can front wheel bearings be damaged

On 12/05/2010 01:45 PM, Brent wrote:
> On 2010-12-05, jim > 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.

when are you going to do the math for us then brent? i set you up with
a nice simple example - show us how you think it's done.

--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On 2010-12-06, jim beam > wrote:
> On 12/05/2010 01:45 PM, Brent wrote:
>> On 2010-12-05, jim > 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.
>
> when are you going to do the math for us then brent? i set you up with
> a nice simple example - show us how you think it's done.

Ok, Using only the information you provided, the tire, and the whole
suspension has to be assumed to be a rigid body while accepting the
obvious error that one bearing type can be swapped for the other without
changing the design. This means no calculations are required and the
force components on the bearings of all four wheels are the forces you
gave. If you want it at each wheel, you then have to make the
unrealistic assumption that each tire has the same grip and the car
itself is rigid (the later isn't too bad) and divide by 4. See how easy
it when you're ignorant?

On 2010-12-06, jim beam > wrote:

<attempted cover up of ignorance deleted>

>> 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.

You've clearly been weak in logic and continue to be. Your
recommendations are logically incompatible. Read the quoted portion from
BMW again, it says 'do not move tires from one axle to the other'. That
means you cannot move tires from the rear to the front. That's the 'no
rotate' source you specified. Do not move from one axle to the other. It
doesn't say, don't move accept when buying two new tires, it says don't
move the tires.

Combined with avoiding a condition of having more worn tires on the
rear the logical implication is that if front tires are worn all four
must be replaced. Which is what I stated in the first place, replace all
four for best results.

Thanks for playing, maybe you'll get the home version of this game on
your way out.

On 12/06/2010 06:27 AM, Brent wrote:
> On 2010-12-06, jim > wrote:
>
> <attempted cover up of ignorance deleted>
>
>>> 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.
>
> You've clearly been weak in logic and continue to be. Your
> recommendations are logically incompatible. Read the quoted portion from
> BMW again, it says 'do not move tires from one axle to the other'.

but /why/ brent? what is the reason they say this? that is the
question you're simply not addressing. there /is/ a very good reason,
and it's /not/ wear. what is it?


> That
> means you cannot move tires from the rear to the front. That's the 'no
> rotate' source you specified. Do not move from one axle to the other. It
> doesn't say, don't move accept when buying two new tires, it says don't
> move the tires.
>
> Combined with avoiding a condition of having more worn tires on the
> rear the logical implication is that if front tires are worn all four
> must be replaced. Which is what I stated in the first place, replace all
> four for best results.
>
> Thanks for playing, maybe you'll get the home version of this game on
> your way out.
>
>




--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On 12/06/2010 06:18 AM, Brent wrote:
> On 2010-12-06, jim > wrote:
>> On 12/05/2010 01:45 PM, Brent wrote:
>>> On 2010-12-05, jim > 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.
>>
>> when are you going to do the math for us then brent? i set you up with
>> a nice simple example - show us how you think it's done.
>
> Ok, Using only the information you provided, the tire, and the whole
> suspension has to be assumed to be a rigid body while accepting the
> obvious error that one bearing type can be swapped for the other without
> changing the design. This means no calculations are required

???


> and the
> force components on the bearings of all four wheels are the forces you
> gave.

it's not. and i wasn't looking at "all four wheels", just the loading
on a single bearing [since that is what we were discussing] with the
vectors stated.

the 1000kgf load is vertical. with 0.6g lateral loading added [the bit
where the vectors come in], you get 600kgf of horizontal. that gives
you the force vector triangle, and thus it's simple trig to determine
that the /resultant/ vector load is 1166kgf at 31.0° from vertical.

i'll let you relate that to the capacities of the two bearings cited -
both load and angle.


> If you want it at each wheel, you then have to make the
> unrealistic assumption that each tire has the same grip and the car
> itself is rigid (the later isn't too bad) and divide by 4. See how easy
> it when you're ignorant?

no, it's not "divide by 4". given the above, i think elaboration is
pointless.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On Nov 30, 5:17*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

I don't see how a mechanic could damage the wheel bearings
unintentionally. I think that by replacing worn noisy hard riding
used tires with soft riding quiet new tires that the sound of grinding
bearings was no longer buried in ambient noise and became more
apparent.

Anyone who thinks that a car can hit a very large and deep pothole and
not damage something is probably not the most reliable source of
information anyway.

Those Ford MUTT Jeeps had independent four wheels suspension.If they
went 'airborne' sometimes the wheels would fold inward.
I prefer solid rear axel suspension like my old clunkers have, including
my 1948 Willys Jeep.
cuhulin

On 2010-12-06, jim beam > wrote:
> On 12/06/2010 06:18 AM, Brent wrote:
>> On 2010-12-06, jim > wrote:
>>> On 12/05/2010 01:45 PM, Brent wrote:
>>>> On 2010-12-05, jim > 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.
>>>
>>> when are you going to do the math for us then brent? i set you up with
>>> a nice simple example - show us how you think it's done.
>>
>> Ok, Using only the information you provided, the tire, and the whole
>> suspension has to be assumed to be a rigid body while accepting the
>> obvious error that one bearing type can be swapped for the other without
>> changing the design. This means no calculations are required
>
> ???
>
>
>> and the
>> force components on the bearings of all four wheels are the forces you
>> gave.
>
> it's not. and i wasn't looking at "all four wheels", just the loading
> on a single bearing [since that is what we were discussing] with the
> vectors stated.
>
> the 1000kgf load is vertical.

2200 lbs on one tire..

> with 0.6g lateral loading added [the bit
> where the vectors come in], you get 600kgf of horizontal. that gives
> you the force vector triangle, and thus it's simple trig to determine
> that the /resultant/ vector load is 1166kgf at 31.0° from vertical.
> i'll let you relate that to the capacities of the two bearings cited -
> both load and angle.

You're even a bigger idiot, actually something beyond that because I
already explained fixturing to you. Your "/resultant/ vector load"
being applied to the bearing is the height of stupidity. Let me ASCII
sketch for you.

TIRE TIRE
W W
H HUBorKnkl H knuckle
E-OB--IB VS E--WB
L HUBorKnkl L Knuckle
L L
TIRE TIRE
^<-- ^<--
| |

OB=outer tapered bearing IB=Inner tapered bearing, WB=double row ball
bearing.

Can you figure it out now? I know I showed you web drawings before but
you probably didn't bother to look. Draw your reaction forces. Even with
the rest of your assinine assumptions where you ignore the spring force
from the suspension, the tire behaving like a spring, the force from
the dampener (shock absorber/strut), the suspension bushings acting
like torsional springs, and much more.

Here, try and understand support conditions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam_%28structure%29
http://www.clag.org.uk/beam.html#key
http://www.roymech.co.uk/Useful_Tabl...r_Bending.html

Then again you can't even address why tapered roller bearings have been
successfully used as wheel bearings for decades and still are used in
the heavy duty applications.

>> If you want it at each wheel, you then have to make the
>> unrealistic assumption that each tire has the same grip and the car
>> itself is rigid (the later isn't too bad) and divide by 4. See how easy
>> it when you're ignorant?

> no, it's not "divide by 4".

You're the one putting 2200lbs on a single wheel with no elaboration as
to how it got loaded that way.

> given the above, i think elaboration is pointless.

It's been pointless for me to elaborate for some time because you
refuse to understand systems, instead you want to part swap and neglect
many other factors to arrive at fantasy result that supports your
blathering. Trouble is, fantasy results are only good in your imginary
world.

On 2010-12-06, jim beam > wrote:
> On 12/06/2010 06:27 AM, Brent wrote:
>> On 2010-12-06, jim > wrote:
>>
>> <attempted cover up of ignorance deleted>
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> You've clearly been weak in logic and continue to be. Your
>> recommendations are logically incompatible. Read the quoted portion from
>> BMW again, it says 'do not move tires from one axle to the other'.
>
> but /why/ brent? what is the reason they say this? that is the
> question you're simply not addressing. there /is/ a very good reason,
> and it's /not/ wear. what is it?

You're not dealing with the logical problem of your argument. nice try.

Thanks for playing, don't forget your copy of the home game.

> > That
>> means you cannot move tires from the rear to the front. That's the 'no
>> rotate' source you specified. Do not move from one axle to the other. It
>> doesn't say, don't move accept when buying two new tires, it says don't
>> move the tires.
>>
>> Combined with avoiding a condition of having more worn tires on the
>> rear the logical implication is that if front tires are worn all four
>> must be replaced. Which is what I stated in the first place, replace all
>> four for best results.
>>
>> Thanks for playing, maybe you'll get the home version of this game on
>> your way out.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

On Dec 6, 12:29*pm, "John S." > wrote:
> On Nov 30, 5:17*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
>
> I don't see how a mechanic could damage the wheel bearings
> unintentionally. *I think that by replacing worn noisy hard riding
> used tires with soft riding quiet new tires that the sound of grinding
> bearings was no longer buried in ambient noise and became more
> apparent.
>
> Anyone who thinks that a car can hit a very large and deep pothole and
> not damage something is probably not the most reliable source of
> information anyway.

??? I grew up in western PA. Hitting large and deep potholes is a
daily occurrance there, or at least was in the 70's and 80's. Most of
the time you could avoid them, but sometimes there were just so damn
many of them that you couldn't avoid hitting one or two.

nate