A PSA About those tire TINS and date codes: Installers, It's Dates Out, for ALL tires.

[Volvohead]

Just a PSA for anyone who is doing this in the business, and for all of us who are just buying tires. I'm mentioning it, as I actually have to go back and have an uncomfortable chat on Monday morning with a very skilled (but not up to date) old timer, who then is going to have to remount three new tires. While not giving anyone legal advice, I'm also mentioning it as retired counsel who once handled tire defect litigation.

In a phrase, it's mount them DATE CODES OUT. As in facing outboard. And that is not just for asymmetrical and directional tires (where it should be idiot proof). It's for all tires. And it's a safety rule.

And a good argument can be made that it is now not just a DOT regulation for tire makers, but is also actionable Best Practices for all installers. And having handled defect cases, if an installer mismounted a tire against these Rules, that later failed (causing injuries) and had been subject to recall, there is a very high probability that installer would be brought into the litigation. If only because they had insurance.

Mounting and installer involvement are among the first things that a tire expert evaluates in examining the evidence. Not a good day for the usual neighborhood tire shop that hasn't kept up with 2009.

Unfortunately, a lot of shops, particularly with symmetrical tread tires, still appear to be mounting them against the Rule, even today in 2024 (15 years later).

As we know, and as many tire installers think, in the case of a symmetrical tire, they can mount them any way because there is no performance or reliability reason for doing so.

But the reason for this Rule has nothing to do with the performance or reliability of the tire. It's a safety reason. And a good one.

We can all thank Firestone (again) for these added Rules and responsibilities.

For those wanting to know more or why, the NHTSA gives some detailed reasons:

After the Firestone/Explorer debacle, the DOT labeling rules were changed starting in late 2009 for all tires manufactured thereafter, requiring that full TIN information, to include the date code, be placed on the Intended Outboard Side of all tires. And as anyone who has been involved in defective tire recalls know, the date code is essential to correct identification. That is why DOT specifies any TIN lacking a date code as only "partial".

And thereafter, in a series NHTSA decisions, that Rule was clarified and explained as to why, and why "Intended Outboard Side" is not just about directionals or asymmetricals, but all tires:

Tires manufactured after September 1, 2009 must be labeled with the TIN on the intended outboard sidewall of a tire and either the TIN or partial TIN on the other sidewall ...

Paragraph S5.5.1 of FMVSS No. 139 requires that radial tires manufactured on or after September 1, 2009 for motor vehicles having a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less be permanently labeled with: (1) A full TIN required by 49 CFR part 574 on the intended outboard sidewall of the tire ...

Tire recalls in the year 2000 highlighted the difficulty that consumers experienced when attempting to determine whether a tire is subject to a recall when a tire is mounted so that the sidewall bearing the TIN faces inward i.e., underneath the vehicle. ...

The agency explained that when tires are mounted so that the TIN appears on the inward facing sidewalls, motorists have three difficult and inconvenient options for locating and recording the TINs. Consumers must either: (1) Slide under the vehicle with a flashlight, pencil and paper and search the inside sidewalls for the TINs; (2) remove each tire, find and record the TIN, and then replace the tire; or (3) enlist the aid of
a garage or service station that can perform option 1 or place the vehicle on a vehicle lift so that the TINs can be found and recorded. If the tires were mounted with the intended outward sidewall facing inboard, the intended inboard sidewall would be facing outboard and the TIN would not be visible. Without any TIN information on the outside sidewalls of tires, the difficulty and inconvenience of obtaining the TIN by consumers reduces the number of people who respond to a tire recall campaign and increases the number of motorists who unknowingly continue to drive vehicles with potentially unsafe tires.

YTC suggests that this noncompliance does not preclude motorists from checking the inboard sidewall if the TIN is not found on the outboard sidewall. This approach is inadequate. The noncompliance here is the exact problem that plagued millions of tire owners in 2000 and one that Congress mandated that NHTSA address.

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0115; Notice 2]

The following later decision clarifies that the term "Intended Outboard Sidewall" applies to all tires, not just asymmetric, but including symmetrical designs, and that the NHTSA's intention for the Rule is that ALL tires be mounted with the complete TIN (including date code) facing outboard. In this decision, the NHTSA also implies mismounting responsibility attaching to the installer in the field, and how asymmetrical tires appear to reduce that risk:

Pirelli suggests that this noncompliance does not preclude motorists from checking the inboard sidewall if the TIN is not found on the outboard sidewall. However, since asymmetric tires are specially constructed for certain performance parameters, and the TIN is marked on the intended outboard sidewall, the Agency agrees that it is extremely unlikely that the tires will be mismounted with the inboard sidewall facing outboard ...

... in this case it is extremely unlikely that one or more of the asymmetric tires will be incorrectly mounted with the intended outboard sidewall facing inboard.

[Federal Reg., V.78, No. 91, May 10, 2013]


Some manufacturers (but not all), such as Cooper, now even place this basic information on their consumer website:

Tire Identification Number - TIN | Cooper Tire

Tire Identification Number (TIN) which follow the letters DOT on the tire sidewall provide important manufacturers information.

www.coopertire.com

So if you are installing tires, or having tires installed, for your own protection (and even that of your shop), install them Intended Outboard Sidewall OUT - DATES OUT. Even the symmetrical ones.

It's not just likely Best Practice now. It's not just for you, but for the next owner should you sell the vehicle. It's common courtesy to the customers and future owners who have to use these tires down the road. It's ultimately safer for everyone. And it's a simple rule.

Dates Out.

 

[gman2304]

I didn’t read the entire post and I’m sure a whole room of lawyers were assembled but Wouldn’t it be simple to require tire manufacturers to mold in the DOM on both sides of the tires?

 

[SC Maintenance]

motorists have three difficult and inconvenient options for locating and recording the TINs. Consumers must either: 1) Slide under the vehicle with a flashlight, pencil and paper and search the inside sidewalls for the TINs;

OHH THE HORROR.

Anyone that needs a pencil and paper to remember 4 numbers likely has no chance of finding the Date code anyway.

 

[2strokeNorthstar]

BFG KO2 tires have the date code on the side with the white letters. Is it illegal to not have the white letters out? Makes no sense

 

[Volvohead]

I didn’t read the entire post and I’m sure a whole room of lawyers were assembled but Wouldn’t it be simple to require tire manufacturers to mold in the DOM on both sides of the tires?

Of course they could. But they don't

You can all guffaw all you like. But when the lazy or unwitting motorist refuses to crawl up their wheel well to figure out if they have a bad tire, the tire later blows out, and kills someone in your family who was doing nothing wrong, it's not so funny anymore.

And then an entire room of lawyers do assemble. And it's ugly.

And that's exactly what happened with the Firestone tires about 25 years ago.

And that's why the DOT now wants the entire TIN where it is easy to locate. To get it off the road.

And a full TIN is not just "four numbers", anymore than your SSN is the last four numbers.

I find it interesting that people here will drill down on pages of obscure UOA trace chemistry entries for their engine, but think something that could save a life is not worth the effort, or worth a laugh.

 

[Volvohead]

BFG KO2 tires have the date code on the side with the white letters. Is it illegal to not have the white letters out? Makes no sense

No one said it was illegal. The police won't be busting your door down if you do it on your own car. Mount your own tires however you like. The obligation to know what you have on your car is on you.

But if you're the one mounting the tires for someone else, you could be liable for improperly mounting them if it's a defective tire subject to a later recall that injures someone. Because according to the DOT, hiding the full TIN on the inside discourages people from checking them. It makes a lot of sense. And why they passed the rule.

I could even see the tire manufacturer joining the installer as a litigant when that now happens.

And I'll just add this for people that install their own tires backwards. Go ahead, no one will stop you. But if you have a blowout on a bad tire that was under active recall notice and injure or kill someone, you're almost certainly going to get sued. And you deserve to get sued.

Arguing in defense that you didn't know it was a defective tire, or being negligent in checking it and getting it off the road, because the full TIN was on the inside, and "what's a few extra numbers", is just going to make it worse.

Tires are recalled regularly now for manufacturing issues.

 

[captainbeandip]

Your rant is dumb. As long as the date code is stamped somewhere into the tire, the legal obligation has been met. If the date code being on the outside is so important to you, politely tell this to the tire shop BEFORE they mount the tires. To me, this sounds like it's completely not the tire guys fault, it's YOUR FAULT. If you return to the shop on Monday to make the guy flip and re-balance the tires, PAY HIM FOR DOING IT! Do NOT go off on him like a crazy person like you did here.

One more thing, no one is going to sue you if your tire blows out and kills someone and they find that the date code was on the inside.

The date code on all of your meds is really what you should be checking.

 

[Volvohead]

Your rant is dumb. As long as the date code is stamped somewhere into the tire, the legal obligation has been met. If the date code being on the outside is so important to you, politely tell this to the tire shop BEFORE they mount the tires. To me, this sounds like it's completely not the tire guys fault, it's YOUR FAULT. If you return to the shop on Monday to make the guy flip and re-balance the tires, PAY HIM FOR DOING IT! Do NOT go off on him like a crazy person like you did here.

One more thing, no one is going to sue you if your tire blows out and kills someone and they find that the date code was on the inside.

The date code on all of your meds is really what you should be checking.

You’re dead wrong. NHTSA since 2013 has already determined those tires as “mismounted”. If the tire later fails and it involves serious injury or death, you can call your carrier if you were the installer.

People like you were always the first ones to wet their pants once they were on the witness stand.

The “poor dumb installer” explanation, where DOT tire safety rules don’t seem apply as much. And all those things are the customer’s problem. Because the customer should have to know all these things.

But you’ll go bonkers if they install the wrong air filter on your truck.

Thanks for reminding me why I stopped visiting here 12 years ago. Too many knuckleheads here.

 

[Traction]

What about directional tires? You would need to run 2 of them backwards to have the date code outside. I've been a tire installer for 22 years and both sides should be labeled if it was required to be visible. Most people don't have a clue on how to check it anyway.

 

[Opelman]

OK, having tires mounted for a vehicle with dual rear wheels. Outboard on a steer becomes inboard when rotated to the rear. I'm not going to risk damaging the tires or incur the expense to remount them on the rim to make the date code more easily accessible. Not going to happen, especially in fleet use where tires are stocked loose. I think that requiring the manufacturers to date code both sides would be the best solution.

 

[tbm5690]

As an informed consumer, I check the dates when I buy new tires. Would it annoy me if I had to check the inside of the tire? Yes, but as long as they are newly produced and I can find the DOM on the back I wouldn't care. Am I missing something?

 

[Volvohead]

What about directional tires? You would need to run 2 of them backwards to have the date code outside. I've been a tire installer for 22 years and both sides should be labeled if it was required to be visible. Most people don't have a clue on how to check it anyway.

Those are pretty much idiot proof, and the manufacturers place all the DOT data on the side marked "Outside". That's what the above Pirelli decision was stressing. Those asymmetricals have additional assurances of being installed right.

Your second point is the key one, and I sympathize with you. Most customers are not too savvy. And just won't make the effort to check their goods if it's too hard. And that's what part of what the big Firestone scandal was all about. People couldn't figure out what was on their cars.

This seems ridiculous. But when people get killed because of a defective tire, you would be shocked how vicious and ruthless the lawyers can get to go after anyone involved.

There are tire safety recalls all the time.

Why give them an opening? It's such a simple practice to stay out of trouble.

 

[Volvohead]

As an informed consumer, I check the dates when I buy new tires. Would it annoy me if I had to check the inside of the tire? Yes, but as long as they are newly produced and I can find the DOM on the back I wouldn't care. Am I missing something?

No, you're not necessarily wrong.

The issue isn't about "freshness" or how old a tire is. It is about when there is a tire recall, and how much effort is required to find out what's on your car.

If you are going to have to pull the wheels to find out exactly what's on the car, a lot of consumers are just going to throw their hands up, and take their chances.

That's why the NHTSA jumped in after Firestone, and wants it to be easier, to encourage easier checking.

It's very common for a set of tires to have different production dates among them, and even different manufacturing facilities in some instances. The only whay to know which one might be a bad one is to match all the DOT codes against the recall range. Itmight only be one tire for some installs.

 

[SC Maintenance]

Because according to the DOT, hiding the full TIN on the inside discourages people from checking them.

I am definitely not a lawyer - so I start with that.

The federal regulations you site are regarding manufacture of tires. The DOT comments are purely comments and suggestions, albeit possibly useful. The firestone / Ford lawsuit of old was about suing Ford for making such a crappy vehicle and Firestone for agreeing to make a cheap light tire that really didn't fit its purpose because Ford asked them to. Its a classic example of management over-ruling engineering.

I'm also mentioning it as retired counsel who once handled tire defect litigation.

So everything you mentioned was about manufacture. As an attorney can you site case law regarding litigation re tire mounting. The only one I can think of is in the recent Ford SuperDuty case - however in that event the tire shop mounted tires that did not meet the spec on the door sticker - it wasn't about mounting them incorrectly IIRC. Possibly your argument would be taken more seriously if you could?

 

[Volvohead]

OK, having tires mounted for a vehicle with dual rear wheels. Outboard on a steer becomes inboard when rotated to the rear. I'm not going to risk damaging the tires or incur the expense to remount them on the rim to make the date code more easily accessible. Not going to happen, especially in fleet use where tires are stocked loose. I think that requiring the manufacturers to date code both sides would be the best solution.

I absolutely agree with you. But tire manufacturers are notoriously resistant to these things. Yokohama and a few others got called on the carpet in some of these decisions, and tried to argue some of the same things that some of the knucklehead here have.

You may be old enough to remember the earlier Firestone scandal with the "500" radials in the 70s. There, Firestone even refused to initiate a recall until the bad media coverage forced them to. And there was even a memo from their product development staff saying the tires were "inferior". That one nearly wrecked the company. Those tires were literally exploding at the seams from the belts blowing through.

I'm amazed at people who laugh at all this. Consumers are generally lazy and uninformed about these things. But once the tires go boom and someone is dead, it's a very different story.

 

[Volvohead]

I am definitely not a lawyer - so I start with that.

The federal regulations you site are regarding manufacture of tires. The DOT comments are purely comments and suggestions, albeit possibly useful. The firestone / Ford lawsuit of old was about suing Ford for making such a crappy vehicle and Firestone for agreeing to make a cheap light tire that really didn't fit its purpose because Ford asked them to. Its a classic example of management over-ruling engineering.



So everything you mentioned was about manufacture. As an attorney can you site case law regarding litigation re tire mounting. The only one I can think of is in the recent Ford SuperDuty case - however in that event the tire shop mounted tires that did not meet the spec on the door sticker - it wasn't about mounting them incorrectly IIRC. Possibly your argument would be taken more seriously if you could?

Not exactly.

There are rules for tire manufacture, and then there are rules and resulting best practices for the field that can be held to apply as the standard of care. The latter are what would apply to installers here. The best practices, as dictated by the industry and its regulations.

That's what the experts opine about in these tire cases, what the best practices should be, and whether an installer observed them.

That's why I am not pointing this out so much for the manufacturing end, but for the field. As all these more recent decisions are creating new best practices standards for the field. Will that make a difference 99.9% of the time? Probably not. It's when the installer is handling what turns out to be a defective tire that the risk arises.

More importantly, even a "technical" miscue is enough to drag you in once the lawyers get involved. Their view is, they will then let the system sort you out. But you gave them an opening by disregarding the best practices that should have been followed.

I agree that backward mounting a symmetrical tire isn't going to cause it to fail or really affect anything on how the tire behaves. But that's not the point. The point is, you have now let yourself into the legal maelstrom, and given the plaintiff's lawyers the opening to chew your financial and insurance coverage's ass.

It's not a manufacturing or performance issue for the installer. It's more about complying with the noticeability requirements to make the consumer's job easier to identify bad tires later. These decisions seem to increasingly imply that.

The entire term "intended outboard sidewall" is a relatively new concept in the longer history of tires.

Just to add about your later Ford truck matter, I'm retired now, so am unfamiliar with it. And I don't get involved with the litigation much at this point.

But I will tell you this, in almost every bad tire case, the installer and mounting get thoroughly scrutinized, and 90% of the time, they get dragged into it, rightly or wrongly, if there is the slightest miscue.

 

[SC Maintenance]

Not exactly.

So your answer is no then.

 

[Volvohead]

So your answer is no then.

If your question is whether there is potential liability to the installer in defective tire cases, the answer is yes. Absolutely so. And at a minimum litigation exposure.

You don't need published caselaw for that. Just start searching the court dockets. Installers get sued all the time in bad tire cases.

Whether you take what I am talking about seriously is your business. If you are later in court over something, that is your business, too.

 

[Volvohead]

So your answer is no then.

It probably helps in these situations to also give a little historical perspective, as sometimes the present moment seems very different from the past, which is often prologue. If the numb skulls and clowns want to label it a rant, that's their problem. I'm merely presenting it as a little tire, and a little safety, history.

In talking to colleagues who are still doing this, the industry is presently in one of its "happy times". Most manufacturers make a solid product, and there are no major industry catastrophes at the present. So it is easy for the good ol' boys in the Carolinas or Texas or elsewhere to sit and laugh at some of the things the regulators come up with, as all is generally well and peaceful. Especially those who don't remember or weren't around for some of the past catastrophes.

Installers and field techs are still getting into trouble today, but it is usually for really dumb things. Basic stuff, like improper tire repair.

But it's not and wasn't always that way. There appear to be cycles of times like we now have, where most of the tires are good with not too many "bombs", and periods about every 10-15 years or so that can best be described as "****storms", where a bad product and safety earthquake rocks the entire industry, right down to the field level.

My experience with it only goes back to about 1970 or so. But from the older hands, I've been told that there were some problems in the early 60s, when a couple ply were being peeled off the bias sidewalls to accommodate the growing market for low profile tires, and that weakened some sidewalls a little too much. But the 60s were mainly about the vehicles as far as safety things were concerned.

The first big "****storm" I was involved with was the first Firestone one in the mid to late 70s. And the way it works is that a really bad tire gets out there, not just a couple hundred, but a couple hundred thousand of them, people start getting injured and killed, there is a storm of litigation and ruthless scrutiny, the regulators eventually get involved, and then some changes are made that affect the industry going forward. The problem with the Firestones then was that the company got caught flatfooted in the radial takeover of the market, and rushed to make them in some places and on some equipment that they maybe shouldn't have, and also with some other design issues that degraded belt integrity over time. The tires were literally exploding. But don't think that installers weren't getting sucked into it. Victims look to drag in everyone in the product chain if they can. And tire makers are notorious for not admitting any fault or making any changes. It costs them a ton of money when they do. If they can deflect to others, they will.

And all that stuff above happened through the mid and later 70s, until Firestone finally agreed to a recall in 78. There were a lot of changes, in the manufacturing and across the field, and the industry was ratted. It basically wrecked what was the best run tire company in the late 60. And despite all that upheaval, there were still people driving around on 500s for a while. Crazy. But after that, we had a relatively "happy time" through the 80s and into the 90s, with (mainly) good tires. No really big ones hit for a while.

And then, it happened again. And everyone was shocked that it involved Firestone again, along with Ford, and the Explorer earthquake. Again, another ****storm. Tons of litigation, the regulators jumped in, Congress even dipped their beak in. And lots of field people always get sucked into the blame vortex, because that's how litigation goes. Ugly time. For everyone. And it's scary if you're anywhere close to it as a party.

And that second Firestone/Ford one was the impetus for a lot of the evolving tire labeling and recall reporting regulations we see today.

The pattern usually is, people get complacent during a happy time, eventually someone gets too sloppy or aggressive (often in the face of a combination of economic and technology changes), a really bad tire gets out there, and then the ****storm hits. Lots of people get heavily scrutinized for how they handled things, right down to the tire shops, and they dump some more rules and standards on to try and avoid it in the future. Rinse and repeat.

Since the second Firestone/Ford matter, things have not been too bad. The one sizable one in recent years involved a lot of badly made Chinese made tires coming in, and primarily some distributors got crushed over that one. But a lot of shops got sucked into that litigation vortex, too. It happens every time.

We're now still in a "happy time". So people can laugh and poke fun at the tire rules again. I'm retired, so I'm happy ,too.

Most of the recalls today, thankfully, are for technical flaws. Like not complying with some of those new placard rules. And that's a good thing.

It's just my sense, but it's a lot like the San Andreas fault. Earthquake, damage, repairs, change of standards, and then a calm period, before the next one after so much time. With the ongoing push into run flats, eco compounds and designs, and even the extra weight and wear loads that the new generations of battery powered cars are demanding, it's probably just another matter of time before the next big one. And maybe we're even a little overdue on one.

And whenever that happens, all the lawyers and regulators are going to be scrutinizing everyone involved again, looking for culprits and to shift blame, and looking to drop some more rules and standards on everyone. Maybe the next one won't be so bad as the last one, and that would be great. But history warns otherwise.

For the little mom and pop shop with kids in college and struggling to pay the mortgage and all the employees paid nowadays, these things can be a daunting situation when they hit. And it was in the past. Don't think the tire shops don't suffer when a really bad tire hits. Especially those wedded to a particular brand.

So the broader context for all of this is the past, which is easily forgotten. And I suspect a lot of it has been forgotten, or never known, especially for the younger drivers, who are used to generally good tires and few if any disasters. And also explaining the history of it, which always involved a lot of very nasty scrutiny, looking for any opening to get after anyone who might have been involved, if only to deflect the financial blame for it.

And that's why I pointed out these trivial new mounting decisions and tire labeling standards. Because when the next industry ****storm hits, as it inevitably will, they will be looking for any opening to drag people in. They will be looking for reasons, any reason, to spread the blame and the damages. Minor technical ones like these are enough to open the door and invite you in for the litigators. Even reasons that the younger clowns are laughing at now. Once they get you in, then you are forced to enjoy the ride, until your carrier settles, or worse. And just flipping the **** tires around is an easy one to avoid giving them an opening for the average installer. It only requires eyeballs.

I'm not planning to sue or yell at anyone over mine. I'll go back on Monday, have them remount the tires, and politely explain the reasons. Because I do look at the DOT codes when there is a recall, and I don't want to have to pull the wheels or put it on lift to do so. I'm too old to crawl under the cars anymore. And also for the next guy should I sell the vehicle.

So laugh away. As I said above, it's your business how you handle things, and your business how the system then handles you when it turns.

Well, it was fun chatting at BITOG for a few days. I've had enough for a while. You gentlemen can go back to arguing over motor oil and filters now.

 

[Vercingetorix]

Occam's razor - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org