Worth Paying for one more rotation?

On 06/21/2011 05:07 PM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article<eIOdnZY69qbuL53TnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@speakeasy .net>,
> jim > wrote:
>
>> traction is a safety thing much more
>> than a "racing" thing. doesn't anyone want to /not/ rear-end the car
>> that can stop faster than you?
>
> ...and let's not forget, turning involves a "stopping" vector...now the
> question becomes, are Honda owners screwing themselves on THAT basis if
> they make the car turn BETTER?
>
> 'Cuz, Honda designs serious understeer into their cars, on the basis
> that it's better than having the car oversteer. I'm not saying that any
> Honda will oversteer necessarily, but people are used to Hondas
> scrubbing their front tires toward the guardrail as they take that
> cloverleaf too fast. Better grip does change that behavior to some
> extent...

it does indeed. i have a set of michelin pilots on one civic and
standard tires on another. the pilots definitely push that thing around
the bends better.

but i don't think "screwing" is the right way to look at it. all you
get si slightly less understeer, you don't eliminate it by any means.


>
> (I presume the S2000 is the exception to this rule--I presume one can
> kick the tail out pretty easily?)

that's something i'll never be able to try unfortunately - too tall and
simply cannot fit behind the wheel.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On 06/21/2011 09:18 AM, Tegger wrote:
> jim > wrote in
> t:
>
>> On 06/21/2011 07:51 AM, Tegger wrote:
>>> > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Shoot, there's the dreaded yellow flag-- backing it down past 150 mph
>>>> now. Good damn thing my tires are so grippy...only the inside two are
>>>> contacting the pavement as I make this tight turn...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And if you haven't rotated your tires, you're enjoying maximum contact
>>> patch on those two! Good for a few more MPH, for sure.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> why do people trivialize this? traction is a safety thing much more
>> than a "racing" thing. doesn't anyone want to /not/ rear-end the car
>> that can stop faster than you?
>>
>>
>
>
> I think you're overreacting just a little bit.
>
>

i don't think you're reacting enough. rotation is an anachronistic
dogma left over from the days of bias ply - just like 3k mile oil changes.

--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Beg to differ sir.

ABS is great but you still need driver skill and competence to control the
car in an emergency braking situation. During the winter, there is at least
one news story about drivers in emergency situations, loosing control and
finding ditches alongside the road.

"jim beam" wrote in message
t...

On 06/21/2011 09:22 AM, Tegger wrote:
> > wrote in news:y72dnT1-
> :
>
>> On 6/20/2011 9:06 PM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>> In >,
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> i'll take the longer survival life of the driver thanks. rotation
>>>>> ruins traction and braking control because it reduces the amount of
>>>>> actual rubber contacting the pavement.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You have some pretty odd ideas, sir.
>>>
>>> ...ideas which BMW put into writing and practice some time ago, for the
>>> same reasons jim outlines.
>>>
>>> There is no tire rotation for BMW vehicles.
>>
>>
>> Some of which use different tire sizes and profiles front and rear.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> I'm guessing BMW is expecting its owners to take their cars to 10/10ths
> regularly.

b.s. bmw's break if you actually /do/ drive them hard. ask my buddy
with the m3 and three new subframes.


> Few daily-driver Honda owners would do that unless they're young
> and/or ricers. And when you're that close to the limit, inexperience and
> incompetence is more likely to result in crashes than some small and
> temporary reduction in contact-patch.

the factor common to all drivers, irrespective of "inexperience" or
"incompetence" is emergency braking. and with abs control, driver
competence is simply not a factor.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On 06/22/2011 11:53 AM, Bluto wrote:

> "jim beam" wrote in message
> t...
>
> On 06/21/2011 09:22 AM, Tegger wrote:
>> > wrote in news:y72dnT1-
>> :
>>
>>> On 6/20/2011 9:06 PM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>> In >,
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> i'll take the longer survival life of the driver thanks. rotation
>>>>>> ruins traction and braking control because it reduces the amount of
>>>>>> actual rubber contacting the pavement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You have some pretty odd ideas, sir.
>>>>
>>>> ...ideas which BMW put into writing and practice some time ago, for the
>>>> same reasons jim outlines.
>>>>
>>>> There is no tire rotation for BMW vehicles.
>>>
>>>
>>> Some of which use different tire sizes and profiles front and rear.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm guessing BMW is expecting its owners to take their cars to 10/10ths
>> regularly.
>
> b.s. bmw's break if you actually /do/ drive them hard. ask my buddy
> with the m3 and three new subframes.
>
>
>> Few daily-driver Honda owners would do that unless they're young
>> and/or ricers. And when you're that close to the limit, inexperience and
>> incompetence is more likely to result in crashes than some small and
>> temporary reduction in contact-patch.
>
> the factor common to all drivers, irrespective of "inexperience" or
> "incompetence" is emergency braking. and with abs control, driver
> competence is simply not a factor.
>
>
> Beg to differ sir.
>
> ABS is great but you still need driver skill and competence to control
> the car in an emergency braking situation. During the winter, there is
> at least one news story about drivers in emergency situations, loosing
> control and finding ditches alongside the road.
>


ass posting is a real pain in the top - please don't.


as elmo says, abs can't help you outperform available traction. but it
can help my grandmother effectively /stop/ standing on the brake long
after she's starting to slide and thus retain some chance of control.

why the government sees fit to save the incapable from themselves with
things like abs is something you need to take up with your
representatives [but if you actually want to be heard, be prepared to
hand over the same or more then the oilco lobbyists who encourage
anything that adds to a vehicles weight and/or fuel consumption].


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Mr. Beam, my posts are on the top when I reply, don't know what the
newsgroup does after. Guess I don't post enough to be an expert like you
are. Oh well, we all can't be experts.


ass posting is a real pain in the top - please don't.


as elmo says, abs can't help you outperform available traction. but it
can help my grandmother effectively /stop/ standing on the brake long
after she's starting to slide and thus retain some chance of control.

why the government sees fit to save the incapable from themselves with
things like abs is something you need to take up with your
representatives [but if you actually want to be heard, be prepared to
hand over the same or more then the oilco lobbyists who encourage
anything that adds to a vehicles weight and/or fuel consumption].


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

"Bluto" > wrote in news:G-SdnYOwRJKmO5
:

>
> Mr. Beam, my posts are on the top when I reply, don't know what the
> newsgroup does after.



The "group" does nothing to your post. Top- or bottom-posting is
established by the poster.



> Guess I don't post enough to be an expert like you
> are. Oh well, we all can't be experts.
>
>
> ass posting is a real pain in the top - please don't.


If you want to scold people on how to post, you should at least learn how
to separate quoted text from your reply. Without some sort of separation,
it's difficult to know where your reply ends and the quoted text begins.

And, as a Usenetter since about 1999, I can tell you that Usenet is
traditionally a bottom-posting milieu.

--
Tegger

On 6/20/2011 7:48 PM, Tegger wrote:
> > wrote in :
>
>> On 6/20/11 3:14 PM, Tegger wrote:
>>> > wrote in news:itm1dc$b7a$1
>>> @news.albasani.net:
>>>
>>>> The OEM tires on my '07 Accord EX-L V6 Sedan (Michelin Pilot MXM4,
>>>> 215/50-17) show even tread wear but three of them are between 5/32 and
>>>> 6/32 tread depth while the RF has 7/32. They've got about about 33,000
>>>> miles on them.
>>>>
>>>> I'm due for an A-1 service (oil change, tire rotation) and wondering if
>>>> it's worth paying for the rotation seeing as how they'll probably need
>>>> to replaced sooner rather than later.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How much are they charging for the rotation itself?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> $20
>>
>
>
>
> For a measly $20, I'd get it done.
>
> Surely you'll get that back in slightly longer tire life, maybe even $20
> more life.
>
>


This thread raises some questions in my mind:

1. About how many miles might it take a 'rotated' tire wear off its
high spots and regain full contact? I imagine it would be about the
same as the miles it takes a brand new tire to achieve full contact?

2. If you paid $20. to have the tires rotated every 10,000 miles, you
would have invested $100. by 50,000 miles (about the price of a new
tire). Is is reasonable to expect rotations to extend the life of a set
of tires by 25%? I agree with beam's point about averaging the wear,
and even increasing it by having to wear off the high spots each time.
Of course many posters on this group do it themselves so only their time
is involved, but many others probably pay $40. or more for a rotation,
and many do 5,000 or 7,500 miles intervals.

3. How does front to back rotation vs cross rotation affect the
"contact" discussion?

4. I usually find that I don't like the feel of a car after rotation,
but I like to buy my tires 4 at a time rather than 2 at a time, which is
often what happens if you never rotate. What works for me is rotate
only once when the most worn tire appears to be at 50% and I do it front
to back (no cross).

On 06/23/2011 08:47 AM, Al wrote:
> On 6/20/2011 7:48 PM, Tegger wrote:
>> > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> On 6/20/11 3:14 PM, Tegger wrote:
>>>> > wrote in news:itm1dc$b7a$1
>>>> @news.albasani.net:
>>>>
>>>>> The OEM tires on my '07 Accord EX-L V6 Sedan (Michelin Pilot MXM4,
>>>>> 215/50-17) show even tread wear but three of them are between 5/32 and
>>>>> 6/32 tread depth while the RF has 7/32. They've got about about 33,000
>>>>> miles on them.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm due for an A-1 service (oil change, tire rotation) and
>>>>> wondering if
>>>>> it's worth paying for the rotation seeing as how they'll probably need
>>>>> to replaced sooner rather than later.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How much are they charging for the rotation itself?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> $20
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> For a measly $20, I'd get it done.
>>
>> Surely you'll get that back in slightly longer tire life, maybe even $20
>> more life.
>>
>>
>
>
> This thread raises some questions in my mind:
>
> 1. About how many miles might it take a 'rotated' tire wear off its high
> spots and regain full contact? I imagine it would be about the same as
> the miles it takes a brand new tire to achieve full contact?

it's more because it has to wear back to flat, then go past that to the
new profile.


>
> 2. If you paid $20. to have the tires rotated every 10,000 miles, you
> would have invested $100. by 50,000 miles (about the price of a new
> tire). Is is reasonable to expect rotations to extend the life of a set
> of tires by 25%? I agree with beam's point about averaging the wear, and
> even increasing it by having to wear off the high spots each time. Of
> course many posters on this group do it themselves so only their time is
> involved, but many others probably pay $40. or more for a rotation, and
> many do 5,000 or 7,500 miles intervals.

if you really want to rotate, the "least negative" impact you can have
is to keep each rubber block comparatively flat, like a new tire. but
to keep that, you'll have to rotate every few hundred miles.


>
> 3. How does front to back rotation vs cross rotation affect the
> "contact" discussion?

depends on the car. some vehicles are fundamentally awful, and no
amount of alignment or realignment seems to help them. in that case, i
doubt rotation has any serious negative effects. but for a good vehicle
with 4-wheel independent suspension, particularly those with multi-link
rears, the front/rear wear patterns are completely different, thus the
contact patches are completely different and rotation can have a
substantial negative effect.


>
> 4. I usually find that I don't like the feel of a car after rotation,

we've been discussing the reason for that! it's worst when crossing
side to side.


> but I like to buy my tires 4 at a time rather than 2 at a time, which is
> often what happens if you never rotate. What works for me is rotate only
> once when the most worn tire appears to be at 50% and I do it front to
> back (no cross).

i'm a fwd guy with same size front/rear, so i replace by axle - my
fronts always go first. when i replace them, the new ones always go on
the rear. then i'll brutalize the tires for a bit to make sure the
"new" fronts wear in as quickly as possible to restore maximum braking
again.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 16:52:20 -0700, jim beam > wrote:

>On 06/22/2011 11:53 AM, Bluto wrote:
>
>> "jim beam" wrote in message
>> t...
>>
>> On 06/21/2011 09:22 AM, Tegger wrote:
>>> > wrote in news:y72dnT1-
>>> :
>>>
>>>> On 6/20/2011 9:06 PM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>> In >,
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> i'll take the longer survival life of the driver thanks. rotation
>>>>>>> ruins traction and braking control because it reduces the amount of
>>>>>>> actual rubber contacting the pavement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have some pretty odd ideas, sir.
>>>>>
>>>>> ...ideas which BMW put into writing and practice some time ago, for the
>>>>> same reasons jim outlines.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no tire rotation for BMW vehicles.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Some of which use different tire sizes and profiles front and rear.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm guessing BMW is expecting its owners to take their cars to 10/10ths
>>> regularly.
>>
>> b.s. bmw's break if you actually /do/ drive them hard. ask my buddy
>> with the m3 and three new subframes.
>>
>>
>>> Few daily-driver Honda owners would do that unless they're young
>>> and/or ricers. And when you're that close to the limit, inexperience and
>>> incompetence is more likely to result in crashes than some small and
>>> temporary reduction in contact-patch.
>>
>> the factor common to all drivers, irrespective of "inexperience" or
>> "incompetence" is emergency braking. and with abs control, driver
>> competence is simply not a factor.
>>
>>
> > Beg to differ sir.
> >
> > ABS is great but you still need driver skill and competence to control
> > the car in an emergency braking situation. During the winter, there is
> > at least one news story about drivers in emergency situations, loosing
> > control and finding ditches alongside the road.
> >
>
>
>ass posting is a real pain in the top - please don't.
>
>
>as elmo says, abs can't help you outperform available traction. but it
>can help my grandmother effectively /stop/ standing on the brake long
>after she's starting to slide and thus retain some chance of control.
>
>why the government sees fit to save the incapable from themselves with
>things like abs is something you need to take up with your
>representatives [but if you actually want to be heard, be prepared to
>hand over the same or more then the oilco lobbyists who encourage
>anything that adds to a vehicles weight and/or fuel consumption].

Who do you think that incompetent driver is going to hit? I would
actually favor some efforts to weed out or restrict incompetent
drivers, but that would require evil government regulation. Can you
imagine the uproar if the government required a special light truck
license to drive your suv, minivan or pickup. Two moving violations
in a year (in any vehicle) and you lose your special light truck
license for two years.