I'm sitting in the shop, getting the tires mounted as I type this.
If any of you are in the southern CT area and see a gray Rogue, steer clear. It's a death trap.
Shop refused to mount my tires
- Thread starter exranger06
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: stephen9666
Uh oh, in another thread a shop installed S-rated snow tires on a BMW 328xi.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3221963
Again, snow tires are excepted from this "rule" because they're driven on cold roads and in cold climates and at lower speeds, where heat generation is generally not an issue.
I find that claimed distinction pretty dubious, because a lot of people here are claiming that it has to do with handling characteristics and liability. If those claims are true, then they would apply to snow tires and all-season tires.
I think this alleged difference in the "rule" between snow and all-season tires shows the entire "rule" and its justifications are pretty shaky.
Originally Posted By: stephen9666
Uh oh, in another thread a shop installed S-rated snow tires on a BMW 328xi.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3221963
Again, snow tires are excepted from this "rule" because they're driven on cold roads and in cold climates and at lower speeds, where heat generation is generally not an issue.
I find that claimed distinction pretty dubious, because a lot of people here are claiming that it has to do with handling characteristics and liability. If those claims are true, then they would apply to snow tires and all-season tires.
I think this alleged difference in the "rule" between snow and all-season tires shows the entire "rule" and its justifications are pretty shaky.
Originally Posted By: exranger06
I'm sitting in the shop, getting the tires mounted as I type this.
If any of you are in the southern CT area and see a gray Rogue, steer clear. It's a death trap.
Tell me about it; my wife and I checked out a new Rogue before buying her present ride- and it truly WAS dangerous- it almost bored us to death...
I'm sitting in the shop, getting the tires mounted as I type this.
Tell me about it; my wife and I checked out a new Rogue before buying her present ride- and it truly WAS dangerous- it almost bored us to death...
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: stephen9666
Originally Posted By: hokiefyd
Again, snow tires are excepted from this "rule" because they're driven on cold roads and in cold climates and at lower speeds, where heat generation is generally not an issue.
I find that claimed distinction pretty dubious, because a lot of people here are claiming that it has to do with handling characteristics and liability. If those claims are true, then they would apply to snow tires and all-season tires.
I think this alleged difference in the "rule" between snow and all-season tires shows the entire "rule" and its justifications are pretty shaky.
To my understanding, heat generation is a major contributor to tire failure, and also a major contributor to a tire being able to sustain higher speeds without failure. By their nature, winter/snow tires cannot sustain higher speeds without severe degredation. Their rubber compounds simply aren't setup to do that. As a consequence, they often have lower speed ratings (sometimes Q and R, but also S). Some high performance winter tires still do have higher ratings, like H and V.
I don't think handling has much to do with this at all. There are some down-right MUSHY V-rated tires out there. I myself have owned some S- and T-rated tires that objectively offer much better handling and grip than some of the softer OEM V-rated tires.
As some others have noted, this "rule" is really all about perceived liability. Some are more risk adverse than others; that's our nature as human beings. And this liability issue is simply the nature of the legal system under which we live. Some installers have taken the position that they will not look at the speed rating at all, and will install anything. Some installers have taken the position that they will only install a tire with a lower speed rating if the customer signs a waiver. Some installers have taken the position that they will not install a tire with a lower speed rating under any circumstance.
I certainly understand and respect the decision of installers who won't do it under any circumstance. My personal opinion is that a T-rated tire on a light SUV is probably fine, especially a high quality T-rated tire, but I also understand and respect the fact that a business owner certainly has no desire to be wrapped up in a court case involving their installation/business practices. And those who do offer to install with a signed waiver are making the choice to develop and maintain a filing system for all of that paperwork, with the assumption that they'll gain a little bit of business from it.
I don't think it's fair to be upset with a business over something like this. I suppose one CAN be, but to no gain. Simply find a different store...but hopefully with the recognition that the first store has made that business practice for a reason, even if we don't agree with it.
Originally Posted By: hokiefyd
Again, snow tires are excepted from this "rule" because they're driven on cold roads and in cold climates and at lower speeds, where heat generation is generally not an issue.
I find that claimed distinction pretty dubious, because a lot of people here are claiming that it has to do with handling characteristics and liability. If those claims are true, then they would apply to snow tires and all-season tires.
I think this alleged difference in the "rule" between snow and all-season tires shows the entire "rule" and its justifications are pretty shaky.
To my understanding, heat generation is a major contributor to tire failure, and also a major contributor to a tire being able to sustain higher speeds without failure. By their nature, winter/snow tires cannot sustain higher speeds without severe degredation. Their rubber compounds simply aren't setup to do that. As a consequence, they often have lower speed ratings (sometimes Q and R, but also S). Some high performance winter tires still do have higher ratings, like H and V.
I don't think handling has much to do with this at all. There are some down-right MUSHY V-rated tires out there. I myself have owned some S- and T-rated tires that objectively offer much better handling and grip than some of the softer OEM V-rated tires.
As some others have noted, this "rule" is really all about perceived liability. Some are more risk adverse than others; that's our nature as human beings. And this liability issue is simply the nature of the legal system under which we live. Some installers have taken the position that they will not look at the speed rating at all, and will install anything. Some installers have taken the position that they will only install a tire with a lower speed rating if the customer signs a waiver. Some installers have taken the position that they will not install a tire with a lower speed rating under any circumstance.
I certainly understand and respect the decision of installers who won't do it under any circumstance. My personal opinion is that a T-rated tire on a light SUV is probably fine, especially a high quality T-rated tire, but I also understand and respect the fact that a business owner certainly has no desire to be wrapped up in a court case involving their installation/business practices. And those who do offer to install with a signed waiver are making the choice to develop and maintain a filing system for all of that paperwork, with the assumption that they'll gain a little bit of business from it.
I don't think it's fair to be upset with a business over something like this. I suppose one CAN be, but to no gain. Simply find a different store...but hopefully with the recognition that the first store has made that business practice for a reason, even if we don't agree with it.
Originally Posted By: grampi
Nobody's forcing you to buy a tire with a low speed rating, just as no one should be forced to buy tires with a higher rating...bottom line, it's my vehicle and my money paying for the tires and if I want to put "S" or "T" speed rated tires on my vehicle, that should be my decision, not the tire store's. All they need to do is have the customer sign a release that releases them from all liability that could arise due to a lower speed rated tire being installed, then everyone's happy...it's not rocket science...
Nobody can force you to buy a tire, but it sounds like the shop owner should be forced to mount them? What am I missing?
Nobody's forcing you to buy a tire with a low speed rating, just as no one should be forced to buy tires with a higher rating...bottom line, it's my vehicle and my money paying for the tires and if I want to put "S" or "T" speed rated tires on my vehicle, that should be my decision, not the tire store's. All they need to do is have the customer sign a release that releases them from all liability that could arise due to a lower speed rated tire being installed, then everyone's happy...it's not rocket science...
Nobody can force you to buy a tire, but it sounds like the shop owner should be forced to mount them? What am I missing?
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
I don't think handling has much to do with this at all. There are some down-right MUSHY V-rated tires out there. I myself have owned some S- and T-rated tires that objectively offer much better handling and grip than some of the softer OEM V-rated tires.
But that is contradictory to what other people in this thread are claiming. Read through the previous posts and you'll see multiple claims that speed rating also affects handling.
We've got at least a few arguments being repeated here in this thread and others:
-I don't need to obey the OE speed rating because it's way higher than I ever drive. Even a lower-speed replacement tire is much higher than I ever drive, so I'm fine.
-You do need to obey the OE speed rating because it also affects handling
And now you're saying:
-Speed rating matters, but not because of handling
Then wouldn't this previous argument counter your argument?:
-I don't need to obey the OE speed rating because it's way higher than I ever drive. Even a lower-speed replacement tire is much higher than I ever drive, so I'm fine.
This is why these speed rating threads are so epic and dumb, because all the arguments contradict each other and go in a circle.
I don't think handling has much to do with this at all. There are some down-right MUSHY V-rated tires out there. I myself have owned some S- and T-rated tires that objectively offer much better handling and grip than some of the softer OEM V-rated tires.
But that is contradictory to what other people in this thread are claiming. Read through the previous posts and you'll see multiple claims that speed rating also affects handling.
We've got at least a few arguments being repeated here in this thread and others:
-I don't need to obey the OE speed rating because it's way higher than I ever drive. Even a lower-speed replacement tire is much higher than I ever drive, so I'm fine.
-You do need to obey the OE speed rating because it also affects handling
And now you're saying:
-Speed rating matters, but not because of handling
Then wouldn't this previous argument counter your argument?:
-I don't need to obey the OE speed rating because it's way higher than I ever drive. Even a lower-speed replacement tire is much higher than I ever drive, so I'm fine.
This is why these speed rating threads are so epic and dumb, because all the arguments contradict each other and go in a circle.
Originally Posted By: stephen9666
But that is contradictory to what other people in this thread are claiming. Read through the previous posts and you'll see multiple claims that speed rating also affects handling.
You are correct; it is contradictory to what other people in this thread are saying. Respectfully, that doesn't mean they're right. There are numerous references available that demonstrate that heat generation is a contributor to the speed rating, and that handling has nothing *directly* to do with it.
Here is one:
http://www.barrystiretech.com/speedratings.html
Here is another, though it's not quite as direct as the one above:
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/techpage.jsp?techid=35
You'll notice that nowhere in those references does the test measure "handling" of a tire. Now, it's true that tires with higher speed ratings often have better handling characteristics. But "handling" is not a defining criteria of the speed rating itself.
Originally Posted By: stephen9666
Then wouldn't this previous argument counter your argument?:
-I don't need to obey the OE speed rating because it's way higher than I ever drive. Even a lower-speed replacement tire is much higher than I ever drive, so I'm fine.
No, it doesn't. And for reasons given in the first link above, at Barry's Tire Tech website. There's much more to a tire's speed rating than the nominal top speed of the tire.
I do agree with Barry's webpage: the speed rating system we have in place is poor and should be revised.
But that is contradictory to what other people in this thread are claiming. Read through the previous posts and you'll see multiple claims that speed rating also affects handling.
You are correct; it is contradictory to what other people in this thread are saying. Respectfully, that doesn't mean they're right. There are numerous references available that demonstrate that heat generation is a contributor to the speed rating, and that handling has nothing *directly* to do with it.
Here is one:
http://www.barrystiretech.com/speedratings.html
Here is another, though it's not quite as direct as the one above:
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/techpage.jsp?techid=35
You'll notice that nowhere in those references does the test measure "handling" of a tire. Now, it's true that tires with higher speed ratings often have better handling characteristics. But "handling" is not a defining criteria of the speed rating itself.
Originally Posted By: stephen9666
Then wouldn't this previous argument counter your argument?:
-I don't need to obey the OE speed rating because it's way higher than I ever drive. Even a lower-speed replacement tire is much higher than I ever drive, so I'm fine.
No, it doesn't. And for reasons given in the first link above, at Barry's Tire Tech website. There's much more to a tire's speed rating than the nominal top speed of the tire.
I do agree with Barry's webpage: the speed rating system we have in place is poor and should be revised.
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: stephen9666
But that is contradictory to what other people in this thread are claiming. Read through the previous posts and you'll see multiple claims that speed rating also affects handling.
You are correct; it is contradictory to what other people in this thread are saying. Respectfully, that doesn't mean they're right. There are numerous references available that demonstrate that heat generation is a contributor to the speed rating, and that handling has nothing *directly* to do with it.
I should have said what I said differently. "That doesn't mean they're right" doesn't make sense the way I wrote it anyway. But "that means they're wrong" really isn't fair either.
"Handling" is not in the speed rating testing regime. That is a fact. You can find really sloppy-handling tires that are branded with a V speed rating. Just as you can find really crisp-handling tires that are branded with a T rating. The point is that you can't assume that a tire with a higher speed rating will handle better than a tire with a lower speed rating. It is sometimes the case, and is probably more often the case than not. But it doesn't always hold true.
This is why I disagree with the notion that going down in speed rating will degrade the handling. I don't believe that it will. In some cases, it may actually improve handling, depending on the tire chosen. And again, though I believe that it's likely totally fine to use a quality T-rated tire on a Nissan Rogue, I DO understand why the first shop did what they did.
Originally Posted By: stephen9666
But that is contradictory to what other people in this thread are claiming. Read through the previous posts and you'll see multiple claims that speed rating also affects handling.
You are correct; it is contradictory to what other people in this thread are saying. Respectfully, that doesn't mean they're right. There are numerous references available that demonstrate that heat generation is a contributor to the speed rating, and that handling has nothing *directly* to do with it.
I should have said what I said differently. "That doesn't mean they're right" doesn't make sense the way I wrote it anyway. But "that means they're wrong" really isn't fair either.
"Handling" is not in the speed rating testing regime. That is a fact. You can find really sloppy-handling tires that are branded with a V speed rating. Just as you can find really crisp-handling tires that are branded with a T rating. The point is that you can't assume that a tire with a higher speed rating will handle better than a tire with a lower speed rating. It is sometimes the case, and is probably more often the case than not. But it doesn't always hold true.
This is why I disagree with the notion that going down in speed rating will degrade the handling. I don't believe that it will. In some cases, it may actually improve handling, depending on the tire chosen. And again, though I believe that it's likely totally fine to use a quality T-rated tire on a Nissan Rogue, I DO understand why the first shop did what they did.
As I said before, this thread is just a cycle of the same arguments being posted over and over, so this is circling the drain.
This will be my last post on this dumb topic for a while.
I actually agree that handling and speed rating aren't directly connected, but a document from the RMA does say handling can be affected by lowering the speed rating of a tire, so that does give some ammo to the people using that reasoning.
Quote:
Speed rated tire- If the vehicle tire placard and/or
owner's manual specifies speed rated tires, the
replacement tires must have the same or higher
speed rating to maintain vehicle speed capability.
Tire speed ratings do not imply that vehicles can
be safely driven at the maximum speed for which
the tire is rated, particularly under adverse road
and weather conditions, or if the vehicle has
unusual characteristics. Never operate a vehicle in
an unsafe or unlawful manner.
If replacement tires have lower speed capability
than specified by the vehicle manufacturer, the
vehicle's speed must be restricted to that of the
replacement tire. Also, vehicle handling could be
affected. Consult vehicle manufacturer or tire
manufacturer for recommendations.
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: stephen9666
Then wouldn't this previous argument counter your argument?:
-I don't need to obey the OE speed rating because it's way higher than I ever drive. Even a lower-speed replacement tire is much higher than I ever drive, so I'm fine.
No, it doesn't. And for reasons given in the first link above, at Barry's Tire Tech website. There's much more to a tire's speed rating than the nominal top speed of the tire.
I still kind of think it does.
I would encourage you to read what has already been posted in this thread. That link to Capriracer's site has already been posted at least once.
In fact, I already referred to it and included more info that he has said on this forum. I'll just post it below:
Originally Posted By: stephen9666
Originally Posted By: Astro14
I recommend reading here:
http://www.barrystiretech.com/speedratings.html
Key point: ability of tire to handle speed is often far below the speed rating. Tire failures occur most often in S and T rated tires.
Not so fast...
Member Capriracer, the author or that article, has clarified here what he means when he says this:
Quote:
To further complicate matters: Almost all tire failures occur in S and T rated tires. Hardly any occur in H and higher speed rated tires.
I recommend that everyone use a minimum of an "H" speed rating.
He said in another thread that he recommends H and above because they generally allways have a cap ply that strengthens the tire. But, tires below H can have a cap ply, too, if they're good quality. He has said he just says H or above to simplify his recommendation, and what he's really recommending is the cap ply.
My T-rated Hankook H727s, for example, do have a cap ply. It's noted in the construction specs on the sidewall
Here's exactly what he said in another thread(emphasis added by me):
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/2774714/1
Originally Posted By: CapriRacer
For practical purposes, tires have to have a cap ply to get an H speed rating. Needless to say, higher speeds require AT LEAST one cap ply.
- and it gets a little complicated here, so bare with me:
S and T rated tires may or may not have cap plies - but the presence of a cap ply is sometimes needed in order to pass lower speed rated tests - particularly for larger tire sizes. (I'm not talking rim diameter, here.)
Some tire manufacturers will put cap plies on S and T rated - even in small tire sizes. Good for them.
Because I want to make a simple to remember recommendation, I use the shortcut to H speed rating, but the truth is that a cap ply is what I am driving at.
Weight? Cap plies hardly weigh anything, so you can't go by that.
If you want to know if a particular tire has a cap ply - ask the manufacturer!! It's required by law on the sidewall of the tire so it's no secret.
Here's even more:
Originally Posted By: CapriRacer
And allow me to address the issue of S and T rated tires failing at speeds below 75 mph:
I think there is a bit of confusion. I am NOT saying the tires are failing due to the speed. I am saying that tires are failing in spite of their being used at speeds well below the rated speed.
I am sure everyone is aware that rubber deteriorates over time. That's the reason why there are warnings about old tires. Included in this is the issue about the stresses that tires expreience - how underinflation and over-loading contribute to tire failures.
But that's stating things in "black and white" terms. This is decidedly about shades of gray. The percenbtage of tires that fail is pretty small - but it is measureable.
What is going on is that the edges of the steel belts experience a lot of stress and that's where a tire failure can start. By putting on a cap ply, the belt edges is not as subjected to as much centrifugal force, plus the cap ply acts like a bandage to keep even failed belt edges from getting worse.
And that's why I recommend H speed rated tires at a minimum.
This will be my last post on this dumb topic for a while.
I actually agree that handling and speed rating aren't directly connected, but a document from the RMA does say handling can be affected by lowering the speed rating of a tire, so that does give some ammo to the people using that reasoning.
Quote:
Speed rated tire- If the vehicle tire placard and/or
owner's manual specifies speed rated tires, the
replacement tires must have the same or higher
speed rating to maintain vehicle speed capability.
Tire speed ratings do not imply that vehicles can
be safely driven at the maximum speed for which
the tire is rated, particularly under adverse road
and weather conditions, or if the vehicle has
unusual characteristics. Never operate a vehicle in
an unsafe or unlawful manner.
If replacement tires have lower speed capability
than specified by the vehicle manufacturer, the
vehicle's speed must be restricted to that of the
replacement tire. Also, vehicle handling could be
affected. Consult vehicle manufacturer or tire
manufacturer for recommendations.
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: stephen9666
Then wouldn't this previous argument counter your argument?:
-I don't need to obey the OE speed rating because it's way higher than I ever drive. Even a lower-speed replacement tire is much higher than I ever drive, so I'm fine.
No, it doesn't. And for reasons given in the first link above, at Barry's Tire Tech website. There's much more to a tire's speed rating than the nominal top speed of the tire.
I still kind of think it does.
I would encourage you to read what has already been posted in this thread. That link to Capriracer's site has already been posted at least once.
In fact, I already referred to it and included more info that he has said on this forum. I'll just post it below:
Originally Posted By: stephen9666
Originally Posted By: Astro14
I recommend reading here:
http://www.barrystiretech.com/speedratings.html
Key point: ability of tire to handle speed is often far below the speed rating. Tire failures occur most often in S and T rated tires.
Not so fast...
Member Capriracer, the author or that article, has clarified here what he means when he says this:
Quote:
To further complicate matters: Almost all tire failures occur in S and T rated tires. Hardly any occur in H and higher speed rated tires.
I recommend that everyone use a minimum of an "H" speed rating.
He said in another thread that he recommends H and above because they generally allways have a cap ply that strengthens the tire. But, tires below H can have a cap ply, too, if they're good quality. He has said he just says H or above to simplify his recommendation, and what he's really recommending is the cap ply.
My T-rated Hankook H727s, for example, do have a cap ply. It's noted in the construction specs on the sidewall
Here's exactly what he said in another thread(emphasis added by me):
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/2774714/1
Originally Posted By: CapriRacer
For practical purposes, tires have to have a cap ply to get an H speed rating. Needless to say, higher speeds require AT LEAST one cap ply.
- and it gets a little complicated here, so bare with me:
S and T rated tires may or may not have cap plies - but the presence of a cap ply is sometimes needed in order to pass lower speed rated tests - particularly for larger tire sizes. (I'm not talking rim diameter, here.)
Some tire manufacturers will put cap plies on S and T rated - even in small tire sizes. Good for them.
Because I want to make a simple to remember recommendation, I use the shortcut to H speed rating, but the truth is that a cap ply is what I am driving at.
Weight? Cap plies hardly weigh anything, so you can't go by that.
If you want to know if a particular tire has a cap ply - ask the manufacturer!! It's required by law on the sidewall of the tire so it's no secret.
Here's even more:
Originally Posted By: CapriRacer
And allow me to address the issue of S and T rated tires failing at speeds below 75 mph:
I think there is a bit of confusion. I am NOT saying the tires are failing due to the speed. I am saying that tires are failing in spite of their being used at speeds well below the rated speed.
I am sure everyone is aware that rubber deteriorates over time. That's the reason why there are warnings about old tires. Included in this is the issue about the stresses that tires expreience - how underinflation and over-loading contribute to tire failures.
But that's stating things in "black and white" terms. This is decidedly about shades of gray. The percenbtage of tires that fail is pretty small - but it is measureable.
What is going on is that the edges of the steel belts experience a lot of stress and that's where a tire failure can start. By putting on a cap ply, the belt edges is not as subjected to as much centrifugal force, plus the cap ply acts like a bandage to keep even failed belt edges from getting worse.
And that's why I recommend H speed rated tires at a minimum.
I think what is probably made most clear is that even among car enthusiasts, and those generally more interested in tires than the average person, there is enough confusion to DRIVE discussions like this...which is evidence that the standard really should be improved/revised/replaced/whatever. Because if we as a group don't see it the same way, the average driver certainly doesn't understand it.
Originally Posted By: blackman777
Speed limit is 80 in Utah (which means people actually go 90... sustained... in hot desert temps). I wouldn't want a tire that is only rated +10 higher
Why not? The speed ratings are rigorously tested in Europe according to strict EU tests, if they say they are safe up to and including 112 MPH you can use those tires with complete confidence up to that sustained speed. No reason to buy a higher performance rating at all. Even at
90+ MPH.
Speed limit is 80 in Utah (which means people actually go 90... sustained... in hot desert temps). I wouldn't want a tire that is only rated +10 higher
Why not? The speed ratings are rigorously tested in Europe according to strict EU tests, if they say they are safe up to and including 112 MPH you can use those tires with complete confidence up to that sustained speed. No reason to buy a higher performance rating at all. Even at
90+ MPH.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
I think what is probably made most clear is that even among car enthusiasts, and those generally more interested in tires than the average person, there is enough confusion to DRIVE discussions like this...which is evidence that the standard really should be improved/revised/replaced/whatever. Because if we as a group don't see it the same way, the average driver certainly doesn't understand it.
I will definitely agree with this.
Enjoy whatever tires you choose and drive safely, BITOG'ers.
I think what is probably made most clear is that even among car enthusiasts, and those generally more interested in tires than the average person, there is enough confusion to DRIVE discussions like this...which is evidence that the standard really should be improved/revised/replaced/whatever. Because if we as a group don't see it the same way, the average driver certainly doesn't understand it.
I will definitely agree with this.
Enjoy whatever tires you choose and drive safely, BITOG'ers.
Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: Kruse
The posts about lawsuits reminds me of a story that the UPS driver told me several years ago. One day the driver showed up to deliver a package and she was driving a brand new truck. I asked her about it and she said she liked it. She also told me that her old truck had just got a new set of tires a week before the truck was taken out of service. She told me that the entire truck had been crushed, new tires included. UPS is so afraid of a lawsuit that they made sure that nobody would ever drive that old truck again and that they would not put those tires on another vehicle of any kind.
UPS's "Package cars" are a unique chassis that they don't want falling into "other hands" as it would dilute their corporate image.
Though I wonder why they don't park the junk ones in some holding pen somewhere and pick them over for parts. They have a rep of counting every bean.
Our trailer mechanic at work is a retired UPS mechanic...and they DO strip them for parts! Offhand, they will usually pull, if nothing else, wheels, tires, engine, and transmission.
UP{S does not sell ANY motorized vehicles. They scrap ALL their old trucks, including box trucks and semis. (They DO, however, sell off trailers.)
Originally Posted By: Kruse
The posts about lawsuits reminds me of a story that the UPS driver told me several years ago. One day the driver showed up to deliver a package and she was driving a brand new truck. I asked her about it and she said she liked it. She also told me that her old truck had just got a new set of tires a week before the truck was taken out of service. She told me that the entire truck had been crushed, new tires included. UPS is so afraid of a lawsuit that they made sure that nobody would ever drive that old truck again and that they would not put those tires on another vehicle of any kind.
UPS's "Package cars" are a unique chassis that they don't want falling into "other hands" as it would dilute their corporate image.
Though I wonder why they don't park the junk ones in some holding pen somewhere and pick them over for parts. They have a rep of counting every bean.
Our trailer mechanic at work is a retired UPS mechanic...and they DO strip them for parts! Offhand, they will usually pull, if nothing else, wheels, tires, engine, and transmission.
UP{S does not sell ANY motorized vehicles. They scrap ALL their old trucks, including box trucks and semis. (They DO, however, sell off trailers.)
Originally Posted By: bmwjohn
I really would wonder about the UPS story. Their vehicles are really custom builds. They were early mass users of michelin, early adopter of synthetic fluids, used 6 cyl. chevy engines that ran on a coal slurry mix, control their own maintenance routines, etc. I'll bet that old parcel car was not sold but may well be recycled internally, since I'm sure they know the exact tire history from day one, and always seemed to do everything "their way", and not really rely on a manufacturers plan.
UPS no longer uses synthetic engine oil. The trucks get bulk 15W-40 HDEO.
I really would wonder about the UPS story. Their vehicles are really custom builds. They were early mass users of michelin, early adopter of synthetic fluids, used 6 cyl. chevy engines that ran on a coal slurry mix, control their own maintenance routines, etc. I'll bet that old parcel car was not sold but may well be recycled internally, since I'm sure they know the exact tire history from day one, and always seemed to do everything "their way", and not really rely on a manufacturers plan.
UPS no longer uses synthetic engine oil. The trucks get bulk 15W-40 HDEO.
Originally Posted By: eljefino
http://courts.ms.gov/images/Opinions/CO55652.pdf
Interesting case. Though Goodyear wasn't on the hook due to the speed rating they still got blamed for a bad tire when speeding drunk kids not wearing seat belts hit a tree.
This is interesting from the appeal: "Goodyear’s expressed representations that the tires would perform at a speed of up to 112 miles per hour for a useful life of 50,000 miles...." So they're saying that the tire maker said that any tire can run at its full speed rating for the full length of the tread warranty? I don't think so, but what do I know?
http://courts.ms.gov/images/Opinions/CO55652.pdf
Interesting case. Though Goodyear wasn't on the hook due to the speed rating they still got blamed for a bad tire when speeding drunk kids not wearing seat belts hit a tree.
This is interesting from the appeal: "Goodyear’s expressed representations that the tires would perform at a speed of up to 112 miles per hour for a useful life of 50,000 miles...." So they're saying that the tire maker said that any tire can run at its full speed rating for the full length of the tread warranty? I don't think so, but what do I know?
Nothing below will change anybody's mind on this topic, but it is interesting to note what Discount Tire does. In the dark ages of 2010 (before I knew of BITOG), the OE 205/55-16 89H tires on the wife's 2006 Civic were done and the car is off to DT. As of now (and probably back then) in the Seattle/Tacoma area, DT's site says that Yoko Avid Touring-S 89T, followed by Michelin Defender 91T and Falken Sincera SN828 91T, are the most popular tires installed on Civics. Notice they are all T, and not H. To get an H, you can get the Ohtsu FP6000 or GT Champiro VP1. So, our Civic got some Virginia made Yoko Avid's in 89T. I recall signing a form (liability waiver?) that mentioned it was not the same as the OE tire, but did not pay much attention to it.
Just finished reading the Civic manual section on tires. There is a reference that the owner "should" replace tires with the same size. There is no discussion at all on the load index or speed rating. So, my question: is there a real advantage to driving the Civic with GT Champiro's in 89H over the Michelin Defenders in 89T (or in my case the Yoko Avid Touring-S 89T)?
If the tires were free, who here would take the Chinese made GT Champiro in "H" over the Michelin Defender in "T"?
(Not picking on the Champiro; just put a set on my 1998 Volvo.)
Just finished reading the Civic manual section on tires. There is a reference that the owner "should" replace tires with the same size. There is no discussion at all on the load index or speed rating. So, my question: is there a real advantage to driving the Civic with GT Champiro's in 89H over the Michelin Defenders in 89T (or in my case the Yoko Avid Touring-S 89T)?
If the tires were free, who here would take the Chinese made GT Champiro in "H" over the Michelin Defender in "T"?
(Not picking on the Champiro; just put a set on my 1998 Volvo.)
i didn't read through all 8 pages of spew that is in this thread,
But I didn't see anyone bring up the point that this is a business decision as much as it is for liability/lawsuits.
The cheapskates who are buying lower rated tires are also the same cheapskates who are going to be coming back for warranty claims when those tires (potentially) wear out slightly faster, as they are likely running hotter than their design even at 65mph;
Especially if it's the cheapskate who's buying on the internet and then showing up with tires the shop doesn't want to mount, who will jumpship to the cheapest place next time.
An in-person customer who at least is appreciating the store's business, and where the store can tell him up-front they will or won't do that mount..
A business doesn't want to be dealing with that potential nonsense and it's a no-win situation where they either have an angry customer who's going to be posting on forums or yelp tarnishing their business or eating a warranty claim.
(e.g. the groupon effect)
Better to just nip it in the bud, and only want to have good customers and smooth business.
When I got V->H as the Michelin exalto a/s tire got discontinued; The manager let me know he wasn't going to give me the warranty, but this was in-person. (This is a bit more reasonable than (H->T) exception, especially since this was due to wanting a specific tire of exact same model, of a premium brand, and not just to save money.
But I didn't see anyone bring up the point that this is a business decision as much as it is for liability/lawsuits.
The cheapskates who are buying lower rated tires are also the same cheapskates who are going to be coming back for warranty claims when those tires (potentially) wear out slightly faster, as they are likely running hotter than their design even at 65mph;
Especially if it's the cheapskate who's buying on the internet and then showing up with tires the shop doesn't want to mount, who will jumpship to the cheapest place next time.
An in-person customer who at least is appreciating the store's business, and where the store can tell him up-front they will or won't do that mount..
A business doesn't want to be dealing with that potential nonsense and it's a no-win situation where they either have an angry customer who's going to be posting on forums or yelp tarnishing their business or eating a warranty claim.
(e.g. the groupon effect)
Better to just nip it in the bud, and only want to have good customers and smooth business.
When I got V->H as the Michelin exalto a/s tire got discontinued; The manager let me know he wasn't going to give me the warranty, but this was in-person. (This is a bit more reasonable than (H->T) exception, especially since this was due to wanting a specific tire of exact same model, of a premium brand, and not just to save money.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: AdmdeVilleneuve
Just finished reading the Civic manual section on tires. There is a reference that the owner "should" replace tires with the same size. There is no discussion at all on the load index or speed rating. So, my question: is there a real advantage to driving the Civic with GT Champiro's in 89H over the Michelin Defenders in 89T (or in my case the Yoko Avid Touring-S 89T)?
What year? This is the text from the manual for my wife's 2002 Civic:
Quote:
Replacing Tires and Wheels
The tires that came with your car
were selected to match the performance
capabilities of the car while
providing the best combination of
handling, ride comfort, and long life.
You should replace them with radial
tires of the same size, load range,
speed rating, and maximum cold tire
pressure rating (as shown on the
tire’s sidewall). Mixing radial and
bias-ply tires on your car can reduce
its braking ability, traction, and
steering accuracy.
Just finished reading the Civic manual section on tires. There is a reference that the owner "should" replace tires with the same size. There is no discussion at all on the load index or speed rating. So, my question: is there a real advantage to driving the Civic with GT Champiro's in 89H over the Michelin Defenders in 89T (or in my case the Yoko Avid Touring-S 89T)?
What year? This is the text from the manual for my wife's 2002 Civic:
Quote:
Replacing Tires and Wheels
The tires that came with your car
were selected to match the performance
capabilities of the car while
providing the best combination of
handling, ride comfort, and long life.
You should replace them with radial
tires of the same size, load range,
speed rating, and maximum cold tire
pressure rating (as shown on the
tire’s sidewall). Mixing radial and
bias-ply tires on your car can reduce
its braking ability, traction, and
steering accuracy.
Originally Posted By: raytseng
i didn't read through all 8 pages of spew that is in this thread,
But I didn't see anyone bring up the point that this is a business decision as much as it is for liability/lawsuits.
The cheapskates who are buying lower rated tires are also the same cheapskates who are going to be coming back for warranty claims when those tires (potentially) wear out slightly faster, as they are likely running hotter than their design even at 65mph;
Especially if it's the cheapskate who's buying on the internet and then showing up with tires the shop doesn't want to mount, who will jumpship to the cheapest place next time.
An in-person customer who at least is appreciating the store's business, and where the store can tell him up-front they will or won't do that mount..
A business doesn't want to be dealing with that potential nonsense and it's a no-win situation where they either have an angry customer who's going to be posting on forums or yelp tarnishing their business or eating a warranty claim.
(e.g. the groupon effect)
Better to just nip it in the bud, and only want to have good customers and smooth business.
When I got V->H as the Michelin exalto a/s tire got discontinued; The manager let me know he wasn't going to give me the warranty, but this was in-person. (This is a bit more reasonable than (H->T) exception, especially since this was due to wanting a specific tire of exact same model, of a premium brand, and not just to save money.
Since you didn't read all 8 pages of this thread you probably missed the comment about buying the tires in the store vs carrying in a set to be mounted. I GUARANTEE you if the OP was buying a set of tires from the same store, they would have no problem whatsoever selling, and mounting a set of "S" or "T" rated tires, and this would be the case 100% of the time. Tire shops have always been "weird" about customers bringing in their own tires to be mounted...they just don't like the fact that you didn't buy the tires from them, and they tend to show their displeasure by being less than receptive when it comes to mounting carry-in tires...
i didn't read through all 8 pages of spew that is in this thread,
But I didn't see anyone bring up the point that this is a business decision as much as it is for liability/lawsuits.
The cheapskates who are buying lower rated tires are also the same cheapskates who are going to be coming back for warranty claims when those tires (potentially) wear out slightly faster, as they are likely running hotter than their design even at 65mph;
Especially if it's the cheapskate who's buying on the internet and then showing up with tires the shop doesn't want to mount, who will jumpship to the cheapest place next time.
An in-person customer who at least is appreciating the store's business, and where the store can tell him up-front they will or won't do that mount..
A business doesn't want to be dealing with that potential nonsense and it's a no-win situation where they either have an angry customer who's going to be posting on forums or yelp tarnishing their business or eating a warranty claim.
(e.g. the groupon effect)
Better to just nip it in the bud, and only want to have good customers and smooth business.
When I got V->H as the Michelin exalto a/s tire got discontinued; The manager let me know he wasn't going to give me the warranty, but this was in-person. (This is a bit more reasonable than (H->T) exception, especially since this was due to wanting a specific tire of exact same model, of a premium brand, and not just to save money.
Since you didn't read all 8 pages of this thread you probably missed the comment about buying the tires in the store vs carrying in a set to be mounted. I GUARANTEE you if the OP was buying a set of tires from the same store, they would have no problem whatsoever selling, and mounting a set of "S" or "T" rated tires, and this would be the case 100% of the time. Tire shops have always been "weird" about customers bringing in their own tires to be mounted...they just don't like the fact that you didn't buy the tires from them, and they tend to show their displeasure by being less than receptive when it comes to mounting carry-in tires...
Last edited:
- Status
