can front wheel bearings be damaged

On 12/04/2010 04:28 PM, Brent wrote:
> On 2010-12-04, jim > wrote:
>> what is the tire rotation pattern recommended by bmw? what is it for
>> ferrari? what is it for porsche? more importantly, /why/ do those
>> performance car manufacturers make those recommendations?
>
> Check the owners manual of whatever model you're interested in. You can
> probably find PDF's of them online.
>
>

no, /you/ need to do it because you need to learn something. and unless
you look it up, you never will.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On 2010-12-05, jim beam > wrote:
> On 12/04/2010 04:32 PM, Brent wrote:
>> On 2010-12-04, jim > wrote:
>>> On 12/03/2010 10:15 PM, Brent wrote:
>>>> On 2010-12-04, jim > wrote:
>>>>> On 12/03/2010 05:54 PM, Brent wrote:
>>>>>> On 2010-12-04, jim > wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/03/2010 11:25 AM, Brent wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2010-12-03, jim > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/03/2010 06:44 AM, Brent wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2010-12-03, jim > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> of course you are - that's why ball bearings are more commonly used,
>>>>>>>>>>> because of their misalignment tolerance.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is clear you don't understand the geometeries involved or the
>>>>>>>>>> designs. Ball bearings are used because they are CHEAP and EASY to
>>>>>>>>>> install in a manufacturing envirionment. Your angular ball bearings are
>>>>>>>>>> tolerant of the cheap design. If you use tapered roller bearings
>>>>>>>>>> correctly you get a much more robust design that is also much more
>>>>>>>>>> expensive, if for nothing else the cost of the bearings.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. there's not a significant difference in cost.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <http://www.autopartsworld.com/results/?PN=9265&N=0&VN=4294967193+4294966864+4294965966+4 294967247+4294966883&Nr=AND%28universal:0%29>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <http://www.autopartsworld.com/results/?N=0&VN=4294967193+4294967031+4294967025+429496693 7+4294966998&Nr=AND%28universal:0%29&PN=9265>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's not just the cost of the bearing itself. But the machining and
>>>>>>>> and assembly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip crap>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ok, let's stop right here. if you think there's a difference in the
>>>>>>> machining for a shaft with a deep groove ball bearing fitted and the
>>>>>>> machining on a shaft with a tapered roller fitted, you have problems way
>>>>>>> beyond anything i can address.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's pretty clear that you are totally clueless. You don't even
>>>>>> understand the basic assembly, vector sums, or anything else.
>>>>>
>>>>> ok, "vector sum" 100kgf
>>>
>>> typo - 1000kgf
>>>
>>>
>>>>> vertical load, with 0.6 g's cornering force -
>>>>> what is the resolved load angle? what is the total load? relate those
>>>>> to the capacities of a 32006 roller and a 7006 ball bearing.
>>>>
>>>> How about you stop being a moron?
>>
>>> it was a serious question. any high school math grad should be able to
>>> handle the first two parts. all you need for the latter is an internet
>>> connection.
>>
>> You're so ignorant that you couldn't even properly define the problem
>> because you don't understand vectors or mechanical systems. Not only did
>> you not define the suspension in question you don't even define the key
>> aspect of the mounting/wheel geometery.
>
> no, applied load is independent of "suspension geometry". you're either
> making an attempt at a red herring, or proving significant

You're asking for the load applied to the bearing by giving the loads on
the TIRE. The fact that you don't know how to add vectors becomes
clearly evident in that you feel the relationship between the bearing
and the tire (contact patch actually) is not relevant.

> misunderstanding. besides, it's just a simple high school trig question
> that also happens to be a real live applicable engineering application -
> it's exactly the kind of example as to /why/ we bother with trig in the
> first place.

You can't solve a problem with only unknowns. That's something
you should have learned in HS.

>> Furthermore your problem as
>> posed continues the ignorant idea that a tapered roller bearing is a
>> direct replacement for an angular ball bearing and vice-versa.

> no, i'm quoting specific bearings whose specs you can look up and
> compare with the results from the trig question above.

Your problem assumes both are using the same design. This is a huge
error because you don't use the same design for two different bearing
types. This has been the on-going problem with your thinking.

>> They
>> aren't as I previously explained to you with illustrations.

> you haven't explained anything - all you've done is assert a bunch of
> stuff you're making up because you don't know enough to say.

Translation: You're ignorant and didn't bother to read.

> and have
> continued to do so despite all the big red flags in your path saying "go
> back and learn where you're going wrong".

That's what you're doing, I've given you far more time than you're
worth. At each step you realize that you're ignorant so you take another
face saving tactic and ignore the hammering you got. Trouble is each
attempt you make at saving face reveals a deeper ignorance.

> really, you're totally
> distracted from the facts - and the opportunity to learn something you
> apparently need to know.

You don't have a clue and are not worth any more of my time.

On 2010-12-05, jim beam > wrote:
> On 12/04/2010 04:28 PM, Brent wrote:
>> On 2010-12-04, jim > wrote:
>>> what is the tire rotation pattern recommended by bmw? what is it for
>>> ferrari? what is it for porsche? more importantly, /why/ do those
>>> performance car manufacturers make those recommendations?
>>
>> Check the owners manual of whatever model you're interested in. You can
>> probably find PDF's of them online.
>>
>>
>
> no, /you/ need to do it because you need to learn something. and unless
> you look it up, you never will.

Ok jackass, one BMW chosen at random:
http://www.bmwusa.com/PDF_23abd5f9-5...2c99cc73c.arox

So BMW doesn't recommend it. I covered that in my post. I believe I
wrote something like If you're going to buy a car where the
suspension is set up such that tires wear into their corners you
can afford to replace all four tires at the same time.

Exactly how are you going to 'buy two new tires, put them on the rear
and move the rear tires to the front' when BMW states:

"BMW advises against swapping wheels
between the front and rear axles, even if all tires
have the same size, as this could impair driving
characteristics. If the tires are of mixed sizes,
swapping wheels between the axles is not permissible."

This means if your front tires wear out, you REPLACE ALL FOUR AT THE
SAME TIME regardless if the rears need to be replaced or not.

Thanks for playing numbnuts.

BTW: http://pdfcast.org/pdf/2006-ford-mustang-owners-manual
Goto page 126 & 127.

On 12/04/2010 07:44 PM, Brent wrote:
> On 2010-12-05, jim > wrote:
>> On 12/04/2010 04:28 PM, Brent wrote:
>>> On 2010-12-04, jim > wrote:
>>>> what is the tire rotation pattern recommended by bmw? what is it for
>>>> ferrari? what is it for porsche? more importantly, /why/ do those
>>>> performance car manufacturers make those recommendations?
>>>
>>> Check the owners manual of whatever model you're interested in. You can
>>> probably find PDF's of them online.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> no, /you/ need to do it because you need to learn something. and unless
>> you look it up, you never will.
>
> Ok jackass, one BMW chosen at random:
> http://www.bmwusa.com/PDF_23abd5f9-5...2c99cc73c.arox
>
> So BMW doesn't recommend it. I covered that in my post.

no you didn't, you just blathered a bunch of underinformed nonsense.


> I believe I
> wrote something like If you're going to buy a car where the
> suspension is set up such that tires wear into their corners you
> can afford to replace all four tires at the same time.

red herring - and that's got /nothing/ to do with the technical reasons
why not to rotate.


>
> Exactly how are you going to 'buy two new tires, put them on the rear
> and move the rear tires to the front' when BMW states:
>
> "BMW advises against swapping wheels
> between the front and rear axles, even if all tires
> have the same size, as this could impair driving
> characteristics. If the tires are of mixed sizes,
> swapping wheels between the axles is not permissible."
>
> This means if your front tires wear out, you REPLACE ALL FOUR AT THE
> SAME TIME regardless if the rears need to be replaced or not.

if they're wearing at the same rate, and on bmw they mostly do, then go
ahead. if, like is the case with fwd, they don't, [apparently something
for which you have no experience] then it's an exercise in litigation
avoidance.


>
> Thanks for playing numbnuts.
>
> BTW: http://pdfcast.org/pdf/2006-ford-mustang-owners-manual
> Goto page 126& 127.

solid axles - that explains a great deal...


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On 12/04/2010 07:27 PM, Brent wrote:
> On 2010-12-05, jim > wrote:
>> On 12/04/2010 04:32 PM, Brent wrote:
>>> On 2010-12-04, jim > wrote:
>>>> On 12/03/2010 10:15 PM, Brent wrote:
>>>>> On 2010-12-04, jim > wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/03/2010 05:54 PM, Brent wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2010-12-04, jim > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/03/2010 11:25 AM, Brent wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2010-12-03, jim > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/03/2010 06:44 AM, Brent wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2010-12-03, jim > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> of course you are - that's why ball bearings are more commonly used,
>>>>>>>>>>>> because of their misalignment tolerance.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is clear you don't understand the geometeries involved or the
>>>>>>>>>>> designs. Ball bearings are used because they are CHEAP and EASY to
>>>>>>>>>>> install in a manufacturing envirionment. Your angular ball bearings are
>>>>>>>>>>> tolerant of the cheap design. If you use tapered roller bearings
>>>>>>>>>>> correctly you get a much more robust design that is also much more
>>>>>>>>>>> expensive, if for nothing else the cost of the bearings.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1. there's not a significant difference in cost.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.autopartsworld.com/results/?PN=9265&N=0&VN=4294967193+4294966864+4294965966+4 294967247+4294966883&Nr=AND%28universal:0%29>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.autopartsworld.com/results/?N=0&VN=4294967193+4294967031+4294967025+429496693 7+4294966998&Nr=AND%28universal:0%29&PN=9265>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's not just the cost of the bearing itself. But the machining and
>>>>>>>>> and assembly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <snip crap>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ok, let's stop right here. if you think there's a difference in the
>>>>>>>> machining for a shaft with a deep groove ball bearing fitted and the
>>>>>>>> machining on a shaft with a tapered roller fitted, you have problems way
>>>>>>>> beyond anything i can address.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's pretty clear that you are totally clueless. You don't even
>>>>>>> understand the basic assembly, vector sums, or anything else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ok, "vector sum" 100kgf
>>>>
>>>> typo - 1000kgf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> vertical load, with 0.6 g's cornering force -
>>>>>> what is the resolved load angle? what is the total load? relate those
>>>>>> to the capacities of a 32006 roller and a 7006 ball bearing.
>>>>>
>>>>> How about you stop being a moron?
>>>
>>>> it was a serious question. any high school math grad should be able to
>>>> handle the first two parts. all you need for the latter is an internet
>>>> connection.
>>>
>>> You're so ignorant that you couldn't even properly define the problem
>>> because you don't understand vectors or mechanical systems. Not only did
>>> you not define the suspension in question you don't even define the key
>>> aspect of the mounting/wheel geometery.
>>
>> no, applied load is independent of "suspension geometry". you're either
>> making an attempt at a red herring, or proving significant
>
> You're asking for the load applied to the bearing by giving the loads on
> the TIRE.

get a grip - if you're not applying the load via the tire, you're
airborne.


> The fact that you don't know how to add vectors becomes
> clearly evident in that you feel the relationship between the bearing
> and the tire (contact patch actually) is not relevant.

you can't see how you're contradicting yourself?????? i can't handle
this kind of stupidity.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

What is that old saying about don't drop a bearing on a hard surface, it
can get damaged? Same goes for cameras too.
cuhulin

On 2010-12-05, jim beam > wrote:
> On 12/04/2010 07:44 PM, Brent wrote:
>> On 2010-12-05, jim > wrote:
>>> On 12/04/2010 04:28 PM, Brent wrote:
>>>> On 2010-12-04, jim > wrote:
>>>>> what is the tire rotation pattern recommended by bmw? what is it for
>>>>> ferrari? what is it for porsche? more importantly, /why/ do those
>>>>> performance car manufacturers make those recommendations?
>>>>
>>>> Check the owners manual of whatever model you're interested in. You can
>>>> probably find PDF's of them online.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> no, /you/ need to do it because you need to learn something. and unless
>>> you look it up, you never will.
>>
>> Ok jackass, one BMW chosen at random:
>> http://www.bmwusa.com/PDF_23abd5f9-5...2c99cc73c.arox
>>
>> So BMW doesn't recommend it. I covered that in my post.
>
> no you didn't, you just blathered a bunch of underinformed nonsense.

You really are dumb:

Message-ID: >

Or perhaps you're driving an expensive super car
with a suspension that is so finely set up that it
has tires designed for use in only one location in
which case you can afford to replace all four tires.

>> I believe I
>> wrote something like If you're going to buy a car where the
>> suspension is set up such that tires wear into their corners you
>> can afford to replace all four tires at the same time.

> red herring - and that's got /nothing/ to do with the technical reasons
> why not to rotate.

Again you're so ignorant you can only see parts and not systems.


>>
>> Exactly how are you going to 'buy two new tires, put them on the rear
>> and move the rear tires to the front' when BMW states:
>>
>> "BMW advises against swapping wheels
>> between the front and rear axles, even if all tires
>> have the same size, as this could impair driving
>> characteristics. If the tires are of mixed sizes,
>> swapping wheels between the axles is not permissible."
>>
>> This means if your front tires wear out, you REPLACE ALL FOUR AT THE
>> SAME TIME regardless if the rears need to be replaced or not.

> if they're wearing at the same rate, and on bmw they mostly do, then go
> ahead. if, like is the case with fwd, they don't, [apparently something
> for which you have no experience] then it's an exercise in litigation
> avoidance.

If you can't rotate, as per a FWD car that more heavily wears the
front you must always replace all four tires to avoid having more worn
tires on the rear. So it's back to what I wrote initially thanks for
playing.

>
>>
>> Thanks for playing numbnuts.
>>
>> BTW: http://pdfcast.org/pdf/2006-ford-mustang-owners-manual
>> Goto page 126& 127.

> solid axles - that explains a great deal...

Only in the rear, sir ignorance.

On 2010-12-05, jim beam > wrote:

>>> no, applied load is independent of "suspension geometry". you're either
>>> making an attempt at a red herring, or proving significant
>>
>> You're asking for the load applied to the bearing by giving the loads on
>> the TIRE.
>
> get a grip - if you're not applying the load via the tire, you're
> airborne.

I'll give you one more clue: a tire isn't a rigid body and beam
equations.

On 12/03/2010 09:01 PM, Brent wrote:
> On 2010-12-04, jim > wrote:
>> On 12/03/2010 12:47 PM, Brent wrote:
>>> On 2010-12-03, Bob > wrote:
>>>> In >,
>>>> says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2010-12-03, jim > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you cannot understand basic tolerancing there's no point in
>>>>> continuing. I'm not even going to bother reading the rest. three
>>>>> strikes.
>>>>
>>>> While whiskey head and the paranoid guy circle jerk, poor Nate doesn't
>>>> get his questions answered.
>>>
>>> Actually, it was my answer to Nate that "whiskey head" objected to.
>>> As far as paranoid is concerned, I suggest you look at true paranoia put
>>> on display for us via the TSA.
>>>
>>>> I'll do it.
>>>> No, tire rotation won't affect your bearings.
>>>
>>> That was my answer.
>>>
>>>> That's stupid, and so is rotating tires.
>>>> If tires are wearing unevenly, address the alignment problem.
>>>> If a bearing goes bad, replace the bearing.
>>>
>>> FWD cars often more heavily wear the front tires for obvious reasons of
>>> the relative work done and weight distribution.
>>>
>>>> Only time to switch around tires is when replacing.
>>>> When the fronts are worn too much on a FWD Impala, throw them away, put
>>>> the rears on the front, and new tires on the rear.
>>>> Simple as all get out.
>>>
>>> It is best to keep all four tires the same. better tires on the rear is
>>> second best.
>
>> no it's not.
>
> Yes it is, you don't see anyone who gives cares about handling not
> replacing all four tires at the same time.
>
>> 1. rotation causes traction loss since it's taking a tire /out/ of a
>> position to which it has become "fitted". the chalk board test is
>> quick, cheap, and easily shows how the contact patch area becomes
>> reduced because of it.
>
> That means you have underlying suspension problems that need repair if
> your tires are 'wearing in' to their respective corners. Or perhaps
> you're driving an expensive super car with a suspension that is so
> finely set up that it has tires designed for use in only one location in
> which case you can afford to replace all four tires.

For the record, we're talking about an '08 Impala. GM recommends
regular rotation, and it's clear from wandering around the parking lot
at work which cars have been getting rotations and which have not. The
outsides of the front tires get all kinds of chewed up.

I would argue that you are correct that there are "underlying suspension
problems" with these cars, but they are not ones that are repairable.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On 12/05/2010 01:04 PM, Brent wrote:
> On 2010-12-05, jim > wrote:
>> On 12/04/2010 07:44 PM, Brent wrote:
>>> On 2010-12-05, jim > wrote:
>>>> On 12/04/2010 04:28 PM, Brent wrote:
>>>>> On 2010-12-04, jim > wrote:
>>>>>> what is the tire rotation pattern recommended by bmw? what is it for
>>>>>> ferrari? what is it for porsche? more importantly, /why/ do those
>>>>>> performance car manufacturers make those recommendations?
>>>>>
>>>>> Check the owners manual of whatever model you're interested in. You can
>>>>> probably find PDF's of them online.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> no, /you/ need to do it because you need to learn something. and unless
>>>> you look it up, you never will.
>>>
>>> Ok jackass, one BMW chosen at random:
>>> http://www.bmwusa.com/PDF_23abd5f9-5...2c99cc73c.arox
>>>
>>> So BMW doesn't recommend it. I covered that in my post.
>>
>> no you didn't, you just blathered a bunch of underinformed nonsense.
>
> You really are dumb:
>
> >
>
> Or perhaps you're driving an expensive super car
> with a suspension that is so finely set up that it
> has tires designed for use in only one location in
> which case you can afford to replace all four tires.

maybe the people that make "finely set up super cars" know what they're
doing? [rhetorical] they certainly know more about suspension than the
people that drive solid axle mustangs.


>
>>> I believe I
>>> wrote something like If you're going to buy a car where the
>>> suspension is set up such that tires wear into their corners you
>>> can afford to replace all four tires at the same time.
>
>> red herring - and that's got /nothing/ to do with the technical reasons
>> why not to rotate.
>
> Again you're so ignorant you can only see parts and not systems.

no, that's /you/ brent. don't accuse me of /your/ failings.


>
>
>>>
>>> Exactly how are you going to 'buy two new tires, put them on the rear
>>> and move the rear tires to the front' when BMW states:
>>>
>>> "BMW advises against swapping wheels
>>> between the front and rear axles, even if all tires
>>> have the same size, as this could impair driving
>>> characteristics. If the tires are of mixed sizes,
>>> swapping wheels between the axles is not permissible."
>>>
>>> This means if your front tires wear out, you REPLACE ALL FOUR AT THE
>>> SAME TIME regardless if the rears need to be replaced or not.
>
>> if they're wearing at the same rate, and on bmw they mostly do, then go
>> ahead. if, like is the case with fwd, they don't, [apparently something
>> for which you have no experience] then it's an exercise in litigation
>> avoidance.
>
> If you can't rotate, as per a FWD car that more heavily wears the
> front you must always replace all four tires to avoid having more worn
> tires on the rear. So it's back to what I wrote initially thanks for
> playing.

wow.


>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for playing numbnuts.
>>>
>>> BTW: http://pdfcast.org/pdf/2006-ford-mustang-owners-manual
>>> Goto page 126& 127.
>
>> solid axles - that explains a great deal...
>
> Only in the rear, sir ignorance.

/any/ solid axles are retarded. just like the people that think they're
a good idea.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum