I am always confused by this statement, racecars don't have to deal with the same physicals as street cars, racecars don't have to deal with rough surfaces or are street cars somehow superior in handling than racecars? How so have you ever been to a weekly short track particularly a dirt track? They are anything but smooth, in fact they are incredibly rough, my home at my home track Fonda the cars enter turn 3 at over 90 M.P.H Somehow bias plys can handle this on a race track by not on the street?
Lateral forces on dirt, versus lateral forces on concrete or asphalt do not well-compare. One weekly short track event on dirt is shorter than my trip to go buy supplies across The Bay, and yes, traffic is going over 90 in places. Alos, while a dirt track may develop ruts and holes, they are unlikely to have rock hard edges, or have rebar at the bottom. I-680, Fremont California. My 3-mile commute to the shop includes a 2-inch recessed manhole cover, where you hit the outer ring if you do not swerve, and a pair 2-1/2 inch truck tire worn concrete culvert deck edges to avoid. If those appeared on a track, they would suspend racing. This is why comparing a well cared for hard surface track, or a dirt track, to a public road is not a useful comparison. The hazards simply do not match.
You are wrong (and your comment has a tint of xenophobia, or worse). A significant portion of the tires sold in the United States are manufactured in the United States. Shipping completed tires is far more costly than shipping raw materials. The sidewalls of the Yokohama tires on my truck very clearly state "Made in U.S.A.", as they were made in West Point, Mississippi. Other brands, and sub-brands that have plants in the US are: Goodyear (Kelly Springfield, Dunlop, Douglas, Debica, Fulda, Sava) Cooper (Dick Cepek, Mastercraft, Mentor, Mickey Thompson,, Roadmaster, Starfire, Avon, Dean) Michelin (BF Goodrich, Kleber, Kormoran, Riken, Tigar, Uniroyal) Pirelli Continental Bridgestone and, as mentioned, Yokohama The materials and quality of every single brand of tires sold in the United States is controlled by the company that owns or controls the factory. Each of these companies that makes tires overseas supplies their facilities with the materials, manufacturing technology, and equipment equally. Specialists conduct the same tests with the same standards. This is the case with every product that is made by a US or international company, that makes any product that is made inside or outside of the US, just in some cases localized equipment is used. If you are looking for the culprit for a quality issue, it is not the leaders or citizens of some far-off nation-state. It is the C-suite and the board-of-directors of a major corporation, and one that is probably listed on a US-based stock exchange. If you are looking for a systemic fault that would allow a problem to be possible, the finger is not to be pointed at any government or individual citizen, but at an economic system. That chosen system is Capitalism. This holds true for everything, be it an off-brand Low Ball Mileage Master Special tire, or a Colgate-branded toothbrush, and everything single other thing.
It's interesting to note that if you check current tire warranties from all the major manufacturers, NONE of them make any representation that tire age alone is enough to take a tire out of service. The quote I posted from Goodyear is about as far any of them went. These days, rather than the 'life of the tire' warranties that used to be offered, now there's a simple cut-off for time, beyond that no warranty. These can now range from 4 years to 8 depending on the manufacturer, with most settling at 6. Again, the Ford/Firestone fiasco came about due to Ford's desire to improve the Explorer's ride quality. Ford initially chose the 'Wilderness' model from their long-time supplier Firestone. Unhappy with ride quality, they asked Firestone if they could reduce the tire weight which was done. Still unhappy, Ford then reduced the recommended inflation pressure into the low 20s to achieve the result they wanted, I'm assuming Firestone approved this. Now even before this testing was done, it was known that heat was an accelerant in rubber ageing. The higher the heat, the faster the ageing. As the vast majority of tire failures on these was in the sunbelt, this was added to the testing procedure. At the end of the day, it was determined that while age had something to do with it in some cases, the combination of a flimsier tire and low pressure was the actual killer. You won't find those 'factory' low pressures anymore, and that's why all new vehicles have tire pressure monitoring systems now. After these initial tests, Congress tasked the NHTSA to establish some sort of 'standard' for tire safety. Here's the 'Phase Two' testing... NHTSA Tire Aging Test Development Project Phase 2 - Oven and Roadwheel Aging Not exactly light reading, but still worth looking at. Note that they still did all testing under 'Phoenix' conditions, so if you live in a cooler climate, these results aren't accurate for you. It's also interesting to note that some tires 'aged out' in as little as two years, some went much further.
Number, frequency, scale, magnitude, are all terms that most people, including here, have a great deal of difficulty grasping. It is not their fault. We are a species that loses accuracy when we count up to about thirty. Most people cannot visualize a hundred of anything, let alone a thousand, or a thousand-thousand (million), or million-thousand (billion). Everyone wants a simple, single-sentence explanation for everything, so here it is: The number-one cause of a tire failures is underinflation. (If only there was a way to solve that problem!) More vehicles equals more road-miles traveled, equals more pressure loss from poor maintenance, more failures due to road hazards, etc., and all of that is before we get to any potential actual defects. That number, of course, would naturally rise too, given the volume of tires produced. If you raise tire production volume by 100x, the defect rate will naturally rise. Industrial process controls will prevent it rising at anywhere near the rate of production increase, but it will rise. So yes, more defects, but at a lower percentage of production volume. If a manufacturer makes one-hundred-thousand tires, and has a 0.8% defect rate, that accounts for 800 tires. If 99% of those 800 tires are caught by quality control, that leaves 8 that the public will see. If that same manufacturer makes one-million tires, and still has 0.8% defect rate, that accounts for 8,000 tires. If 99% of those 8,000 tires are caught by quality control, that leaves 80 that the public will see. Some people might mistake that failure rate as being ten-times greater, when it is exactly the same. In order for the general public to not perceive a increase in failures (because they understand number, not rate) on that production increase from a hundred-thousand to one-million tires, the manufacturer would need to reduce the defect rate, by better processes, to 0.4%, and improve internal quality control to catch 99.8% of them. There would be widespread outrage over $800 economy car tires, and still nobody would put enough air in them (and them blame China when they fail).
Which explains the TPMS on every new car/truck.... But not much help on our vintage rides unless you add one.
TPMS only works if the operator knows or cares what the indicator light means, and has not taped over it.
I edited my post a couple of times and then just deleted it, as I felt that I shouldn’t be adding to the negativity and this thread getting off track. Must have been just as you were posting.
The thing is, I am not attempting to be negative with the counting to 30 comment. Anthropologically speaking, tribes were about 30-people at our last evolutionary step. We're good with 30. Now that we have things in the trillions, we are not so good. There is a whole lot of distance between hunting and gathering, and the advent of actuarial sciences, and advanced statistical analysis. Humans just are not naturally equipped. Unless one makes the inexplicable and extraordinary effort to engage in these ridiculous and abstract tasks, they are unlikely to simply know them.
My set of Firestone 8.20-15 on my Buick took around 14000 miles to wore out. No smoky burnouts there, rotated them twice during the 9 years driving them, could probably have lasted longer with some better alignment. Also driving on worn out roads puts a lot more wear on bias tires, and the driver... And one big mistake many people do is overinflate them, they should have a lot less preassure compared to radials.
True. If the use of tire pressure monitoring systems is an accepted and effective way of helping to minimise the possible dangers involved with tire underinflation, why is the tire age system not acceptable as a means toward the same end (public safety)?
0 Crazy Steve, thanks for posting this. Far too many have swallowed the Kool Aid and continue to spread the il-informed hysteria. I live in BC and our average daily temp is light years away from Phoenix but yet I her the BS about tire wear red wear even up here. People should actually do research from creditable sources before spouting off mis-information!
Hello, Tires are always changing. If one likes the large rims on a low profile tire, that is one way to slightly lower your car. Radials vs bias has been going on since the radials were introduced. Everyone has their own facts and favorites. We found out that bias tires for all of our cars were nice, but if one wanted the best riding, handling and longest lasting ones, they had to be true round shaved and balanced. If one is stuck on bias tires as the hot rod tire of choice, don’t be dismayed at the amount of rubber sitting on the floor when the tire is being shaved. The manufacture of tires has gotten better from the big names, but there are so many brands that one is suspect of anything not Pirelli, Michelin, Continental, Goodyear, Goodrich, and Bridgestone. But, even those need some shaving and balancing. Jnaki If the look of the low profile tire is what is going on the hot rod or sedan, be prepared for a “harsher” ride on most streets. The low profile tire absorbs the smallest hole or abnormal surface dent and sends it right up to the steering wheel. Great shocks/suspension help, but there is nothing to stop the low profile tire from feeling like soft brick over the street bumps. Yet, the larger size tires with more rubber on the sidewalls still can send the road bumps to the steering and handling. Perhaps the larger or “Big” tires still will need shaving or truing. But overall, they will transfer less of the hard road bumps to the steering wheel while driving. As tire companies have posted, the plus one, the plus two and so on get the same overall diameter of tire, but they are lower and perhaps wider. But, definitely absorb and transfer the road faster to the steering wheel. NOTE: The longest amount of wear is usually 25k to 30k miles. We never got close to that on any bias or radial. By the time it is hitting 20k, the wear is evident, even with balancing, alignment and a good suspension. YRMV
Lots of radials with 40,000 mile warranty these days, but you'd never find a bias ply back in the day, or today with a warranty that high.
Tire mileage warranties are useless unless you can collect on them and there are lots and lots of outs the manufacturers seem to like to use to get out of making good on them. There was a story in the news here lately where one of the big tire companies denied a mileage warranty on a set of tires that lasted 33,000KM on a 112,000KM warranty because the tread wear was 1/32" difference from one side to the other on a tire.
Depends how much armor all you soak them with I found it's like a tire drug you keep putting in on then there's dry rot cracks from it . Imo.
It's not a 'system', it's simply a decision made by the tire manufacturers to limit their liability in the event of a tire failure that may generate a lawsuit. And it's based on a worst-case scenario which if you're very much north of the sunbelt isn't even close to being accurate. The NHTSA tested for ageing in relation to temperature and the results showed an exponential curve. The higher the temp, the faster the tire aged. The 'common' six year expiration reflects this worst-case as they tested in Phoenix Az. Phoenix has average daily temps of 97 degrees between April and October which is where this came from, with four months at or over 100 degrees. As temps drop, so does the aging process. Go down 15 degrees, the tire now ages roughly half as fast. Go lower still, slower yet. I live one hour south of Seattle. The highest average daily temps there are 72 degrees and that's only for July/August, a reduction of 25 degrees at least. I live in a rural area, you can reduce that by another 5 degrees. According to the NHTSA chart, my tires heat-age at roughly 1/3 the Phoenix rate which puts their lifetime out at 18 years. So when I go to a tire store and some kid who only checks the date code and pronounces my tires are 'unsafe' and need to be replaced, to say I'm skeptical is an understatement. And that's all he knows, 'this is corporate policy'. The tires on my avatar are at least 12 years old (I've owned the car for 11 years and they were on it when I got it) and check them every spring for issues. They are wearing evenly and display zero signs of ageing or any other damage. I do maintain proper inflation pressure, with 30 PSI front and 28 rear. I've had one 'aged' tire failure in all the years I've been driving, and that was a very ratty-looking 20+ year-old biasply that I picked out of a field that its only redeeming features being it wasn't bald and held air. It was to be a temp spare, and did blow out when I used it, although I almost made it all the way home. I wasn't much surprised... Again, if you live in the sunbelt you should be aware of this. The other thing is Goodyear made vague references to 'environmental' and road hazards. These can affect any tire, new or old, and IMO is more mileage/chance related rather than just time. As most drivers will wear out their tires in 6-8 years, not an issue. But that's not true for most of us here. Our tires generally lead a fairly pampered existence, what with limited milage, indoor storage and usually better attention paid to maintenance of our 'babies'. One side effect of all this is it makes mileage warranties for us as pretty much useless, as the age limit will kick in before we wear the tires out. This is where they're stealing from us, forcing us to discard still-serviceable tires. All this reminds me of a deal I had at work years ago. The local newspaper published an article about how 'unsafe' Edison-base home fuse panels were. That panicked a ton of old ladies, and I spent 6 months replacing those with modern circuit-breaker style panels. 95% of those panels were fine, only the ones where some amateur idiot had been at it had problems. Much the same effect here. Some talking head pronounces that unnamed 'experts' have determined that tires become 'unsafe' after 6-8 years with no context and everyone panics. Throw in some antidotal stories about tire failures that were probably from underinflation because the owner was using biasply reasoning to adjust tire pressure so blamed it on being 'old'.
Thank you for the polite and informative reply. Everything you put forward pertaining to the deterioration process of tires with regard to regional ambient temperature range seems to be fair and reasonable. I have no arguement with the findings you are providing. There are two things I see that should be considered when you try to use this information to form a case against an imposed tire serviceable life expiry date. 1). While it is reasonable to assume that tires will "age" more quickly in areas that experience higher average temperatures, it should also be noted that a vehicle's tires, purely by their intended use, may not spend their entire time in one region. Country-wide freight haulage is a good example of this. Heavy vehicle tires may spend time in a wide range of regional temperatures during their lifetime. Also, the fact that vehicles are bought, sold and shipped here, there and everywhere, again exposing their tires to different environments. 2). To expect either tire manufacturers or government to implement and operate tire seviceable life guidelines that are area/temperature specific is unreasonable. It would just not be possible to arrive at an acceptable set of parameters that could go even close to acheiving a workable system. So, instead, we have what is now in place. I guess the thinking is that leaning toward the skinny end of the time frame might just save some lives, while allowing tire use out to the fat end will probably cost lives. In my opinion, the current guideline/legislation is the only logical stance given my two statements above. Unfortunately, our hobby can make it seem unreasonable to us, but it is a hobby we choose to persue. I fail to see any sensible way around the situation. Surely you are not expecting special concession just for our minority. Not going to happen, I'm afraid. And as for any debate on it all being a conspiracy to milk our coffers dry, let's leave that discussion for another time and place.... I do share your frustration on the hot rodder's dollar versus mile situation when it comes to tire life. I just haven't seen an alternative policy that cuts the mustard yet. If you have one, I'm all ears....
In the early nineties I purchased an 1967 Bonneville from a used car lot for $950. It had been owned by an elderly lady and was in great shape with only 67k miles on it. 325 hp 400 ci, T400 column shift, gold paint with a black vinyl top, a pristine cloth interior, and fender skirts on the rear wheels. A classy ride. It also had bias ply tires all around with studded snow tires in the back, she must have traded it in during the late winter because I purchased it in warm weather and the studded snow tires were still on it. It would barely run. The dealer told me he thought the plastic teeth on the timing chain gear were shot but I had doubts about that. I gladly paid him the asking price and limped it the twenty miles home with my Mother following me in case I didn’t make it. She said it reeked of gasoline fumes as she followed me, That was a good clue! Without bothering to check the timing issue I purchased a carb kit for less than ten bucks and had the carb rebuilt in a matter of hours. It ran great! First test drive after the carb rebuild I left my parents garage and pulled onto main street in our small town, I was headed up the hill to main street and laid a nice long burnout with the studded snow tires to see how much power she had. That car was big but it had some stones! I promptly headed out of town with the throttle floored and hit 110 miles an hour before my courage hit its limit and I backed out of it. I’ve been faster bit those bias tires made 110 seem a lot faster than it was. Youth is a wonderful thing but I’m glad my guardian angel was riding with me that day.
Thankfully in Canada and the US there is no law regarding usage of tires according to the date code. Since a lot of tire failures are caused by incorrect pressure, a cheap and simple service that possibly could be provided by government is to pay to have tire gauge test facilities at various auto garages. Basically a calibrated air pressure source at inspection stations that already have compressed air. I have the luxury of access to an industrial version of this, and have checked and had calibrated a few cheapy dial type gauges. I checked a pair of such gauges. One was 10psi out, across its whole useful range. The other was within 1 psi through the whole useful range. So although both were precise, only one was accurate. The inaccurate one was fixed by removing the pointer and placing it in the correct position, using proper gauge repair tools.
Over the road trucks and buses are regulated by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (used to be the ICC) or state equivalents. This 'age' thing has nothing to do with them. The FMCSA don't appear to be fully successful judging by the number of 'alligators' I see on the local freeways. No, this deal is only about cars and light trucks. As to where a vehicle has been, that's not hard to find out anymore. Spend a few bucks for a CarFax and you'll know where it's been. You're still under the illusion that there's some sort of 'system'. There isn't. Neither the auto/tire manufacturers or the NHTSA have any direct involvement with this. The NHTSA put out their 'recommendation' and called it a day. The manufacturers initially put out their own 'recommendations' which were anywhere from 6 to 10 years, some didn't say anything one way or another. The recommendations consisted of telling you to have the tire 'inspected' by a 'tire tech' to see if it was still 'suitable', leading to the fiasco of some kid at the tire store looking at the date code only and saying you needed new tires. Some inspection... How it's settled out now is the auto manufacturers plainly state that any tire issues are on the tire maker and whatever their warranty says. The tire manufacturers solved it by capping their warranty periods, most at six years but there's a few shorter. No longer for the 'life of the tread'. I haven't checked all of them, just the majors. If the tire fails past the end of the warranty, they're off the hook. Any mileage or road hazard warranty also expires. 'Enforcement' was put off onto the tire retailers, and they jumped in with both feet. The manufacturers can feign innocence, and an easy way to increase tire sales. This is where it gets weird. I've heard anywhere from six to ten years locally as the 'expiration' date, depending on where/when I went. The big chains are all pretty much on board with this. You can find some independents that are more reasonable, with a few blowing this whole thing off as the fraud that it is. The capper for me was watching a tech fix a 'expired' tire for an obviously good customer (I knew that particular tire had been out of production for more than 10 years), then they turned around and stampeded an older woman into replacing a full set of tires with probably 70% tread because they were 7 years old. She came in with a low tire and asked if they could add some air... All he looked at was the date code. That's what makes my blood boil when I hear this stuff.
Again, I get where you are coming from. The whole thing comes down to the opinion of the owner or employee at the tire shop. So the guy left to make the determination as to whether your tires are safe or not is most probably not even remotely qualified for this important role. Even most tire shop owners, and this should be no surprise, are nowhere near qualified enough to make this decision. They are just trying to make a buck, and are flying blind when it comes to the technical stuff. Is it any wonder that they go with the six to ten year theory seeing as it is their butt on the line if it all goes tits up. The consensus among most manufacturers is that the absolute maximum age should be 10 years, assuming there is no other reason for the tire to be unsafe. There has to be some form of guideline to try and stop the morons out there running tires until they disintegrate at 70mph and kill people. The 5 to 6 year onward thing is when you should be really vigilant with checking for signs of deterioration. This happens to include hardening of the tire compound and micro-cracks starting to appear, both of which affect tire performance greatly, especially in wet conditions. It is not just catastrophic failure that is the concern. Can we trust our tire shops to administer the proper scrutiny of our tires as they age? In the most part, no. Is it understandable that all concerned are very wary of litigation in the case of getting it wrong? Hell yes. Wouldn't you use a very cautious approach if you were in their shoes? I know I would. So, we need another answer. Once again, I can't come up with a better approach, can you? Many find it very easy to criticise, but few have the ability to formulate a better plan.
I would expect radials to outlast bias if the tires are on a daily driver. If you’re like most though, they will age out before they wear out. I know the age out thing is hotly debated but I personally think there’s something to it. Not saying I’d throw away a nice set of tires when they hit five years of age but at twenty, definitely. I’ve seen lots of gorgeous twenty year old tires come apart at highway speeds and they do damage when they do come apart. And these were tires that looked new, garage stored and cared for. I know many will take the chance and that’s cool. In fact, I have a super nice set of 20 year old white letter BFs that are coming off a car I picked up and I’m hoping someone will give me a few bucks for them at the swaps. They can roll the dice on their car.
Been following this with some interest, and your comment about a cut-off time beyond which there is no warranty leads to another question. If the tire manufacturer isn't willing to warranty a tire after a cut-off time, shouldn't they be required to recall that tire from inventory and not be allowed to have it available for sale at all? There are used tire shops around me that sell brand new name brand out of date tires. I don't know if they get them from a warehouse or high-end dealers who need to move slow moving products. This next statement is going to sound ridiculous, but using the six-year average you suggested, if a person were to buy a new tire with only three years left of the "date of manufacture" warranty, shouldn't the price of the tire be 50% of the original price?
The Jalopy Journal
