can front wheel bearings be damaged

On 2010-12-04, jim beam > 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.

> 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.]

The most dangerous thing is a person who has a completely wrong
understanding of something but thinks he's correct. I don't even know
where to start with the nonsense you just posted above. The better tires
go on the rear of a front engine car because of the weight
balance of said car and the fact that understeer is much easier to
control than oversteer.

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 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.


> 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.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On 12/03/2010 06:01 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.

correction: "you don't see anyone who's not been brainwashed 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.

well, i'm not driving a p.o.s. with solid axles front and rear, that's
for sure! solid axles are the only way you can get "even wear", and
even then, simple rotation direction still influences wear pattern.


>
>> 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.]
>
> The most dangerous thing is a person who has a completely wrong
> understanding of something but thinks he's correct.

i don't think you're dangerous brent - i just think the victim of an
inadequate education and chronic lack of curiosity that might encourage
self-learning.


> I don't even know
> where to start with the nonsense you just posted above.

there is a reason. see above.


> The better tires
> go on the rear of a front engine car because of the weight
> balance of said car and the fact that understeer is much easier to
> control than oversteer.

no, it's just like i said. i avoided geometry and engineering terms as
much as i could, but apparently i still failed to make it simple enough.

in the mean time, here's something for you to read and think about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Mehrabian

because there's stuff here you don't know, you think there's
informational incongruence. but rather than pay attention to the facts
and try to figure out /why/ i might be saying stuff you're not familiar
with, you're entirely focused on the fact that i don't suffer fools
gladly - thus missing the point, and more importantly, failing to learn
from it.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On 2010-12-04, jim beam > 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 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?

On 2010-12-04, jim beam > wrote:
> On 12/03/2010 06:01 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.

> correction: "you don't see anyone who's not been brainwashed not
> replacing all four tires at the same time".

Knowedgable people don't have two tires wearing out with the other two
in perfect condition. Or maybe you'll order your next new car with
pre-worn front tires?

>>> 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.

> well, i'm not driving a p.o.s. with solid axles front and rear, that's
> for sure! solid axles are the only way you can get "even wear", and
> even then, simple rotation direction still influences wear pattern.

You really need to be quiet, because each statement you make shows you
to be more and more ignorant. Go to your car, open the glove box. In
there you'll probably find a book called the owners manual. The
manufacturer of your vehicle wrote it. In there you'll find the
specified tire rotation those engineers recommend to keep wear even so
you can replace all four tires at once.

>>> 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.]

>> The most dangerous thing is a person who has a completely wrong
>> understanding of something but thinks he's correct.

> i don't think you're dangerous brent - i just think the victim of an
> inadequate education and chronic lack of curiosity that might encourage
> self-learning.

I've forgotten more than you think you know.

>> I don't even know
>> where to start with the nonsense you just posted above.

> there is a reason. see above.

You don't know jack ****. You're full of myth and rumor.

>> The better tires
>> go on the rear of a front engine car because of the weight
>> balance of said car and the fact that understeer is much easier to
>> control than oversteer.

> no, it's just like i said. i avoided geometry and engineering terms as
> much as i could, but apparently i still failed to make it simple enough.

Go for it, use all the terms you want, dollars to doughtnuts you'll use
them wrong.

> in the mean time, here's something for you to read and think about:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Mehrabian

The ****? You're really wacked.

> because there's stuff here you don't know, you think there's
> informational incongruence. but rather than pay attention to the facts
> and try to figure out /why/ i might be saying stuff you're not familiar
> with, you're entirely focused on the fact that i don't suffer fools
> gladly - thus missing the point, and more importantly, failing to learn
> from it.

You're the fool here. You don't know mechanical tolerancing but think
you do. You don't know how to do vector sums but think yourself an
engineer or something. I could go on with the ignorance you've
displayed.

Here you go mr tightest arc:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centripetal_force
Sliding is avoided by turning at different rates:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4JhruinbWc
Furthermo http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfadd/1150/05UCMGrav/Curve.html
now consider the weight distribution of the car on normal force and
hence the friction.
and mo http://www.mgf.ultimatemg.com/group2...n/tracking.htm
and we can't miss this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slip_angle

Now maybe you can figure out why your "tighest arc" isn't the driving
the factor.

Four good tires are better than two ****ty tires on the front
and two good ones on the rear. The overall level at which the car slides
is increased. When you wear down the tires more or less evenly you spend
more time with four good tires and less time with two ****ty tires and
two good tires. When all four are bad you replace them all and
have four new tires instead of having two somewhat less crappy tires and
two new tires.

On 12/04/2010 12:09 AM, Brent wrote:
> On 2010-12-04, jim > wrote:
>> On 12/03/2010 06:01 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.
>
>> correction: "you don't see anyone who's not been brainwashed not
>> replacing all four tires at the same time".
>
> Knowedgable people don't have two tires wearing out with the other two
> in perfect condition. Or maybe you'll order your next new car with
> pre-worn front tires?
>
>>>> 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.
>
>> well, i'm not driving a p.o.s. with solid axles front and rear, that's
>> for sure! solid axles are the only way you can get "even wear", and
>> even then, simple rotation direction still influences wear pattern.
>
> You really need to be quiet, because each statement you make shows you
> to be more and more ignorant. Go to your car, open the glove box. In
> there you'll probably find a book called the owners manual. The
> manufacturer of your vehicle wrote it. In there you'll find the
> specified tire rotation those engineers recommend to keep wear even so
> you can replace all four tires at once.

<snip underinformed regurgitation>

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?


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

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.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On 2010-12-04, jim beam > 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.

On 2010-12-04, jim beam > 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. 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. They
aren't as I previously explained to you with illustrations.

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
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.


> 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.


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


--
nomina rutrum rutrum