Re: [Chrysler300] Tires

[Tony Rinaldi <awrdoc@xxxxxxxxx>]

This aging of tires is new info as we continue in a litiginous society.

See one of the latest regarding the necessity to replace itres:

The Number of Tire Age Recommendations Grows:
Bridgestone-Firestone is the Latest Entry
Copyright © Safety Research & Strategies
January 2006 
 
Tire age degradation hit the radar of safety advocates, regulators and
members of Congress following the
Firestone ATX / Wilderness recalls in 2000 and 2001 when experts concluded
that age degradation played
a role in the catastrophic failure of these tires.  Since the recalls Safety
Research & Strategies (SRS) began
examining what was known about the issue worldwide and found startling
evidence that both tire and
vehicle manufacturers have known tires, whether or not they are actually
used, can experience tread
separations due to internal oxidative aging, a process that is largely
invisible.  Following SRS¹ docket
submissions to NHTSA about their findings and an active campaign to alert
the public of the danger
through the media, some manufacturers have quietly started to address the
issue.  Bridgestone-Firestone¹s
release of a ³Technical Bulletin² to its dealers in late 2005 alerting them
that 10 year-old tires should not be
used, regardless of tread wear, is the latest indication that the industry
is changing its tack.
 
Bridgestone-Firestone¹s bulletin, which recommends the replacement of tires
once they reach 10 years old
³even when tires appear to be usable from their external appearance or the
tread depth may have not
reached the minimum wear out depth² is said to be based on a recommendation
from the Japan Automotive
Tyre Manufacturers Association (JATMA), also issued in 2005.  In an attempt
to embrace, yet distance
itself from any expiration recommendations, BFS¹s bulletin says the company
³is not aware of technical
data that supports a specific tire service life² and ³we believe it is
appropriate to follow the JATMA
recommendation in the interest of further encouraging consumers to focus on
the importance of 
maintaining and properly replacing their tires.²  BFS, like JATMA recommends
tire inspections after 5
years and further qualifies its bulletin stating owner¹s should follow the
vehicle manufacturers replacement
recommendations?which in many cases now includes warnings to replace tires
after 6 years regardless of
tread or use. 
 
Bridgestone-Firestone¹s Technical Bulletin follows Ford Motor Company and
DaimlerChrysler¹s owner¹s
manual warnings that appeared in 2005.  Both vehicle makers warned consumers
to replace tires after six
years, regardless of tread.  Ford quietly slipped a six-year-useable-life
recommendation into a tire safety
section on its website and added the recommendation to all of its owner¹s
manuals in 2006.  The
recommendation states:
 
³Tires degrade over time, even when they are not being used.  It is
recommended that tires generally be
replaced after 6 years of normal service.  Heat caused by hot climates and
frequent high loading conditions
can accelerate the aging process.²
 
Ford¹s move is particularly significant because of the body of scientific
research it published quantifying
tire age degradation following the Firestone ATX / Wilderness
investigations.  Ford studied the significant
material property changes that occur with age, and found methods to
artificially age tires in a way that
correlates to real-world conditions.
 
DaimlerChrysler¹s warning was more blunt:
 
³Tires and spare tire should be replaced after six years, regardless of the
remaining tread... Failure to
follow this warning can result in sudden tire failure. You could lose
control and have an accident resulting
in serious injury or death.²
 
DaimlerChrysler¹s addition of the six year recommendation to its 2006
owner¹s manuals is thought to be
based on work from its Mercedes-Benz research division done in the late
1990s.  Mercedes considered the
elimination of spare tires from its vehicles because of the risks associated
with a tire that is rarely used.
Mercedes¹ report noted "Tyres undergo an ageing process even when they are
not in use. . . The rubber
parts become less elastic, the steel webbing inside the tyre corrodes and
the rubber mixture of which the
tread is formed hardens."
  
While vehicle manufacturer recommendations first appeared in 1990 owner¹s
manuals of German made
and Toyota vehicles, the new warnings are important because they are based
on a growing body of
evidence that age degradation is an important factor in tire failures.
However, the tire industry, through the
Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) still clings to the argument there is
no scientific basis for an
expiration date and because of the many comparisons to dairy products keeps
asserting, ³tires are not
milk.²  The RMA also argues there is no ³one-size-fits-all² expiration
because tires are constructed using
varying grades of materials and at different quality levels and are exposed
to a wide range of conditions.
 
Vehicle manufacturer warnings originated, at least in part, from several
German studies published in the
late 1980s that warned about an apparent disproportionate rise in failures
once tires are reach six years old
or older.   
 
According to Sean Kane, President of Safety Research & Strategies, ³RMA¹s
position is technically
correct, there is no ?one-size-fits-all¹ expiration, just as there is no one
recommendation for tread life;
however, there is nothing preventing tire makers from labeling their tires
with age expirations based on the
specific construction of their product lines much the same way they provide
tread wear guidelines of
30,000 or 40,000 miles for example.²
 
BFS¹ tire age recommendation is the first formal recommendation from a tire
maker in the U.S.  Many
other recommendations exist throughout the world, including a one from the
British Rubber Manufacturers
Association, of which most of the tire makers are members, that was approved
in 2001 but never formerly
released.  The BRMA's recommended practice on tire aging which states
 
"BRMA members strongly recommend that unused tyres should not be put into
service if they are over 6
years old and that all tyres should be replaced 10 years from the date of
their manufacture."
 
The recommendation goes on to say that:
 
"In ideal conditions, a tyre may have a life expectancy of that exceeds 10
years from its date of
manufacture.  However such conditions are rare."
 
And  
 
³?Ageing' may not exhibit any external indications and, since there is no
non destructive test to assess the
serviceability of a tyre, even an inspection carried out by a tyre expert
may not reveal the extent of any
deterioration."  Spare tires and tires that are not frequently used were
noted as particularly vulnerable to
aging.   
 
SRS¹ examination of crashes caused by tire aging reveals that many of these
cases involve SUVs, vans and
pickup trucks?particularly when an unused or little used spare with ample
tread is put into service after a
number of years.  Kane believes that as tire tread wear performance has
increased during the past two
decades in combination with the exponential growth of the light trucks into
the market and their increased
likelihood of a loss-of-control following a tread separation, tire makers
are facing an increased number of
aged tire cases.   
 
While much of the tire industry has circled the wagons and continues to deny
tire age degradation is a
problem, some observers are lamenting the tire industry¹s conservative
attitude and in particular their
position in expiration dates.  In the June/July 2005 edition of Tire
Technology International, associate
editor Roger Williams describes the ponderous way the tire industry moves
and its self-defensive attitude,
including the industry¹s position on sell-by and use-by dates.
 
The vehicle industry appears to be afflicted by a similarly conservative
attitude toward tire aging.  Even
though Ford Motor Company has endorsed a six-year use-by date and includes
this in its owner¹s manuals
and under the Tire Safety section of its website, their tire aging expert
Dr. John Baldwin recently testified
that the issue is not a safety problem.
 
The first tire aging case against a vehicle manufacturer is now underway in
Texas against Ford involving a
full-sized spare on an Explorer.
 
 
 



From: Ron Waters <ronbo97@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 13:48:26 -0500
To: <chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Chrysler300] Tires

 
 
 

All -

I guess the consensus is that tires should be replaced every 5-6 years. So
my question is: why are these tires 'self distructing' after such a short
period of time ? Why can't tires be made to last longer ? It seems like such
a waste to throw out tires that only have a few thousand miles, or even no
miles in the case of a spare.  Would bias plys last longer ?

Ron

 
    



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



To send a message to this group, send an email to:
Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

For list server instructions, go to http://www.chrysler300club.com/yahoolist/inst.htm

For archives go to http://www.forwardlook.net/300-archive/ 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Chrysler300/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Chrysler300/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:Chrysler300-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
    mailto:Chrysler300-fullfeatured@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    Chrysler300-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/