Aged Tires: A Driving Hazzard?

[NismoZ]

Here is a little video saying new tires that are older than 6 years from manufacturing date are a hazard.

 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=4826897

[Guest Rolling Parts]

They only become a "hazzard" if you drive to the extremes.

I have several cars I drive to shows on weekends that have 15 year + tires.

If you drive tires hard then I'd not even go over 4 years!

[Tony D]

They only become a "hazzard" if you drive to the extremes.

 

Like driving on the freeway at 50 mph on a straight level roadway with no ruts? Being driven to a concours... Which was about all the driving it got.

 

That was the condition the show-winning 'all original' 260Z was running when it's left rear wheel catastrophically failed and took out the quarter panel. Less than 15K on the tires. They had to still be good. Tires are tires, they only gots 15K on them....

 

Old tires are dangerous. How many times a year do you go to vegas determines how old you will permit them to be and still drive on them...

[datsun723]

They only become a "hazzard" if you drive to the extremes.

I have several cars I drive to shows on weekends that have 15 year + tires.

If you drive tires hard then I'd not even go over 4 years!

 

15 year old tires?!!? That's definitely a no-do. If you're keeping those on the cars because of an originality complex you'd be better off trailering the car or putting new tires on the car, driving it to the show, and then swapping them for the old tires. Not worth the risk in my opinion.

[Guest Rolling Parts]

That was the condition the show-winning 'all original' 260Z was running when it's left rear wheel catastrophically failed and took out the quarter panel. Less than 15K on the tires. They had to still be good. Tires are tires, they only gots 15K on them...

 

Like I said, you presented an EXTREME.

Driving an all original 35 year old 260Z on original 35 year old tires is done on and off trailers (and that works very well every time). Anyone DRIVING on 35 year old tires at 50mph+ down a roadway is basically (insert unrepeatable word here) insane.

[BRAAP]

Too many variables to accurately give a "safe" time frame, hence the 6-7 years we commonly hear about. Variable such as type of tire, driving conditions/style, tire loading, environment to which the tire is subject, (sunlight, temp swings, etc), all have a bearing on any tires “safe” life expectancy. Exposed to continual sunlight, heavily loaded conditions when in use, etc will cause a tire to fail much sooner than one that was kept in a temperature controlled garage when parked where sunlight doesn't hit the tires, is not heavily loaded when in use etc.

 

6-8 years for passenger car tires is probably a safe conservative time frame.

 

My personal experience recently is with our 1998 Class-A 33” motor home, tires manufactured in ’96 still have over 75%+ tread, visually they look great, internally, VERY dangerous as I recently found out! This year we made a 5 hour trip down south over Thanksgiving, 2 tire blowouts on that trip!

 

Details and pics here;

 

http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=156896

[MAG58]

Unless you manage to keep all of your tires in a vacuum area (inside and outside of tire) and a place completely devoid of UV light, they're going to decompose. All long hydrocarbons (rubbers) will decompose in sunlight and oxygen. That said, don't be cheap on tires. It's hard to pinch pennys when you're chillin' out at the pearly gates.

[Guest Rolling Parts]

Too many variables to accurately give a "safe" time frame, hence the 6-7 years we commonly hear about.

 

Exactly right.

Also I've seen huge variations between manufacturers!

Newer, heavier cars and bigger brakes also are a factor.

 

Sorry to go off-topic but ALL rubber parts on antique cars (aka 260z's) are up to the judgment on the owner when to replace based on operating conditions and the severity of the failure modes!

[Guest Rolling Parts]

The more I research it, the more it's odd that there is not much information as to what actually happened. Only hard information is that the big GMC Safari was "handling badly" before the crash so the father had just paid to have the tires rotated (the failure tire was moved from the front of the van to the rear).

 

Since the van/tire had known issues before the accident, I'd not jump to the conclusion (as ABC and the trial lawyers did) that it was solely the fault of Firestone. Treating a tire/handling problem on a large SUV as if a rotation would "fix" a handling problem is a bit optimistic if you ask me (especially if you're letting your son drive a heavy, heavily loaded, high centered SUV on a very long, high speed, hot summer road trip out of the country with an already suspected tire problem?). Nah, it's gotta be Firestone's fault....

[Tony D]

Like I said, you presented an EXTREME.

Driving an all original 35 year old 260Z on original 35 year old tires is done on and off trailers (and that works very well every time). Anyone DRIVING on 35 year old tires at 50mph+ down a roadway is basically (insert unrepeatable word here) insane.

 

(Sigh) Ok, then the one that came apart in chunks after 4 years is in no way applicable. What's extreme about 4 years?

 

Ozone attack in the southwest will kill a tire FAR quicker than most other places.

 

To put out a statement that 'extreme' conditions are required to make a tire fail is foolish. I have seen NEW tires fail. (Let's not get into Explorer discussions, I'm not even going there...)

 

The Federal Government has required the 6-7 year limit due to the failures of the Explorer, and the precipitant litigation. They had to pick an 'idiot limit' where they could be sure most people would have already changed them. Note they specifically state in the guidelines now that it includes spare tires which have never been used. IMO if you are running 6 year old tires on anything you're an idiot. But then again, that's just me.

 

I would not say 'hey, if you aren't driving them the the extreme they're fine for X years"

 

I do have older tires on my vehicles, I call them 'pushing around the yard rollers'. They are usually what goes on a car when it goes to the paint shop.

 

Nothing I'm regularly driving usually has a tire on it more than a year old, much less two or three. Anything over three is trash for me, regardless of 'tread left'... I usually rotate the spare, but if it just sits it's relegated to 'pushing status' after a few cycles of new tires on the car.

[Tony D]

One thing to note was that the ABC Expose was talking about expired/aged tires being sold 'as new' which IS a problem.

There are now 'recall' requirements for tires.

 

The Braap post on his motorhome has a post in it from John Coffee about changing his tires on his trailer. That was a direct result of me revealing that at least one of the tires on MY newly-bought trailer could have possibly been as old as 1978! Some of the tires were old enough to NOT have the UTQG Dating information on them putting them into the mid 80's (and they were replacements!)

 

Old tires are out there, they can kill you. Don't be stupid.

 

As far as making comments about people driving 35 year old tires as being insane... There are some who would say that a tire kept in indoor storage, with no checking, 100% tread, and some of the original molding nipples on it would pose no hazard whatsoever being driven below 50mph. I'm not saying it was right, but the tire looked as good as any tire on the shelf at the dealership. The assumption was with less than 15K on it, 'how bad could it be'?

 

Not such an insane bit of logic. Stupid, but I can see the person's thinking. Were someone to have bought the car, devoid of date coding on the tire, there was no way to tell HOW old the cars tires were! They may have only been 15 years old. (actually at that point, less than 10 years as I believe the datecoding was implemented in the mid 80's and this was in the mid 90's).

 

The bottom line is 'no matter how good it LOOKS, it can fail catastrophically-and that means new tires as well: DRIVE ACCORDINGLY!'

 

For those of us old enough to remember when NEW TIRE BLOWOUTS were a common occurance...

[Guest Rolling Parts]

(Sigh) Ok, then the one that came apart in chunks after 4 years is in no way applicable. What's extreme about 4 years?

 

The extreme was putting a known wobbly 4 year on tire on the back of an SUV, loading it heavy, and driving it fast across country.

 

To put out a statement that 'extreme' conditions are required to make a tire fail is foolish.

 

I agree completely!

I was just saying that this guy KNEW before the trip that he suspected the the tire was bad enough to suspect it was causing handling issues so he THEN put it on the back and hoped for the best. That's the "foolish" thing here.

 

 

(Let's not get into Explorer discussions, I'm not even going there...)

 

That's what the story was about, it happened just after the time that SUV (Explorers) were being discussed with tire failures on Firestone's. That's what the guy had.

 

They had to pick an 'idiot limit' where they could be sure most people would have already changed them.

 

It's a partial to protect "sellers' from such lawsuits. The idiots will still still hit curbs and rotate wobbly tire to the back where idiots assume it's "safer" back there.

 

Basically this ABC report reminds me of the Corvair scare. Safe people will judge what's safe and be fine. Unsafe people will push things, crash, and then blame the equipment. Personally I think a new wobbly tire would have failed on that road trip. Driving with a handling issue and then crashing from a handling issue is a big "well duh".

[Guest Rolling Parts]

One thing to note was that the ABC Expose was talking about expired/aged tires being sold 'as new' which IS a problem.

.

 

Absolutely.

It's more of a problem on our older cars where tires are not in high demand and can sit for years.

[Tony D]

Protection from lawsuits is required these days. Piper Aviation is a good example...

 

Lawyers have no bounds unless reeled in, and even then for over 2000 years the answer has been known... I don't know the phrase in Latin, but it was translated as:

 

"First, Kill all the Lawyers"

[BRAAP]

Protection from lawsuits is required these days. Piper Aviation is a good example...

 

Lawyers have no bounds unless reeled in, and even then for over 2000 years the answer has been known... I don't know the phrase in Latin, but it was translated as:

 

"First, Kill all the Lawyers"

 

Not sure the story behind that, but this medium sized poster I have hanging in my hobby room in the basement seems to fit, (my apologies for going so far off topic...)

 

[Guest Rolling Parts]

Not sure the story behind that, but this medium sized poster I have hanging in my hobby room in the basement seems to fit, (my apologies for going so far off topic...)

 

Lawyers convinced a jury that an antique Piper J3 Cub was a faulty design because it had "conventional" landing gear that prevented direct forward view on the ground so a pilot hit a pickup that was intentionally driven in front of the plane. Lawyers also convinced a jury that a vintage Piper Super Cub design was faulty because it could leak fuel after crashing. Sue Piper!

 

The same applied to the Firestone case where low temp rated tires were used on heavy SUV's did not last in the Texas heat at 80mph. Driving "C" temperature rated tires on Explorers at highway speeds in the heat and they separated? Call in ABC news! Call in the lawyers! Sue Firestone!

 

I got the same feeling reading up on this story. It's never the fault of the owner of an SUV that suspected his tires were so bad that it caused a handling problem. Nope, don't replace them, just move em around. If it breaks, sue Firestone.

 

Of course tire age is very important; just not more important than getting the right tire for the application or simply monitoring the tires for damage during their life. Just because Harvey Firestone invented the flat tire does not mean that he's forever at fault...

Edited January 8, 2010 by BRAAP
Deleted the redundant picture...

[Tony D]

Rolling Parts hit it dead on, Lawyers were actually applying modern day liability mentality to products Piper made and designed in the 40's.

Their argument was they were liable for these 'negligent designs' some 50 years AFTER THE FACT.

 

There was legislation passed capping liability...not sure on the details exactly, but it was explained to me as a 'statute of limitations' in regards to general aviation aircraft after a set number of years. Basically after a given time unit, the liability transfers from the original manufacturer to the maintenance companies keeping the bird aloft (or not...as the case may be!) It makes common sense, but it almost killed general aviation manufacture in the USA.

 

Firestone 'low temperature rated' tires may be a slight misnomer. The inflation issues for a 'soft carlike ride' did not correspond to Firestone's load rating. Exploders did have issues in Saudi well before they had them in the USA, and running at 100+ mph across a desert at 130+ F can be considered "Extreme" but in the USA, the heat was not really the issue so much as it was improper inflation pressures. Same as the Corvair in the 60 when the lawyer nader argued that reading your owners manual is too much to expect from the average car owner. I mean, you spend $30K for something and you don't even read the manual? The issue of selling tires that are more than 3 years old as 'new' is both an ethical and moral issue, but we can't have that in business any longer, it's all predicated by lawyers and legislation. Prevailing wisdom is now (as taught in business schools) 'if there isn't legislation against it, push the envelope' ... they do, and actuarials do the CBA on potential liability and they go from there. Not a moral leadership whatsoever.

 

"Who is John Galt?"

[Guest Rolling Parts]

Their argument was they were liable for these 'negligent designs' some 50 years AFTER THE FACT.

 

Right,

And that brings up the 2 ironies aviation manufacturers face:

1) The better you make a design, the longer your liability exposure is.

2) Once you make a design, Government Regs make it almost impossible to improve it when better technologies do come along.

 

As TonyD said, airplane manufacturers were being sued out of existence. However, the liability cap was a double-edged sword because while it stopped lawsuits on old designs it killed any reason for manufacturers to sell replacement parts to those old designs (which would put them right back into liability). Owners of the older planes are then screwed.

 

As far as tires,

The new rules are also a double-edged sword because old tire sizes (like on our hobby cars) are slower movers off the shelf. Regulation might actually hasten the problem of getting "correct" size tires for our cars in the future as manufactures are forced into a shorter sales cycle. Yet another example where "consumer legislation" is good for consuming, not so good for those that try to conserve....

[Tony D]

As it is, most manufacturers are unwilling to undergo any major product improvements during the projected lifecycle of a vehicle now as it is, because changing anything leaves the uninformed jury members open to the lawyer's question of 'why did you redesign this part? Obviously you thought something was deficient in your original design, therefore you were negligent in the original design.

 

Vannilla Cars just like everybody else's through the liability avoidance 'guidance' of the legal department. The pervasive nature of this within the USA can not be discounted. It colors your life and vehicle/parts choices almost every day. You really don't notice it till you go away and come back to it. It's stark. The inability to get OEM replacement parts for light aircraft is an excellent example of it which can be deduced directly from the court actions. There is little other reason for the decline, when parts sales were steady due to the inspection/retirement cycles required for airworthiness. It's just a segment of commerce that goes away.