$35 paint job (Sonic Carbon alternative)

[hill]

They can't rotate MX tires ......snip......

is this just a phenomenon of the stock Continental Tires? The wheels? Both? just wondering because we are looking at (both tires & rims) replacements for our X. I'd never heard this .... wonder what the rationale is.
.

 

[vandacca]

is this just a phenomenon of the stock Continental Tires? The wheels? Both? just wondering because we are looking at (both tires & rims) replacements for our X. I'd never heard this .... wonder what the rationale is.
.

Most X come in a staggered layout (rear wheels wider than front) so you cannot rotate front-back. Some wheels may also be directional and therefore you cannot rotate left-right either.

 

[Peteybabes]

Most X come in a staggered layout (rear wheels wider than front) so you cannot rotate front-back. Some wheels may also be directional and therefore you cannot rotate left-right either.

i guess i don't get why, if the tires are bidirectional..., why can't i just go side to side? would the wheels be "backwards" or...?

the back 2 tires are 10.5" and the fronts are 8.5" or something, can't I just go side-to-side with the fronts & side-to-side with the backs?

 

[vandacca]

i guess i don't get why, if the tires are bidirectional..., why can't i just go side to side? would the wheels be "backwards" or...?

the back 2 tires are 10.5" and the fronts are 8.5" or something, can't I just go side-to-side with the fronts & side-to-side with the backs?

I'm no tire expert, but from what I've been told the tread wears in a directional manner, regardless if they are bi-directional tires. Therefore, if you swap the tires left-right, you will probably hear a lot more road noise (at least initially). There may be other reasons as well.

 

[voltaren]

i guess i don't get why, if the tires are bidirectional..., why can't i just go side to side? would the wheels be "backwards" or...?

the back 2 tires are 10.5" and the fronts are 8.5" or something, can't I just go side-to-side with the fronts & side-to-side with the backs?

Moving your tires side-to-side is completely pointless unless 1) you ONLY make right (or left) turns or 2) your alignment is off (whether through wear or poor design). The original purpose of rotating tires was to move the tires from the front to the back or diagonally because of differing axle weights causing increased wear. Modern vehicles have much better weight distribution than the oldies. Anybody telling you otherwise has been misinformed.

I've had numerous vehicles in which I never rotated the tires because the axle weights were either the same or had a negligible difference.

With some vehicles, a tire rotation is as useless as changing out your blinker fluid. It's a sham or gimmick used by service shops to entice customers or charge more money.

Source: I'm an ASE certified mechanic (I got the certification on a whim because I like building cars.)

 

[verygreen]

The original purpose of rotating tires was to move the tires from the front to the back or diagonally because of differing axle weights causing increased wear. Modern vehicles have much better weight distribution than the oldies. Anybody telling you otherwise has been misinformed.

Huh?
I think the theory behind back-front rotation was that because front axle is 75% or so of braking force they wear out more.
I certainly saw this in all my cars. Also lots of tire manufacturers halve your warranty for staggered setups because you cannot rotate the tires.

 

[Mickie]

Looks good from here! And yes, Tesla can take their $3k option somewhere else.

 

[Peteybabes]

Moving your tires side-to-side is completely pointless unless 1) you ONLY make right (or left) turns or 2) your alignment is off (whether through wear or poor design). The original purpose of rotating tires was to move the tires from the front to the back or diagonally because of differing axle weights causing increased wear. Modern vehicles have much better weight distribution than the oldies. Anybody telling you otherwise has been misinformed.

I've had numerous vehicles in which I never rotated the tires because the axle weights were either the same or had a negligible difference.

With some vehicles, a tire rotation is as useless as changing out your blinker fluid. It's a sham or gimmick used by service shops to entice customers or charge more money.

Source: I'm an ASE certified mechanic (I got the certification on a whim because I like building cars.)

i respect your credentials, but as we've seen with "very low" mode the camber is affected and the tires tend to wear quite a bit more on the inside of the tire. would at least moving the tires side to side be beneficial? (i realize it would be more of a pain in the @$$ than simply moving the fully mounted wheel/tire to the other side)

 

[voltaren]

Huh?
I think the theory behind back-front rotation was that because front axle is 75% or so of braking force they wear out more.
I certainly saw this in all my cars. Also lots of tire manufacturers halve your warranty for staggered setups because you cannot rotate the tires.

You're sort of proving my point. Side to side is pointless. Front to back or diagonal is the point of tire rotations.

I'm very familiar with vehicle dynamics. Braking during normal driving does slightly accelerate wear on the front tires and not entirely because the front brakes do more work, it's more because of weight shifting forward - another point of my post: Axle weight determines the wear. Modern vehicles are better at distributing this weight than say a 85 Oldsmobile.

If you drive on a track or extremely aggressively, you'll definitely wear out your fronts much faster based on a multitude of factors.

 

[voltaren]

i respect your credentials, but as we've seen with "very low" mode the camber is affected and the tires tend to wear quite a bit more on the inside of the tire. would at least moving the tires side to side be beneficial? (i realize it would be more of a pain in the @$$ than simply moving the fully mounted wheel/tire to the other side)

This camber issue is why I put "poor design" in my exceptions to the rule. I keep mine on normal or high because of the camber changes.

 

[verygreen]

You're sort of proving my point. Side to side is pointless. Front to back or diagonal is the point of tire rotations.

I'm very familiar with vehicle dynamics. Braking during normal driving does slightly accelerate wear on the front tires and not entirely because the front brakes do more work, it's more because of weight shifting forward - another point of my post: Axle weight determines the wear. Modern vehicles are better at distributing this weight than say a 85 Oldsmobile.

If you drive on a track or extremely aggressively, you'll definitely wear out your fronts much faster based on a multitude of factors.

I don't deny the pointlessness of side to side rotation - that's why I deleted that part of your post in the quote.
But I don't drive aggressively and I don't drive 1985 oldsmobile. Latest example is on a 2007 car - front wear is huge (I neglected on tire rotation and my service did not insist on it when I was thinking they do it by default unless asked not to) where as back wear is much less.
It certainly is due to the way load is distributed across axes when braking (and accelerating too of course), but the point still stands, you do not need to drive antique cars to actually need to rotate your tires and get meaningful benefit from that.
Also tire manufacturers probably also know something about this, unless you are fine with half the tire wear warranty, might as well still do the rotations even if you don't believe in them

 

[voltaren]

I don't deny the pointlessness of side to side rotation - that's why I deleted that part of your post in the quote.
But I don't drive aggressively and I don't drive 1985 oldsmobile. Latest example is on a 2007 car - front wear is huge (I neglected on tire rotation and my service did not insist on it when I was thinking they do it by default unless asked not to) where as back wear is much less.
It certainly is due to the way load is distributed across axes when braking (and accelerating too of course), but the point still stands, you do not need to drive antique cars to actually need to rotate your tires and get meaningful benefit from that.
Also tire manufacturers probably also know something about this, unless you are fine with half the tire wear warranty, might as well still do the rotations even if you don't believe in them

Huh?

 

[James Anders]

$3000 for different color is insane. I had a quality powder coat job done on a set of 19 inch wheels for a few hundred

 

[verygreen]

Huh?

Here's just one example (because I am lazy to find more): Yokohama Tire Corp. | Yokohama Tire Corporation

Note: For staggered fitment applications (different tire sizes on front and rear axles), which cannot be rotated, the mileage warranty for the rear tires will be half of the warranty specified in Yokohama literature.*

Not sure why just rear, though. I have seen a generic "half a warranty" claims too I believe.

 

[FlatSix911]

$3000 for different color is insane. I had a quality powder coat job done on a set of 19 inch wheels for a few hundred

View attachment 223651

Well done

 

[Peteybabes]

$3000 for different color is insane. I had a quality powder coat job done on a set of 19 inch wheels for a few hundred

View attachment 223651

yeah, local wheel store charges abut $150/wheel w/tire mount and balance included...they are extremely credible and high-end. $600 is an easier pill to swallow.

if anybody is interested: Home Page they do bentley, lamborghini, etc... and also do brake calipers and whatever else you want them to modify