Logic for or against the tire-rotation pattern X > H > X > H

[Roy Tremblay]

What do you think about the 4-tire rotation pattern below? X > H > X > H year 1 X > H > X > H year 2 etsetera

Basic assumptions: Assume the alignment is within spec. Assume the fronts consistently wear differently than do the rears. Assume that F->B differential wear is symmetric per axle. Assume the spare is a donut and therefore out of the picture. Assume a rotation every change of seasons (about 4K miles roughly). Assume bidirectional tread. Assume whitewalls on one side (otherwise I could flip them on the rim). Assume USA crowns, which is to say almost no crown most of the time.

How does the logic of this X > H > X > H rotation pattern look to you?

Assume tires go on in year 1, front to back, numbered:

1 2 | 3 4

The first X-pattern rotation in Spring of year 1 gets us:

4 3 | 2 1

The H pattern in Summer of year 1 gets us to:

2 1 | 4 3

The X pattern of Fall of year 1 gets us to:

3 4 | 1 2

And then, finally, the Winter H pattern of year 1 gets us back to:

1 2 | 3 4

At the end of the year, with this X > H > X > H pattern I devised, I think the tires would have been on every combination but always as a set per axle because my fronts wear differently than do my rears.

If I flip them on the rim, does that help in giving me rotation options?

[Dan Espen]

Total waste of time.

Drive the car until the tires wear out, then buy new ones.

[Ralph Mowery]

Years ago the recommended patern was the X type where each tire was at each position at the end of all the swapping. Even the spare tire was recommended, which would not be a bad idea was it not for the minispare as tires sort of dry rot even if not on the road.

When radial tires came out,it was recommended to keep the tires on the same side so they always turned the same direction. Just bought a new

2017 Toyato and the recommended rotation is to keep the tires on the same side.

Sure wold be a pain to take them off the rim and reverse them. Probably would put the letering on the wrong side,and if white wall or raised letters, they would be facing the inside of the car instead of the outside.

[Meanie]

Pert of me believes the motive for swapping sides was to increase business for the garages since the entire car would need to be lifted to remove all tires as opposed to one side each for front and back, which most garage mechanics can accomplish.

[Meanie]

Far too much thought into it. I've rotated front to back and nothing more. If the car has proper alignment, the tires wear fairly even all around with proper rotation. Without rotation, the front's usually wear sooner due to the turning.

[trader_4]

+1

That;s all I do and it's worked fine, even wear. There is also the issue of what kind of tires? Some tires have directional patterns and can't be reversed, I also think there was some issue with steel belted tires too, where they recommended not reversing the direction once installed. But who cares? The simple front to back works for me. I also suspect this new poster may be Mad Roger, with another rabbit hole?

[clare]

Lets hope this is not another assume this and assume that diatibe -

The tire companies say rotation direction makes no difference if it is not a directional tire, but many years of experience have convinced me I will never knowingly reverse the rotation of my tires. I move them front to back every time I do my seasonal tire change.

With directional tires it's a total non issue - there is an arrow saying which way it MUST rotate.

I'll expand a bit - I have never had a tire that was not reversed suffer a belt failure or tread separation. Every tread separation or carcass failure I have seen in the last 40? years was either reversed on rotation or subjected to extreme shock loads or overhweating from running overloaded and underinflated.

[DerbyDad03]

Theoretically, we should never, ever rotate our tires.

When rear wheel drive was the norm, it was standard practice (and a good idea) to always keep the best tires on the rear of the car. Better drive traction yes, but more importantly less chance of fishtailing and losing control on wet roads.

Then we switched to front wheel drive and everyone thought "best tires on the front...best tires on the drive wheels". For some reason, we all forgot about the physics behind hydroplaning and fishtailing. That didn't change just because the drive wheels are now in the front.

Fast forward to today. Walk into any tire shop and buy 2 tires. They will point to the big sign on the wall that says "If you buy 2 tires we will mount them on the rear." It has been proven that having the best tires on the rear is safer for all vehicles, front wheel drive or rear wheel drive. Blame the physics.

From TireRack: "When tires are replaced in pairs in situations like these, the new tires should always be installed on the rear axle and the partially worn tires moved to the front. New tires on the rear axle help the driver more easily maintain control on wet roads since deeper treaded tires are better at resisting hydroplaning."

OK, so now walk into that same tire shop and buy 4 new tires. The second the technician makes that first turn out of the bay and into a parking spot, the front tires are worn more than the rears. 5000 miles down the road it's supposedly time to rotate the tires, right? Wait, didn't we just read that the best tires should always be on the rear? Didn't the sign in the shop say that they will only install 2 new tires on the rear?

If it has been proven that having the best tires on the rear is the safest configuration, why would anyone rotate the more-worn front tires to the rear? I guess it's so you can wear the good ones from the rear down a little faster and then - wait for it - put them back on the rear.

[clare]

In order to keep tire wear even - or to put it another way - to get the most life out of your tires - you rotate them. Otherwize you are always either throwind away half a set of good tires, or replacing tires in pairs and likely having different treaded tires front and rear - which is ALSO not recommended. The "ideal" is to have MATCHING tires front and rear - with better on rear than front second best, and better front than rear least recommended.

The only way to have matching tires front and rear theough the life of the tires id ROTATE - front to rear.

Having driven competetively with a front wheel drive car I would never want different treads front to rear.

I DID drive that way in Zambia with my old Peugeot - Dunlops on one end and Michelin X on the other. Didn't matter which way, it was not ideal. I found, contrary to the current wisdom, I was better with the softer, better tread Dunlops on the front - but hydroplaning is not an issue on dirt roads or in dry weather. In the slop I found being able to pull myself out of a corner by powering front wheels that could get some bite was the best way to keep the back bumper behind me - and that was also true of the Renault rallye car.

[trader_4]

The whole point of rotation is so that there isn't one set that's worn significantly more than the other, so IDK what faulty starting point this came from. Simple front to back has worked fine on all my vehicles.

[DerbyDad03]

Are you disputing the fact that if you start with 4 new tires the front tires are essentially *immediately* more worn than the rears? Immediately, as in after the first turn?

[clare]

Immediately? Measurably? Hardly - but yes, you do initially bias the vehicle to having more worn tires on the front. See my last post though, re: same tires on all 4 wheels.

[The Real Bev]

I've already replied to this -- I'm trying to reply to articles which have been cross posted. Please ignore.

[trader_4]

Silly diversion down another rabbit hole. The point to rotating tires is so that they wear approximately evenly.

[DerbyDad03]

The point to keeping the best tires on the rear is to avoid losing control.

[clare]

No, you are missing the point. The car is designed to handle properly with equal dread front to back. IF you are going to have different tread depth front to back, bias towards more traction on the rear is safer than less traction on the rear - but the IDEAL is equal traction (tread depth and tread design) on both ends.

ALWAYS best to replace tires in sets of 4, and rotate to keep tread even. IF necessary to replace tires in axle sets, recommendation is best tires on the rear. This is "second best" in most situations (where wet pavement is likely and higway speeds) There ARE conditions where you definitely want the better traction on the front - like dirt running, where high speeds are not anticipated.

I rallyed competitively for 3 years with front wheel drive, and with hand-brake drifting you most definitely wanted the best tires on the front. I could convince the rear tires to follow anywhere I wanted them if I could keep control of the front.

[Roy Tremblay]

Both the H and X pattern result in matching tires front and rear. The alternating X > H puts any one tire on all four corners in a year. The two tires on any one axle always stay together as a set.

I had always assumed RWD and all four tires the same model & size.

Tire Rack says there are 2 traditional RWD rotation patterns Rearward Cross & X-Pattern And 2 traditional FWD rotation patterns Forward Cross & X-Pattern And 2 traditional performance patterns for special cases Front-to-Rear & Side-to-Side

The alternating X & H pattern I devised puts each tire on each corner in a year without compromising the axle pairing.

The disadvantage is that the direction is reversed.

If reversing non-directional radials causes the belts to separate, then that's the major disadvantage but I can't find anything conclusively reliable that says belts will separate merely by changing the direction for non-directional tires.

[clare]

I'm not saying they WILL separate - but you are increasing the chance. Look at how a steel belted radial tire is built, then envision how the belt works into the rubber carcass and takes a "set". Now, reverse the rotation, and see what the steel belt tries to do. It tries to "take a set" the other way. In doing so, IF IT SUCCEEDS, the belt will get loose in the carcass, where it will cause heat buildup as well as weaken the bond between the belt and the carcass rubber. This is particularly dangerous when the rubber hardens a bit with age. Some tires harden more than others - so some are more of a problem than others. Even without the rubber getting hard, having the steel belt shift inside the rubber carcass is never good.If the bond between the rubber and steel is compromized, the tire comes apart.

Running a tire with too low pressure, or significantly overloaded, causes the same problem with the bond between the rubber and the steel.

On a TOP QUALITY tire you MAY get away with it, but with so many even American branded tires being thrown together offshore in places like China, Singapore, Thailand, Viet Nam etc,do you really want to find out the hard way???

[Roy Tremblay]

I understand what you're saying and I agree with you that it would be very important if changing the direction of non-directional radial tires causes a meaningfully valid chance of the belts separating.

I'm not arguing with you aa what you say makes sense. I am just trying to find reliable sources that back that up or debunk it.

Most source I found say an X pattern is fine, which, unless you remount the tire on the wheel, results in a change of direction. Almost all the sources I found said to use what they call the "rearward cross" or the "forward cross" which also results in at least two tires changing rotation direction.

All I'm trying to do is find reliable sources to better explain the risk of reversing the direction of non-directional radials.

I have many times heard about this "set" which seems to usually be mentioned with respect to radials. If this set is real, it can easily be envisioned to be from both road crown being consistent and camber being consistent for a period of 4000 miles.

Yep. Makes sense.

Yep. Makes sense.

Maybe. But Yep. Makes sense.

Yep. Makes sense.

Yep. But different issue from rotation.

You are right that the goal in rotation is to get the longest life out of my non-directional radial tires. If the X pattern causes belt separation, that would be counter productive.

Yet the X pattern (or modified-X pattern) is recommended in almost every tire rotation article I can find, even those from Goodyear and Tire Rack and the car magazines.

So if the X pattern is causing treads to separate, why do they almost all universally suggest an X pattern (or modified X pattern) for non-directional radial tires?

I am still searching for a good writeup that seems trustworthy but all the ones I have found so far are more advertising gimmicks than they are helpful.

I'm not arguing with your premise which I appreciate that you brought up. I'm just trying to find supporting evidence.

[clare]

They sell tires. Does that give you an (al-be-it) cynical) answer?

Like I said - they sell tires.

You won't find it in advertizing copy. If you ask 50 mechanics who have been in the business, not working for tire shops, since the advent of Radial tires, you will find the majority say "the experts say it doesn't make a difference, but I never cross rotate the tires on my own vehicles"

That says something - no?

I have never had a radial tire carcass failure on a tire that I know has never been cross-rotated or run too low on pressure. The only carcass "failure" I have experienced in the last at least 26 years of driving on vehicles my family has owned was a set of cheap "T" rated Tiger Paw Touring that got noisy and developed a vibration on our Taurus. The tires were on the car when we bought it so no history - and I know there was at least a few times the tire pressure dropped below spec. They did not come apart, or even fail to the point it was visibly detectable, but it sounded like bad wheel bearings. Bearings didn't solve the problem - new tires did.