Big brothering by Discount Tires

[geeman789]

LAWSUIT.

Understeer equals drivers fault. Too fast for conditions.

Oversteer equals cars fault, tires fault, TIRE STORES FAULT.

Big crash, BIGGER lawsuit. Tire stores won't mess around with liability issues.

And, you can't WAIVER away negligence... if they put new tires on the front, and the driver spun, crashed and died, you can bet your @ss any jury would call that NEGLIGENT, regardless of any waiver.

So, they cover their behinds and say SORRY, can't do that.

 

[Nate1979]

Why should they do something they know to be the incorrect choice? IMO there are too many people way too over confident of their driving abilities, especially on this site.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: geeman789
Understeer equals drivers fault. Too fast for conditions.

Oversteer equals cars fault, tires fault, TIRE STORES FAULT.

Hope you're talking about people's perceptions of fault and not the reality. If it's perceptions, I agree.

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
With skids you have to think about where the force of the vehicle is being transferred to the tires. In short you can only ask tires to do so much. For example in snow when you slide your better off getting off the brakes and just ask for some steering, deeper tread helps this. Its the same as at the track you brake before a corner, since your at the limits of the tires anyway.


And this is where coefficiens of static vs sliding friction come in. Once the rear breaks loose in snow, particularly on half-used all seasons, it's going to keep going, and your car may even have some pendulum type effect whipping that rear around. Those tires won't "re-bite" just by steering the front of the car, which halfway into the spin-out already has its tires out of their comfortable ruts.

Incidentally, this is what makes snow tires so fun, they reward the driver that steers into the skid and generally allow the car to behave like the theoretical one in driver's ed or as seen in road rallies. They seem to narrow the gap between static and sliding friction, and have tons of sideways grip. All seasons get you moving but once they break loose it's over. Incidentally all seasons on the front of a FWD car are pretty miserable-- they'll understeer so badly if you're on a crowned road on a hill you'll get sucked into the ditch with the two degrees of tilt.

 

[CapriRacer]

2 thoughts:

I have been told by lawyers involved with civil liability cases that a person can not sign away his rights - and that ANY waiver is pretty much worthless if the "expert" (in this case, the tire shop) did something that was less than optimal, even if the customer wanted it done that way.

So, my understanding is that no amount of legal wrangling is possible to get a tire shop to mount new tires on the front, if they think it is a legal liability to do so. If a tire shop mounts tires on the front, THEY are accepting legal liability if something bad happens.

Second thought: Grampi, you've been around here long enough to have seen the threads on this subject. You should have expected this and been prepared for it.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
With skids you have to think about where the force of the vehicle is being transferred to the tires. In short you can only ask tires to do so much. For example in snow when you slide your better off getting off the brakes and just ask for some steering, deeper tread helps this. Its the same as at the track you brake before a corner, since your at the limits of the tires anyway.


And this is where coefficiens of static vs sliding friction come in. Once the rear breaks loose in snow, particularly on half-used all seasons, it's going to keep going, and your car may even have some pendulum type effect whipping that rear around. Those tires won't "re-bite" just by steering the front of the car, which halfway into the spin-out already has its tires out of their comfortable ruts.

Incidentally, this is what makes snow tires so fun, they reward the driver that steers into the skid and generally allow the car to behave like the theoretical one in driver's ed or as seen in road rallies. They seem to narrow the gap between static and sliding friction, and have tons of sideways grip. All seasons get you moving but once they break loose it's over. Incidentally all seasons on the front of a FWD car are pretty miserable-- they'll understeer so badly if you're on a crowned road on a hill you'll get sucked into the ditch with the two degrees of tilt.

Well said.

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: CapriRacer
2 thoughts:

I have been told by lawyers involved with civil liability cases that a person can not sign away his rights - and that ANY waiver is pretty much worthless if the "expert" (in this case, the tire shop) did something that was less than optimal, even if the customer wanted it done that way.

So, my understanding is that no amount of legal wrangling is possible to get a tire shop to mount new tires on the front, if they think it is a legal liability to do so. If a tire shop mounts tires on the front, THEY are accepting legal liability if something bad happens.

Second thought: Grampi, you've been around here long enough to have seen the threads on this subject. You should have expected this and been prepared for it.


What I have seen is people being told they can't install a certain tire because the load rating wasn't what the vehicle called for, or tire size was different than what was called for, but I've never seen or read about an instance where a place refused to put new tires on the front just because the tires on the rear had slightly less tread. I can understand the first two examples, and I could even understand them doing what happened to me IF my rear tires were severely worn, but that wasn't the case...I just think they're going a bit overboard with these "cover their butt" measures...

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
And this is where coefficiens of static vs sliding friction come in. Once the rear breaks loose in snow, particularly on half-used all seasons, it's going to keep going, and your car may even have some pendulum type effect whipping that rear around. Those tires won't "re-bite" just by steering the front of the car, which halfway into the spin-out already has its tires out of their comfortable ruts.

Incidentally, this is what makes snow tires so fun, they reward the driver that steers into the skid and generally allow the car to behave like the theoretical one in driver's ed or as seen in road rallies. They seem to narrow the gap between static and sliding friction, and have tons of sideways grip. All seasons get you moving but once they break loose it's over. Incidentally all seasons on the front of a FWD car are pretty miserable-- they'll understeer so badly if you're on a crowned road on a hill you'll get sucked into the ditch with the two degrees of tilt.


I think I've experienced that... only two accidents I've had involved the rear coming around on me; both times in winter, both with all seasons. RWD Astro, FWD Saturn, non-ABS. In both cases once the rear got loose, I let off and steered into the skid--only to have the rear snap in the other direction. Probably steered too far. After three corrections in both cases I just hit the brakes and waited for the conclusion.

I've never really noticed understeer in any vehicle. But now that you mention it, our Camry seems prone to the front end "darting" to the right in snow, or at least with Primacy's. The LTX MS2's on my truck might do the same on the rear, seems like very little resistance to sideways motion (although letting off the throttle "fixes" the issue).

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: supton

I think I've experienced that... only two accidents I've had involved the rear coming around on me; both times in winter, both with all seasons. RWD Astro, FWD Saturn, non-ABS. In both cases once the rear got loose, I let off and steered into the skid--only to have the rear snap in the other direction. Probably steered too far. After three corrections in both cases I just hit the brakes and waited for the conclusion.



What you experienced there was, in racer's terminology, "tank slappers". You got behind in your steering. After steering into the skid, you need to sense when the rotation of the car has been stopped, and then quickly return the steering wheel to the straight-ahead position. This will prevent the car from snapping into a spin in the other direction.

Steering into the skid is instinctive, but reading when the rotation of the car has stopped, and returning the wheel to straight ahead is something that has to be learned.

Think of it as CPR.
Correction: When you steer into the skid.
Pause: Sensing the rotation of the car.
Recovery: Returning the wheels to the intended path.

 

[supton]

Very interesting, thanks for the reference.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: grampi
but I've never seen or read about an instance where a place refused to put new tires on the front just because the tires on the rear had slightly less tread.


Here are a few recent ones:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...afe#Post3413901

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...uem#Post3348579


I know there were a bunch more in prior years as well. Granted, not everyone reads this forum religiously, so they're easy to miss. And it's not exactly easy to search for them either.

 

[Sayjac]

Originally Posted By: CapriRacer
2 thoughts:

I have been told by lawyers involved with civil liability cases that a person can not sign away his rights - and that ANY waiver is pretty much worthless if the "expert" (in this case, the tire shop) did something that was less than optimal, even if the customer wanted it done that way.

So, my understanding is that no amount of legal wrangling is possible to get a tire shop to mount new tires on the front, if they think it is a legal liability to do so. If a tire shop mounts tires on the front, THEY are accepting legal liability if something bad happens.

Second thought: Grampi, you've been around here long enough to have seen the threads on this subject. You should have expected this and been prepared for it.

Yep, yep.

Waivers aren't worth jack in a court or law.

Want to blame some one or some thing, blame the litigious society, not DT/AT's SOP, which in the stores I frequent is clearly displayed.

Simple solution, don't like DT/AT's policies and procedures, buy elsewhere where they don't care and have no policies for placement of new tires with significantly different tread depth than other set of previously mounted tires.

 

[grampi]

One could also make the argument that the older tires/tires with less tread are more likely to blow out than the new tires, therefore the new tires should go on the front...if I'm gonna have a blow out, I'd much rather it happen on a rear than a front tire...

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: sayjac
Simple solution, don't like DT/AT's policies and procedures, buy elsewhere where they don't care and have no policies for placement of new tires with significantly different tread depth than other set of previously mounted tires.


I wouldn't have a problem with their policy had there been a SIGNIFICANT difference in tread depth...that wasn't the case in my scenario...I don't even think tread depth was a consideration, he simply said "it's store policy to put the new tires on the front...I probably could've pushed the issue to have them measure the tread depth of the rears, but I didn't want to get into it with the guy...I figured I can just rotate them myself...

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: grampi
if I'm gonna have a blow out, I'd much rather it happen on a rear than a front tire...

A blowout on the back is typically harder to control.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: grampi
One could also make the argument that the older tires/tires with less tread are more likely to blow out than the new tires


You're right, and this is another reason to want your newer tires in the rear.

Originally Posted By: grampi
if I'm gonna have a blow out, I'd much rather it happen on a rear than a front tire...


You really don't want a catastrophic failure of a rear tire; they're generally harder to control than if it happens to a front tire. You do lose some element of steering with a front tire failure, but the car will rarely swerve or oversteer on you. If you have a rear tire failure, you really lose lateral stability back there, and the car can want to swap ends with you if you're in a corner when it happens.

 

[d00df00d]

If a rear tire blows out in a corner, you could lose the rear end and crash.

If a front tire blows out in a corner, you could lose steering or have the front end wash out, and crash.

Either way, it's a possible loss of control and crash.

 

[supton]

I had a front blow out once; while it was on an inside tire on a turn, I didn't think much of it. I have twice had the rear break lose traction (in winter) and lost it both times. As an "average" driver I don't have the experience to recover, so avoidance of oversteer is my only option.

It's a free world, but I'm behind the "best tires on rear". Well, I prefer to wear 'em down on all four with rotations, but you get the idea.

 

[d00df00d]

An inside-tire blowout is hardly comparable to losing grip on snow/ice.

 

[HangFire]

Of all the Nanny-State things to complain about, this is the least of all. Don't like it? Take it home and rotate the tires. It's not like the FBI or NHTSA will be banging on your door. If you do not/cannot rotate yourself, and you just can't wait 5K miles, scuff them up a bit and put a little mud on them and then take them to your usual shop for a rotation.

Next thing we'll be complaining and arguing about what air pressure the tire shop used. Don't like it? Just change it.