Technical Tire deterioration / When should you buy new ?

Ok, let me clarify the point I was trying to convey. On re-reading my posts, it seems I could have put it across in a much simpler way. Lets try this............

"Sheep" does not necessarily need to mean a lack of intelligence. The term is usually used as a description of a person who goes along with what is put to them, generally without weighing up the situation for themselves. This is, for the most part, because of complacency rather than any other reason. Maybe a better term to use would be "the unwashed masses". So, for whatever reason the sheep are sheep, they are not generally making informed and sensible choices about a lot of things. No, I don't advocate that this scenario mandates they be "told what to do" by some ficticious other group of people. What I was saying is that the date stamp needs to be on tires as guidance to all as to the tire ageing phenomenon. As we see in the diverse range of opinions in this thread alone, if left entirely to the individual, the time frame for perceived replacement of aged tires would indeed be a very wide spectrum.

I have no problem with everyone having the right to make their own choices and decisions. What must come with that right, the other side of the coin as such, is the responsibility for the choices and decisions made. The buck stops with you. If you f##k up, man up.

Back to tires.
The incidence of age being the sole contributing factor in the failure of a tire is indeed slim, granted. However, it is a factor. This being the case, suitable caution and sensible thinking should be applied. Just remember, if you get it wrong and it all turns to shit, there is only your own ass to kick.
I will continue to choose not to run the risk with tires that are 'out-of-date', but hey, that's just me...................

As for post #72, I will respectfully refrain from getting involved in any dissection or critique. To me, it is simply an example of what may happen.

Next?

EDIT: By the way, it was not I who introduced the context of "sheep". I think you will find that term was put forward by Steve.

 

Again this beating around the tire issue.......yeah, they can and may fail after a nebulous and therefore open to discussion time period......yeah, they may look fine and blow out/up in the shop....yeah, common sense should be applied( apparently based on lifestyle, philosophy, and level of manhood). They're fucking tires....one (four) more pieces of a rolling museum that may have a whole lot more not so definable issues " between you and the road". So for me it comes down to look to yer stuff, it really shouldn't be a point of debate.

 

I just replaced a set on a truck I bought a week or so ago. They looked great, drove out fine, and were Michelins! They were also 18 years old and I'm dragging my family around in this thing for fun... losing a tire at speed in an original old Ford truck and harming it, or worse my family or someone else's, sucks the fun straight out of my leisure time. I'll spend a few bucks to hopefully mitigate that particular risk.

No fancy argument, just my opinion at its simplest.

 

I'm not sure if this applies to that tire:

I have two front tires (on my OT daily driver) that I can't figure out the date code for. Both have "DOT YJBN LAV2" and an empty spot where you'd expect the date code to be.

 

It boggles my mind how so many here are willing to accept this 'one size fits all' approach to tire aging. Did any of you actually read the report??? Let's hit the high points one more time...

1. 50% of all US tire failures occur in 5 states; California, Arizona, Texas, Louisiana, and Florida. The rest of the sunbelt states account for another 30%, leaving just 20% for the northern half of the US. These tests were performed under the worst of those sunbelt conditions, so as I clearly stated, if you live in the sunbelt you should pay attention to this recommendation out of prudence.

2. Nowhere in that report do they definitively state that any given tire will fail once it reaches a certain age. In fact, they admit that it's probably impossible to predict that. Again, I'm not advocating that those of you who live in the sunbelt ignore their recommendation.

3. They CLEARLY state in the report that temperature-related tire aging (which was the focus of this report) is a exponential curve, i.e. the higher the temp, the faster the tire ages. If you're unfamiliar with what an exponential curve looks like, look at any of the Covid infection rate charts posted various places. The initial curve is gentle but as infections grow the curve turns sharply upwards. In this case the data points at the bottom are time intervals, the vertical points are numbers of infections. I'm not making a political point here, simply using this as illustrative. To translate this into tire aging, the bottom points are temperature rise, the vertical points are aging.

This last point is the crux of the matter, and why I object to being herded into the rest of the sheep who blindly follow whatever they're told. Again, this 'six year rule' is only really germane if you live in the sunbelt. But I don't live in the sunbelt, so how fast do my tires age? I live in zone 3, so even the most pessimistic reading will mean that my tires won't 'age out' in less than twice the time, more than three times is much more likely. So try to imagine my dismay when some retail store 'tech' (who if you remember is supposed to inspect the tire) only checks the date code and pronounces them 'unsafe' and refuses to give service. If you question them, few of them have any understanding of why and it always boils down to 'corporate policy' after they flounder. The vehicle and tire manufacturers understand this, which is why all they offer is 'recommendations'. But the tire retailers are removing that choice, telling me I have to discard a perfectly serviceable tire, coincidently improving their profits, to satisfy their 'policy'.

When all this first surfaced around 2005 or so, I was active on a motorcycle board. Like here, it generated a lot of panic. While most motorcycle tires are very lucky to exceed 10K miles without wearing out, shorter riding seasons in some places and/or occasional use meant in some instances the tire may be in service longer than six years. But one thing happened that really brought home what sort of games were being played. Dunlop decided that if car tires were only good for six years, their motorcycle tires should only be good for three. They figured this as a win/win; we're being twice as safe, and we'll sell more tires. They got a ton of blowback; aftermarket tire sales fell, and more importantly, their wholesalers/retailers screamed because they were going to have to eat any slow-moving inventory if not sold quickly enough. Faced with outlet losses in their retail sales network, they recanted and went back to six years. I'll note that in 40 years of riding motorcycles, I never had a tire failure that wasn't directly caused by anything other than a road hazard.

I posted all this so you could make an informed decision about your tire safety. What you do is up to you; it doesn't matter to me because I now have my own means of servicing my tires/wheels so I'm independent of the local retailers for anything except new tire purchases, and even there the 'net will allow me to bypass them.

And all the hand-wringing from some in this group blows me away. The majority of us are driving cars that are 60+ years old, in many cases equipped with technology that's even older, mixing with new vehicles that can out brake/handle us by significant margins. Supposedly put together by guys that understand how it all works and should be aware of this. WTF...

 

If the over 3000 people who have viewed this thread, and any who do so in the future, have become a little more aware of keeping a good eye on their tires (especially ageing tires), then I think the discussion has been worthwhile. I entirely agree that defining all tires by the date stamp is ambigious, but I also see the need to have some sort of system/ruling in place. I have always strongly hoped that any such system would be entirely based in logic, with the public safety as the major concern. I agree that, unfortunately, that is not always the case, and that profit-mongering can play a big part. Welcome to the modern world.

I have enjoyed the locking of horns and the exchange of ideas, and that is how a discussion like this should be, but I think we are possibly done. I am just happy that we can make a difference by a general raising of awareness.

Back to normal programming...............over and out.

 

I haven't seen any comments here that would have you seeing things in the above ways.

 

Really?

 

Yes.

And I missed one:

 

Ok, possibly not done yet. If the above comment is related to my posts, I will have one more try.

*** I never said that I agree with the date stamp thing being the magic answer.
*** I agree that aged tire replacement should be based on individual case circumstances, within reason.
*** I agree that close inspection should be part of this process.
*** No, I don't think all people will have the motivation or knowledge to self-inspect.
*** As to "professional" inspection, of course they will cover their ass. This is merely a side-effect of the current climate of litigation and allocation of blame. The world we have made for ourselves.
*** I do think date stamping is necessary otherwise there is absolutely no way of knowing accurate tire age.
*** If there is no age control at all, is 15, 20, 25 years an acceptable consequence. In my mind, no.
*** Do I think we should have the right to make our own choices? Yes, definately, but we must also be prepared to accept the responsibility for the choices we make.

These are the points I have been trying to put across. My opinions only. If I have done it in a somewhat confusing manner, I apologise. Dot point lists are as simple as I can go.

Have a great day.

 

So...with the head start towards self destruction we face from all the other old car factors, shouldn't we do what we can to reduce the risk on factors that we can control? like not running 15 or 20 year old radial tires.

btw, great rant post!

 

Hey @blazedogs , you started this fire and then seem to have run away.
I think I can almost hear you laughing.

 

Common issue with trailer tires, especially for folks who don't have much knowledge of anything automotive. They see all the tread and think they're fine. Pretty much every time I drive up north in Michigan I see a few campers on the side of the highway dealing with shredded tires because of this very issue. Boats too, folks rarely think to replace their boat trailer tires due to age rather than wear.

 

I hear ya Danny. In my teens all my tires were pull offs that had the air showing through.

 

Jim, if I lived where you live I'd follow their recommendations. But I don't live there...

I was an early adopter of radials. When BFG came out with radials in the early '70s, I switched to them as the improvement in ride and handling was well worth the extra cost. But I had trouble with each of the three sets of BFG tires I bought (the last set were T/As), so I won't buy them anymore. All were removed before they were worn out for various reasons. Had issues with a set of Firestones too, same result. Now, I've had tire failures; most were road hazards, but a few failed for no discernable reason but it wasn't age, they weren't that old. I've ran some 'old' tires too more than once, and they just wore out.

Another illustration may be enlightening. The motorcycle site I was on was for a specific model. Now the service manual for that bike had a 'recommendation' that the brake system should be flushed every two years (which wasn't a bad idea, but very few did it) and further that all rubber parts be replaced every four years. Nobody did that...
Was there a raft of braking losses by riders? Nope... If anything happened, it was usually a caliper wouldn't release and somebody would melt a caliper and/or burn up a rotor (I've got one of those in the garage...). Speed didn't enter into it as you would be lucky to attain 35 mph... LOL. Or if the bike sat long enough, the fluid would turn to jelly and the brakes didn't work (and the bike likely didn't run either).

So all these rubber brake parts, should they be replaced at specific intervals? They age too, but I know of no one who's stressing out over these. You can carry paranoia too far....

 

Have you looked into the safety regulations in Japan? I heard years ago that they were required to replace all the rubber parts on cars after just a few years of use, making cars essentially worthless when they werd still young. My guess is the motorcycle thing is part of that mentality.

You can get away with longer use of tires up there. But without seeing that exponential curve, it's really hard to say how long you can go, and keep your odds of failure down to an acceptable level. Its also difficult to determine what is an acceptable level. And looking at fatalities isn't really that helpful, you can get all kinds of annoyance out of a tire failure, and no one dies, but you sure wish you'd have spent the money for new shoes before it happened.

 

Only if you are overly and unjustly worried about it to the point of it adversly affecting your life.

See what I did there? Go on, have a laugh.

 

I'm not the one that's paranoid, but it appears others are... LOL...

When I hear a credible reason for why my tires are 'aged' (and corporate policy isn't one of them), I'll listen...

 

Why are you using the word paranoia in the context of tire age?

The motorcycle issue seems very different. Most (probably all) vehicle manufacturers have recommended maintenance; and most people don't follow it. You've said there have been brake issues with those motorcycles- so the manufacturer seems to have been correct.

The bigger issue is the worst-case scenario should failure occur. A blowout is dangerous.

I was stuck in accident traffic. I saw the aftermath. I looked it up (less than 48 hours after) and it said the cause was tire failure. This was on an army truck. I thought,"How the f*** did someone determine that so quickly?" I suspect whoever made that claim was siding with the military and trying to heavily influence the legal outcome in a dishonest way.

 

I should have mentioned that any brake issues generally didn't show up for years... usually over twenty. Or if it sat unprotected and/or unused for ten years or more. And the problem was very rarely the seals. It was usually one or both of two problems; the pistons would get rusty and eventually bind up in the bores when pushed back in for new pads, or corrosion would get behind the piston seals, causing the seals to 'tighten' and not allowing the pistons to retract properly. New stainless pistons fixes the rust problem, and a thorough cleaning of the caliper body would fix the other. The seals were almost always re-used unless the bike had very high mileage, like well over 100K. Which few of them made, as tune-up costs when needed was about 8 hours labor. As the bikes got older and less valuable, owners wouldn't spend the money, so eventually they ran crappy and got parked. I'd pick these 'dead' ones up for a few $$, clean the brake hydraulics out, adjust the valves (the biggy on a tune up) and do the carbs and they'd run like a top.

 

Here's a non-technical tire story for you..

My dad had an old Mercedes he'd bought for parts sitting in the gravel near the front of our shop. Probably been there for 10 years and maybe longer. I come from beside the shop one day heading to the door. All of a sudden there's a bang that sounds like a shotgun blast, and something hits me hard in the back.

There's a rehab hospital up on the hill adjacent to our property, and they treat some brain damaged patients among others. I take cover behind a pickup with my first thought being one of the patients might have gotten hold of a gun and was having Oswald fantasies. I paw around on my back best I can reach everywhere looking for blood and can't find any leaks.

Start looking around trying to figure out WTH is going on. We've got a 20 ft square concrete pad at the front door of the shop and I notice its got a bunch of gravel and small dirt clods strewn around on it. Figure its okay to come out of my foxhole, and start looking for the source. The left rear tire on that Mercedes had a split about 3" long in the sidewall right in the middle of where the tire contacted the ground, and there was a good half a shovel full of gravel and dirt missing.

I walked it off, and some of the debris was right at 70 feet from the car. Ever since that incident, I sorta cringe anytime I'm airing up a tire as the thought "what if this sumbich happened to blow like that old one did, but with my mug 2 ft from the scene" is always in the back of my mind.

 

I've brought this up. Tires in contact with earth over a long period will rot from contact with the organics in the soil. I bought a VW Beetle from a guy that had been sitting for an extended period in a field. It actually ran, and not badly either. But the tires were leaking air. About the third time I re-inflated them, two of them blew out, right at the 'rot' spot. I wonder how many of these 'old tire' tales were actually tires that sat too long like that...

 

I suppose that's your way of not addressing issues I've brought up regarding your "rant," as squirrel put it. Tire safety is a very serious and legitimate concern. You tried to delegitimize that concern with "Sheep, panic, paranoia, hand-wringing, and WTF."

 

Read the full report, then make up your own mind. Don't let some tire store 'expert' do it for you.

 

Well, all I can say is "it's all shits and giggles, until someone giggles and shits".
Each to their own. I do sincerely hope your approach goes well for you, and those around you.

 

Thank you for acknowledging that your delegitimizing comment was a bit too much.

 

i recently put new tires on a muscle car that had been sitting for 10 years. one of the tires was in shreds!