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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
can front wheel bearings be damaged
On 2010-12-03, jim beam > 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. >> 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. Now it's really clear you have no understanding. Make the steering knuckle hole or spindle off by an inch location wise, hell make it 15 degrees off angle wise too while you're at it, what's in the inner race of the bearing is still concentric with the outer race of the bearing within the tolerance of the bearing. The bearing is fixtured in the knuckle the hub is fixtured in the bearing. Or the bearings are fixtured on the spindle and the hub is fixtured on the bearings. There's nothing on the other side of the wheel that's not concentric creating a load because it's only fixtured on one side. The only way you can get off centered is with a spindle (or knuckle hole) that that has two sections that aren't concentric with an inner/outer wheel bearing design. This requires actually being monumentally stupid and doing the machining in two steps with re-fixturing of the workpiece in between to create such error. Only an idiot would allow such a thing. The entire spindle (or knuckle hole) will be machined with the part fixtured once. Spindles with inner and outer tapered roller bearings were manufactured successfully for decades without the benefit of modern CNC machine tools. The spindle is a machined shaft. Making a machined shaft with both ends concentric is not rocket science. Neither is making a bore that has both ends concentric. I'll tell you right now the outer side of that steering knuckle bore that holds an angular contact ball bearing is sufficently concentric with the inside part of it that you can put tapered roller bearings on both sides of it and have proper loading and alignment. The reason? You couldn't press in your angular contact ball bearing (easily and without damaging it) if it wasn't concentric. If the hole was wavy or stepped the bearing would jam upon being pressed in. >> 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. Dude, you have ONE FIXED END. They will ALWAYS be concentric within the tolerance of the bearing. There is no other fixed end to cause a misalignment. Machining concentric shafts and straight holes is not "spectacular precision". You couldn't even get your angular ball bearing in the hole if it wasn't straight. The concentricity of the assembly between the hub's bearing mounting and the knuckle/spindle's bearing mounting is completely driven by the bearing. There's no other end to be off center to create a load. Now if you're going to argue that where the wheel is mounted is off center from the end that's mounted to the bearing, you're back at being cheap ass again and no matter how tolerant of said misaligment your bearing is the car is going to go thump-thump down the road. If you cannot understand basic tolerancing there's no point in continuing. I'm not even going to bother reading the rest. three strikes. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
can front wheel bearings be damaged
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> 2. "cheap design" is not loading that can be inside a 40°+ arc. 3. you're still not getting it on /why/ tapered rollers only have a small angle of application. > >>> 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. > > Now it's really clear you have no understanding. Make the steering > knuckle hole or spindle off by an inch location wise, hell make it 15 > degrees off angle wise too while you're at it, what's in the inner race > of the bearing is still concentric with the outer race of the bearing > within the tolerance of the bearing. The bearing is fixtured in the > knuckle the hub is fixtured in the bearing. Or the bearings are fixtured > on the spindle and the hub is fixtured on the bearings. There's nothing > on the other side of the wheel that's not concentric creating a load > because it's only fixtured on one side. > > The only way you can get off centered is with a spindle (or knuckle > hole) that that has two sections that aren't concentric with an > inner/outer wheel bearing design. This requires actually being > monumentally stupid and doing the machining in two steps > with re-fixturing of the workpiece in between to create such error. Only > an idiot would allow such a thing. The entire spindle (or knuckle hole) > will be machined with the part fixtured once. uh, i don't know how you drive, but when i drive, i go around corners. when i go around corners, the loading axis on my wheels changes. hence the bearings get loaded "off axis". if you can't understand that, this conversation hasn't gone anywhere. > > Spindles with inner and outer tapered roller bearings were manufactured > successfully for decades without the benefit of modern CNC machine > tools. The spindle is a machined shaft. Making a machined shaft with > both ends concentric is not rocket science. Neither is making a bore > that has both ends concentric. I'll tell you right now the outer side of > that steering knuckle bore that holds an angular contact ball bearing is > sufficently concentric with the inside part of it that you can put > tapered roller bearings on both sides of it and have proper loading and > alignment. The reason? You couldn't press in your angular contact ball > bearing (easily and without damaging it) if it wasn't concentric. If the > hole was wavy or stepped the bearing would jam upon being pressed in. see above. you need to understand the basics before you start talking about anything else. > >>> 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. > > Dude, you have ONE FIXED END. They will ALWAYS be concentric within the > tolerance of the bearing. There is no other fixed end to cause a > misalignment. Machining concentric shafts and straight holes is not > "spectacular precision". You couldn't even get your angular ball bearing > in the hole if it wasn't straight. The concentricity of the assembly > between the hub's bearing mounting and the knuckle/spindle's bearing > mounting is completely driven by the bearing. There's no other end to be > off center to create a load. > > Now if you're going to argue that where the wheel is mounted is off > center from the end that's mounted to the bearing, you're back at being > cheap ass again and no matter how tolerant of said misaligment your > bearing is the car is going to go thump-thump down the road. > > If you cannot understand basic tolerancing there's no point in > continuing. I'm not even going to bother reading the rest. three > strikes. > it's ironic that you try to talk of "tolerancing", yet don't seem to understand the fundamentals of load application. without that, "tolerancing" is utterly irrelevant. -- nomina rutrum rutrum |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
can front wheel bearings be damaged
On 2010-12-03, jim beam > 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. I was VERY clear about that. Plus there are TWO bearing assemblies in the tapered roller bearing design. Also looking at retail cost is irrelevant compared to what manufacturers pay. > 2. "cheap design" is not loading that can be inside a 40°+ arc. Define this and describe why it is meaningful to a wheel bearing set up that has been done properly with a bearing that can withstand both axial and radial loading. > 3. you're still not getting it on /why/ tapered rollers only have a > small angle of application. Whatever wierd ass loading you're using to make a usenet point simply does not apply. Bearings are fixtured to control the loads that they see. If you aren't going to use a bearing correctly then all bets are off. What it seems you want to do is take a single tapered roller bearing, press it into a knuckle and then press the hub into the the bearing just like is done with the ball bearings. This is not the way to use them, they aren't designed to be used that way. And yes, if used that way they will fail because they aren't fixtured properly and thus will see wierd ass loads outside their design. The races will indeed pivot relative to each other and not distribute the load on the rollers correctly. But, if used correctly, in a design so made, they won't see those loads, only the axial and radial components as they are designed to handle. It's a cheap way to assemble so what is used instead is the angular contact ball bearings so the cheap machining, cheap assembly, and cheaper bearings can be used. To use the tapered roller bearings which can withstand higher loads as you admitted, the design is different and more expensive. I keep repeating that. You must use bearings correctly. You're comparing an incorrect use of tapered rollers to a correct use of angular ball. >>>> 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. >> Now it's really clear you have no understanding. Make the steering >> knuckle hole or spindle off by an inch location wise, hell make it 15 >> degrees off angle wise too while you're at it, what's in the inner race >> of the bearing is still concentric with the outer race of the bearing >> within the tolerance of the bearing. The bearing is fixtured in the >> knuckle the hub is fixtured in the bearing. Or the bearings are fixtured >> on the spindle and the hub is fixtured on the bearings. There's nothing >> on the other side of the wheel that's not concentric creating a load >> because it's only fixtured on one side. >> >> The only way you can get off centered is with a spindle (or knuckle >> hole) that that has two sections that aren't concentric with an >> inner/outer wheel bearing design. This requires actually being >> monumentally stupid and doing the machining in two steps >> with re-fixturing of the workpiece in between to create such error. Only >> an idiot would allow such a thing. The entire spindle (or knuckle hole) >> will be machined with the part fixtured once. > > uh, i don't know how you drive, but when i drive, i go around corners. > when i go around corners, the loading axis on my wheels changes. hence > the bearings get loaded "off axis". if you can't understand that, this > conversation hasn't gone anywhere. I refer you to two posts ago where I told you that at the bearing the load is broken down into two vectors. Axial and radial load. That's what the bearing sees because it sits in a fixtured environment. It doesn't care about the loading axis at the tire. It sees what that vector breaks down into. That's why bearings are rated for their axial and radial loads and not rated for every degree from zero to 360. Also Tapered roller bearings were used for DECADES succesfully with much poorer manufacturing tolerances than today's. They were used properly. Your argument comes down to a usenet irrelevance of taking a design for an angular contact ball bearing and shoving a tapered roller bearing in it. That's irrelevant. Bearings need to be fixtured according to their design. When you put together a _proper_ tapered wheel bearing design you'll have something that is _more expensive_ than a proper angular ball bearing design. The tapered roller design will be able to withstand higher loads. >> Spindles with inner and outer tapered roller bearings were manufactured >> successfully for decades without the benefit of modern CNC machine >> tools. The spindle is a machined shaft. Making a machined shaft with >> both ends concentric is not rocket science. Neither is making a bore >> that has both ends concentric. I'll tell you right now the outer side of >> that steering knuckle bore that holds an angular contact ball bearing is >> sufficently concentric with the inside part of it that you can put >> tapered roller bearings on both sides of it and have proper loading and >> alignment. The reason? You couldn't press in your angular contact ball >> bearing (easily and without damaging it) if it wasn't concentric. If the >> hole was wavy or stepped the bearing would jam upon being pressed in. > > see above. you need to understand the basics before you start talking > about anything else. Now it's very clear you want to shove a tapered roller into a angular ball design. YOU CANNOT DO THAT. The entire design has to properly fixture the bearing(s). >>>> 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. >> Dude, you have ONE FIXED END. They will ALWAYS be concentric within the >> tolerance of the bearing. There is no other fixed end to cause a >> misalignment. Machining concentric shafts and straight holes is not >> "spectacular precision". You couldn't even get your angular ball bearing >> in the hole if it wasn't straight. The concentricity of the assembly >> between the hub's bearing mounting and the knuckle/spindle's bearing >> mounting is completely driven by the bearing. There's no other end to be >> off center to create a load. >> >> Now if you're going to argue that where the wheel is mounted is off >> center from the end that's mounted to the bearing, you're back at being >> cheap ass again and no matter how tolerant of said misaligment your >> bearing is the car is going to go thump-thump down the road. >> >> If you cannot understand basic tolerancing there's no point in >> continuing. I'm not even going to bother reading the rest. three >> strikes. > it's ironic that you try to talk of "tolerancing", yet don't seem to > understand the fundamentals of load application. without that, > "tolerancing" is utterly irrelevant. Now you're just doing declarations. Clearly you're out of your league here. And I spelled it correctly so I don't know what your problem is. It seems that you simply lack the knowledge of how to do more than one design. You're thinking parts swapping. You made that clear with your idiotic comparison of retail bearing prices. You don't even grasp how a tapered roller bearing design is different. Here is the angular ball type: http://www.autopartslib.com/wp-conte...ts-diagram.png Here is tapered roller: http://www.4x4abc.com/G-Class/img/wh...ring_CV72.jpeg See the difference? Here's tapered roller as a single press on piece, notice the proportions of hub and mounting. http://www.timken.com/en-us/products...pindleHub.aspx Are you also noting that heavier vehicles are still using tapered roller? Why do you think that might be? Why would a truck or a 4x4 off road vehicle want to use tapered roller bearings if what you say was the least bit true? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
can front wheel bearings be damaged
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
can front wheel bearings be damaged
On 2010-12-03, Bob Cooper > wrote:
> In article >, > says... >> >> On 2010-12-03, jim beam > 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. But Nate already understands that sort of thing. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
can front wheel bearings be damaged
"Bob Cooper" > wrote in message > > While whiskey head and the paranoid guy circle jerk, poor Nate doesn't > get his questions answered. Whiskey head has never added anything valuable to the group. His rants, volatile nature, and lack of understanding about things mechanical long ago put him in my killfile. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
can front wheel bearings be damaged
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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
can front wheel bearings be damaged
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. 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. 2. rear tires have to cut the tightest arc, thus experience the highest lateral forces, and therefore require more lateral grip. you should correspondingly keep better tires on the rear. [a hard concept for some people to understand, but that's not because they've not been given the facts.] > But Nate already understands that sort of thing. if he does, that would make one of you. -- nomina rutrum rutrum |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
can front wheel bearings be damaged
On 12/03/2010 02:21 PM, hls wrote:
> > "Bob Cooper" > wrote in message > >> While whiskey head and the paranoid guy circle jerk, poor Nate doesn't >> get his questions answered. > > Whiskey head has never added anything valuable to the group. His > rants, volatile nature, and lack of understanding about things mechanical > long ago put him in my killfile. you seem to be paying an extraordinary amount of attention to someone you're not paying attention to... -- nomina rutrum rutrum |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
can front wheel bearings be damaged
On 2010-12-04, jim beam > 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. You even show your greater stupidity directly above with astoundingly weak and ignorant attempt to create a strawman. If I thought you had even the slightest ability to understand I'd bother attempting to explain it to you, but it's pretty clear you don't. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |