing
games.

>>> most fwd cars use double row angular contact ball bearings -
>>> they most definitely are designed for and can take substantial lateral load.


>> compared to regular ball bearings, but nothing like what a roller can
>> handle.


> again, you're not considering any of the other factors. rollers are
> great for a narrow range of angular loads - the rollers need to be
> loaded evenly long their length, not just one end. if they're loaded
> outside of that, they don't roll evenly and all kinds of issues occur.
> now, you can load them outside of that range if the loading is light,
> but then your bearing ends up being overkill.


Now you're just being a usenet nit picker. You're not going to get that
kind of uneven loading in any fixtureed environment. If you're loading
through only part of the cup or cone to get the uneven loading
you are describing you've done a ****ty design and/or the shaft in the
inner race isn't concentric with the bearing mount holding the outer
race. The races shouldn't be loaded like that in any kind of bearing
except those designed to have the inner race rotate relative to the
outer.

Anyway for a situation like a wheel bearing, that's what the proper
preload is for. To keep the outer race from tilting and loading the
rollers improperly. Also there is a distance between inner and outer
wheel bearings to prevent them from being loaded at some odd angle.
This costs money. It's not some bearing you can just press in at
one end like the double row angular ball bearings.

>>>> Tapered
>>>> roller bearings are superior as they are designed to take lateral and
>>>> radial loads.


>>> they can take higher loads for a given size, but they have no tolerance
>>> for loads outside their normal config - in that regard, ball bearings
>>> are more tolerant, hence their use on fronts where there's all kinds of
>>> stuff going on.


>> What do you mean "outside their normal config"?


> they're to be used for their specified loading angle which is very
> narrow. see above.


Again, this doesn't apply to a fixtured environment.

>> Using parts as they
>> aren't supposed to be used can result in failure. Tapered roller
>> bearings did the job on front ends for years, it's just about cost.


> nope. nothing gives a greater range of load angle tolerance than double
> row angular ball. that's why they're used.


This is a fixtured environment, what variety of load angles are you
going to be dealing with? You've got primarily a radial load and some
axial load... The vector breaks down into those two components at the
bearing(s). There isn't some point load at some angle being applied to
some location on the OD or ID. If there was that's not the intended
usage and something is very wrong.

This whole concept of "load angle tolerance" seems rather foreign and
sounds to me to be tolerance of shaft and housing not being concentric.
Since a wheel bearing is a cantilevered set up the inner and outer races
and what is mounted on them will always be concentric unless the
bearing(s) is(are) damaged.

Anyway, he
http://www.skf.com/portal/skf/home/p...&newlink=1_3_1

Click on the figure that shows the contact angle. See how the ball is
held in place? The races are formed to resist axial loading. Now take a
look at a cross section of a tapered roller bearing.
http://www.efunda.com/designstandard...red_roller.cfm
See how much more capability there is to take axial load? Now look at a
typical, ordinary, garden variety ball bearing, see link above... hardly
anything for axial load.

If what you mean is that angular ball bearings are easier to deal with
in an assembly enviroment because they are more tolerant of things not
being concentric, not needing a preload, etc and so forth, then yes they
are more tolerant. More tolerant of the wallet becaus making things
more precise costs money. Those are cost motivations. Is it nice that
angular ball bearings can be made assemble and forget? yes. But there's
a trade off for that and that is in the loads they can survive. The
inner/outer tapered roller bearing set up is simply stronger, more
supportive and can take more axial load than a double row angular ball
bearing at one end of the hub.

BTW:
http://www.gizmology.net/bearings.htm
Notice what they call a typical ball bearing.

  #10  
Old December 3rd 10, 02:10 AM posted to rec.autos.tech
jim beam[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,204
Default can front wheel bearings be damaged

On 12/01/2010 07:20 PM, Brent wrote:
> On 2010-12-02, jim > wrote:
>> On 12/01/2010 12:08 PM, Brent wrote:
>>> On 2010-12-01, jim > wrote:
>>>> On 11/30/2010 02:39 PM, Brent wrote:
>>>>> On 2010-11-30, > wrote:
>>>>>> ...by mounting or rotating tires? I don't see how, BUT keep reading.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At my last oil change, I got new tires installed on my company car. I
>>>>>> immediately noticed an increase in road noise, but chalked it up to
>>>>>> the different tread of the new tires (Uniroyal Tiger Paw vs. Goodyear
>>>>>> Integrity) and since the old, OEM tires were so awful, I figured it
>>>>>> was a small price to pay for actual traction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just got an oil change again last week, about 7K miles later. I
>>>>>> asked that the tires be rotated and balanced while there because the
>>>>>> car is a notorious tire eater ('08 Impala.) When I got the car back
>>>>>> the mechanic said that I should take the car to the dealership and see
>>>>>> if they would warranty the front wheel bearings because both felt
>>>>>> loose, and he said that typically one should see no perceptible play
>>>>>> in them. I ASSume that these are not the tapered rollers that I know
>>>>>> and love but are one piece cartridge bearings so no adjustment is
>>>>>> possible. I had to take the car to the dealer anyway to get a
>>>>>> malfunctioning door lock fixed (fleet people wouldn't let regular
>>>>>> garage fix it for reasons unknown to me...) and they replaced both
>>>>>> front wheel bearings under warranty and immediately I noticed a
>>>>>> reduction in road noise.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, I can't think of a mechanism by which simply undoing and redoing
>>>>>> the lugs would cause a wheel bearing to fail... right?
>>>>>
>>>>>> I suppose it is possible that they just went bad right about that
>>>>>> time... I remember I had one get really loud on the last Imp that I
>>>>>> had but that was maybe 20K miles later (60K vs. 40K miles) funny thing
>>>>>> was that not three days after I had it replaced I hit a very large and
>>>>>> deep pothole at speed and trashed it *again* - wow, they're not real
>>>>>> strong are they? (I saw the pothole but thought it was a patch so
>>>>>> didn't swerve around it) but anyway, it just seems odd to me that they
>>>>>> would both go bad exactly as I had the tires replaced...
>>>>>
>>>>> If for some reason they hit the hubs with a big hammer then maybe...
>>>>> otherwise I can't see how changing the tires would do it. Perhaps the
>>>>> different tire noise made the bearing noise more noticible?
>>>>>
>>>>> I am guessing that the impala has ball bearings in the front? The
>>>>> problem with ball bearings is they can't take much lateral load.
>>>
>>>> not true.
>>>
>>> It is for typical ball bearings.

>>
>> what is a "typical" ball bearing? single row? double row? 15 �
>> angular contact? 30� angular contact? full compliment? there's a
>> /lot/ more to this than you seem to be considering.

>
> A typical ball bearing, an inner race, a cage and an outer
> race. No special angles or bull****, just a ball bearing as found in
> all sorts of things, from the very small to the rather large.
> He http://www.crestock.com/images/10500...1054559-xs.jpg
> shouldn't need to spell this out so I wonder if you're just playing
> games.


you mean single row, deep groove, conrad.


>
>>>> most fwd cars use double row angular contact ball bearings -
>>>> they most definitely are designed for and can take substantial lateral load.

>
>>> compared to regular ball bearings, but nothing like what a roller can
>>> handle.

>
>> again, you're not considering any of the other factors. rollers are
>> great for a narrow range of angular loads - the rollers need to be
>> loaded evenly long their length, not just one end. if they're loaded
>> outside of that, they don't roll evenly and all kinds of issues occur.
>> now, you can load them outside of that range if the loading is light,
>> but then your bearing ends up being overkill.

>
> Now you're just being a usenet nit picker. You're not going to get that
> kind of uneven loading in any fixtureed environment.


of course you are - that's why ball bearings are more commonly used,
because of their misalignment tolerance.


> If you're loading
> through only part of the cup or cone to get the uneven loading
> you are describing you've done a ****ty design and/or the shaft in the
> inner race isn't concentric with the bearing mount holding the outer
> race.


nope, it's a practical reality. i don't know what kind of tolerance you
think you're getting on the average steering knuckle [for instance], but
it sure ain't the sub-micron tolerance you're getting on the bearing.


> The races shouldn't be loaded like that in any kind of bearing
> except those designed to have the inner race rotate relative to the
> outer.


dude, you can't /not/ have them misaligned to some extent. at least,
not with any loading that causes elasticity [which is by definition
inevitable], and without spectacular precision in the machining of the
parts to which they're fitted.


>
> Anyway for a situation like a wheel bearing, that's what the proper
> preload is for. To keep the outer race from tilting and loading the
> rollers improperly. Also there is a distance between inner and outer
> wheel bearings to prevent them from being loaded at some odd angle.
> This costs money. It's not some bearing you can just press in at
> one end like the double row angular ball bearings.


no, the fitting on both is identical.


>
>>>>> Tapered
>>>>> roller bearings are superior as they are designed to take lateral and
>>>>> radial loads.

>
>>>> they can take higher loads for a given size, but they have no tolerance
>>>> for loads outside their normal config - in that regard, ball bearings
>>>> are more tolerant, hence their use on fronts where there's all kinds of
>>>> stuff going on.

>
>>> What do you mean "outside their normal config"?

>
>> they're to be used for their specified loading angle which is very
>> narrow. see above.

>
> Again, this doesn't apply to a fixtured environment.


you don't understand what that really means. see above.


>
>>> Using parts as they
>>> aren't supposed to be used can result in failure. Tapered roller
>>> bearings did the job on front ends for years, it's just about cost.

>
>> nope. nothing gives a greater range of load angle tolerance than double
>> row angular ball. that's why they're used.

>
> This is a fixtured environment, what variety of load angles are you
> going to be dealing with? You've got primarily a radial load and some
> axial load... The vector breaks down into those two components at the
> bearing(s). There isn't some point load at some angle being applied to
> some location on the OD or ID. If there was that's not the intended
> usage and something is very wrong.


you're badly confused. it's too simplistic to be really useful, but
some of the concepts you need to understand are he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_bearing


>
> This whole concept of "load angle tolerance" seems rather foreign and
> sounds to me to be tolerance of shaft and housing not being concentric.
> Since a wheel bearing is a cantilevered set up the inner and outer races
> and what is mounted on them will always be concentric unless the
> bearing(s) is(are) damaged.


no dude. see above. and you need to understand the nature of elasticity
and loading - you cannot have one without the other.


>
> Anyway, he
> http://www.skf.com/portal/skf/home/p...&newlink=1_3_1
>
> Click on the figure that shows the contact angle. See how the ball is
> held in place? The races are formed to resist axial loading. Now take a
> look at a cross section of a tapered roller bearing.
> http://www.efunda.com/designstandard...red_roller.cfm
> See how much more capability there is to take axial load? Now look at a
> typical, ordinary, garden variety ball bearing, see link above... hardly
> anything for axial load.


no dude, you're confused. those angles you're looking at are for the
angle of the roller taper, they're nothing to do with loading.


>
> If what you mean is that angular ball bearings are easier to deal with
> in an assembly enviroment because they are more tolerant of things not
> being concentric, not needing a preload, etc and so forth, then yes they
> are more tolerant. More tolerant of the wallet becaus making things
> more precise costs money. Those are cost motivations. Is it nice that
> angular ball bearings can be made assemble and forget? yes. But there's
> a trade off for that and that is in the loads they can survive. The
> inner/outer tapered roller bearing set up is simply stronger, more
> supportive and can take more axial load than a double row angular ball
> bearing at one end of the hub.


we've already discussed this - yes, rollers can take more radial load,
but they /cannot/ take more axial load. it causes the roller to pinch
at one end, roll eccentrically, then wear to a barrel shape. this may
not worry some manufacturers who can't get past the 1950's designs where
they didn't know this stuff, but that's not reason to remain in ignorance.


>
> BTW:
> http://www.gizmology.net/bearings.htm
> Notice what they call a typical ball bearing.
>


single row, deep groove, conrad. if someone's asking you a technical
question, give a technical answer!


--
nomina rutrum rutrum
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Front Wheel Bearings Daniel David Palmer[_2_] Ford Explorer 10 January 26th 08 06:09 PM
Dana 30 front wheel bearings KayakBill Jeep 20 July 9th 06 04:13 PM
front wheel bearings cj Dodge 2 November 22nd 05 05:30 AM
'97 Front Wheel Bearings krupnikas Ford Explorer 0 May 18th 05 04:01 PM
A4 - Front Wheel Bearings ? Graeme Audi 1 July 15th 04 12:47 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.