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

Roy Tremblay · 2017-07-28T19:44:40+00:00

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?

Jul 28, 2017 41 Replies

Rate this thread:

TekkieÃÂ® 8 years ago

snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca posted for all of us...

Caution here Clare, it's troll boi.

Vote

clare 8 years ago

My thought exactly -

Vote

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required