Tire Industry Group Resists Push for Expiration Dates

"Tom McParland" (tommcparland) 05/14/2014 at 11:22 • Filed to: SAfety, tires, NHTSA, articles

7

46

In the wake of a Louisiana SUV crash that could have stemmed from the failure of a 10 year old tire, lawmakers are pushing for expiration dates. The driver of the vehicle lost control after one of the tires exploded causing the truck to crash into a school bus. No one on the bus was injured but 4 out of the 5 passengers of the SUV were killed.

!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! that in eight states tire companies have defeated legislation that would put expiration dates on tires. The NTSB and other safety organizations say tires deteriorate over time and could result in failures. Most major automakers urge owners to replace tires that are more than six years old. The Rubber Manufacturers Association, and industry trade group, says the six-year limit is "an arbitrary date." The association has hired lobbyists to help defeat laws that would require mandatory inspections of tire age.

"We oppose legislation that have some sort of age limit on tires," said Dan Zielinski, executive director of the trade group.

In contrast, tire manufacturer Michelin cautions that tire age could be an issue and recommends replacing rubber than is more than 10 years old. Also, according to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA), a tire ages when there is a "loss in a tire's material properties, which over time leads to a reduction or performance capabilities."

How do I know how old my tires are?

!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! You can tell how old a tire is by looking on the tire's sidewall. There are lots of markings ranging from the type of tire, a speed rating that corresponds to a maximum safe speed your tire can sustain, the size of the tire and also when the tire was made; however, if you look after the Department of Transportation (DOT) letters, you'll see another list of numbers. If the tire was made before the year 2000, you'll see three numbers after the DOT letters; the last number indicates the year the tire was made. On newer tires, those manufactured in 2000 or later, you'll see four numbers. The first two numbers indicate the week it was built and the last two digits specify the year the tire was made. So, for example, if you see a "297" the tire was made in 1997, or if you see a "2409" that would mean that the tire was made in the 24th week of 2009."

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Of course we Jalops bomb exit ramp apexes and do so many burnouts that our tires will never last 6 years. But when you go to purchase a new set pay attention to the year the tires were made in order to get the maximum life out of them.

Reigntastic > Tom McParland 05/14/2014 at 11:24

4

Who the fuck doesn't replace their tires after 10 years? That's negligence.

Tom McParland > Reigntastic 05/14/2014 at 11:26

0

10 years is crazy, but is that 6 year marker legit? Even if you don't drive that much?

505Turbeaux > Reigntastic 05/14/2014 at 11:27

1

If TRX's werent so damn expensive I would be right on board with this statement...

-rollin old and dirty

dinobot666 > Tom McParland 05/14/2014 at 11:27

2

It really wouldn't matter if expiration dates were stamped onto the side of tires, because most consumers will drive on tires that have cords sticking out of them — just as long as they hold air. Once they stop holding air, they'll replace them with the absolute cheapest tire that they can, regardless of how poor the quality of the tire is.

m2m, apex detective > Reigntastic 05/14/2014 at 11:27

3

You should take a look at http://imgur.com/r/justrolledin… and field a guess. How many old/effed up tires will you see? 01/10 items?

Picture illustrates what "old tire" means imho. Taken from http://imgur.com/r/justrolledin… , where it's captioned like this:

RIP tyre. 1996-2014

crowmolly > Reigntastic 05/14/2014 at 11:28

1

Go to a cruise night and play "date the tire".

Chances are you'll find a ton of them. It's easy to fall into the trap with a fair weather low mile car. You don't put enough miles on the car to wear out the tires.

Reigntastic > Tom McParland 05/14/2014 at 11:28

0

I replace tires every 3 years at the absolute max, typically they won't even last that long. I use them, though, we aren't talking about dry rot here.

Opposite Locksmith > Reigntastic 05/14/2014 at 11:30

0

as someone who hasn't had a set of tires make it >a year and a half, I have many questions

Tom McParland > dinobot666 05/14/2014 at 11:31

4

The fact that consumers are clueless has no bearing on whether or not legislation should be enacted on behalf of their safety. Perhaps if there was some type of "expiration date" required people could become more aware. I'm sure you would like to know when the rubber on your car was made and when its expiration date is.

Tom McParland > Reigntastic 05/14/2014 at 11:33

3

Like I said, we burn through tires fairly quickly due to "spirited driving" but what about regular folks who may only drive 5-6k miles a year. In 6 years that is 36k, many touring tires can last up to 50k on tread. But might "expire" before they are worn down.

xenocyclus > Tom McParland 05/14/2014 at 11:33

1

I think the 6 year marker is made more legit if the tires are not being used that much. Think about wear induced by irregular use, such as the weight of the vehicle resting on a single spot in the tire for a long time.

Tom McParland > xenocyclus 05/14/2014 at 11:34

0

I agree

offroadkarter > Tom McParland 05/14/2014 at 11:34

7

We should teach consumers not to be such halfwit retards instead of enacting another stupid law. dinobot is right, people literally will drive on tires that are down to the cords then drive on them some more. A new law isn't going to save people from being cheap asses.

We already can read when the tire was made so applying a rule of thumb for how many years a tire is good for is easy enough to figure out how many years of use you have left.

Tom McParland > offroadkarter 05/14/2014 at 11:37

2

It is worth noting that the original GMA article says that the RMA put up heavy resistance even for the production date.

dinobot666 > Tom McParland 05/14/2014 at 11:38

0

What I'm saying is that the average consumer really doesn't care at all. In my years spent as a service adviser, I found that about hardly any consumer cared about how poor the condition of their tires were and cared even less about the quality of the tire that were to replace them.

An expiration date is a brilliant idea, but means nothing to the average consumer.

Tom McParland > dinobot666 05/14/2014 at 11:40

2

I totally agree and I have been known to tell perfect strangers that they should replace their tires.

offroadkarter > Tom McParland 05/14/2014 at 11:41

1

it probably costs an extra .00000037 cents a tire to mold that on there so of course they would

Anima > dinobot666 05/14/2014 at 11:47

1

A point proven here , here and here.

Squid > Tom McParland 05/14/2014 at 11:56

1

Really there is no metric for how rubber deteriorates. You can store tires in a climate controlled warehouse with no sources of UV light and optimum moisture levels and have them be fine for 10 years and still be suitable for use. Tires that have been in service for 10 years are probably cracked and deteriorated to the point of being a major hazard. The NHTSA suggestion is an arbitrary rule. Would it make people replace their tires more? I doubt it since there still 91 Miatas rolling around on their factory Bridgestones. I think it would be more suitable to make it so tires don't last 75,000 miles. I think 30,000 is a perfectly acceptable distance and an average driver will end up reaching the tires service life in roughly 3 years.

That SUV flipping and killing those people wasn't due to a fault in regulation of the tire industry, but of negligence of the owner and failure to keep up maintenance of their vehicle.

DCCARGEEK > Tom McParland 05/14/2014 at 11:59

1

This is not about consumers replacing old tires, but rather companies that warehouse / stockpile tires. If rubber prices are low, I can order a shit ton of tires, throw them in a warehouse as a hedge against increased prices.

Rico > Tom McParland 05/14/2014 at 12:15

0

A quick google search shows that Louisiana requires State Inspections every other year which includes tires and wheels. In my opinion, while expiration dates wouldn't hurt, a state inspection should've shown that the tires were over 6 years old and needed to be replaced or not pass inspection.

Every state should require an inspection.

Rico > Tom McParland 05/14/2014 at 12:18

0

It should be 6 years or 50k miles then.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > Squid 05/14/2014 at 12:19

1

This would be my point. The age of tire A does not map to the age of tire B. Arbitrary "expiration date" requirements would be far more hit and miss than some.

MonkeePuzzle > m2m, apex detective 05/14/2014 at 12:53

1

exactly my thoughts! ahh love that page, but it is SO SAD! without enforcement an exp date is worthless

Zipppy, Mazdurp builder, Probeski owner and former ricerboy > Tom McParland 05/14/2014 at 13:09

1

The tires installed on my brother's Jetta are already cracking, and they were fitted last year. Based on this, I'd say the "expiry date" is a guideline, but I've seen some old tires that weren't dried up. It has to be up to the owner, and they need the responsibility for this.

m2m, apex detective > MonkeePuzzle 05/14/2014 at 13:15

0

It was only yesterday that I spent an hour or so staring at this mountain of sadness, and yet I have already seen a lot of them.

Some are downright frightening, e.g. I wouldn't want to be next to a truck tire that's already developed some fricken' bubbles.

I wonder what percentage of accidents does not occur due to human error but terrible vehicle condition.

MonkeePuzzle > m2m, apex detective 05/14/2014 at 13:16

0

SO many of them are poorly tended brakes, so yeah, those people are on the road with us all

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > offroadkarter 05/14/2014 at 13:22

0

That requires getting someone to invest time and energy into caring about something they previously didn't care about. This is compounded by how expensive cars are. I know logic says it's cheaper to keep your expensive thing running properly than waiting for it to break, but overall people are short sighted so they just care about today and not tomorrow. Hell will freeze over before you get your typical consumer to give a shit about tires.

mr_gofast > Reigntastic 05/14/2014 at 14:37

0

ask the guy who drove one of those Carrera GT's and had a fatal accident

Reigntastic > mr_gofast 05/14/2014 at 14:46

0

I tried, but upon investigation I determined the accident was fatal.

KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs > Tom McParland 05/15/2014 at 07:52

0

Considering that most people are cheap asses when it comes to cars, there are really two choices.

1) Do nothing.

2) Institute a national inspection and immediately yank plates if the inspection is failed. Have rollbacks on hand or cabs to get people home.

I don't like number 2, because the last thing I want to give the .gov is another thing to do incompetently.

However, I have been called all sorts of horrible things by people for daring to insinuate that if you cannot afford to maintain a car, correctly, you shouldn't be allowed to drive it.

For me, it's a safety issue. For them, it's economically disadvantaged groups being oppressed.

Tom McParland > KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs 05/15/2014 at 07:56

0

Or 3). Have a "best if used by" date about 6 years after the tire was produced. That way informed consumers like you and me can decide for ourselves if we want to keep our tires on or change them. More importantly we can know if an installer is giving us tires that are already too old.

KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs > Rico 05/15/2014 at 08:03

1

So what do you do if they fail the inspection? There in lies the rub.

Some of my family lives in NC. If you fail the inspection, the only consequence is that you are not allowed to renew registration. How many cars do you see with expired registrations? Yeah, more than a few.

The only way to really make it effective is to immediately yank plates or impound the car. That's not going to work so well in this country...

KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs > Tom McParland 05/15/2014 at 08:10

0

As has been pointed elsewhere: informed consumers already know to inspect their tires for issues. Adding a date will do exactly squat for them.

What it opens up is for some litigious moron who beats on his tires, has a failure, crashes, and hurts some innocent party, to go ahead and claim "But the manufacturer said it was fine!!! It's before the stated date!!!"

And some lousy judge/jury will buy that, and then we will have even more litigation and regulation

EDIT: the production week and year is already stamped on the tire. So we also know if we are getting old stock. And even so, if the tires are stored correctly, initial age from production in a warehouse isn't detrimental to safe operation.

KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs > dinobot666 05/15/2014 at 08:16

1

Correct. And the ones who care either are enthusiasts or have crashed as a result of tire failure/other tire anomalies (e.g. hydroplaning. I speak from experience on that)

Rico > KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs 05/15/2014 at 09:35

1

It at least tells the person, your tires are too old/worn then it's upto them to do something about it. Same thing if they had fucked up brakes, if they choose to drive around like that after being told that the brakes need to be replaced and end up crashing into a tree it's completely on the owner of the car.

KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs > Rico 05/15/2014 at 10:09

1

See, that's the other key to making this work. If you are told that you have deficient parts to your vehicle on an inspection, and it is not fixed (which is verified by a re-inspection), then your insurance shouldn't have to pay, because you are then negligent.

However, the problem there is that I have been rear ended by a guy who had no brakes. There was no way he had money to pay for anything, let alone insurance. At that point, you are trying to get blood from a turnip.

That doesn't remove the fact that he shouldn't have been driving an unsafe vehicle.

Rico > KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs 05/15/2014 at 11:40

0

I really don't know what would be the appropriate punishment, fined? Arrested? Put to death? People who's vehicles are unsafe should be reported to the authorities and have their license revoked in my opinion.

KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs > Rico 05/15/2014 at 12:00

1

I'd seize the license plates. Technically those are state property, and if you want something from the state, you have to play by their rules. There would also be a requirement that you would then only be able to operate the car to either a pre-booked appointment at a repair shop to do the repairs, or to a pre-booked re-test (works like an MOT failure)

You aren't depriving them of their property (They still have the car), but you are depriving them of the ability to operate on government owned roads. It's a subtle difference that is more likely to pass Constitutional muster in the US.

west-coaster > Tom McParland 05/26/2014 at 10:56

1

Good grief, we can't even get people to keep their tires properly inflated. At least once or twice a week, a see a vehicle going down the freeway with at least one obviously under-inflated tire.

Usually on an SUV. Often on a second-gen Ford Explorer. You know, that ones that were blowing their under-inflated tires and flipping over back in 1999-2000.

I'm sorry, but a huge percentage of drivers are too stupid and/or lazy to take care of the basics as it is. Putting expiration dates on tires will do nothing.

milanst666 > Reigntastic 05/26/2014 at 11:19

0

"Who the fuck doesn't replace their tires after 10 years?"

Poor people, the elderly, those that don't drive much and people with show/fun cars that only get taken out of the garage several times per year.

Reigntastic > milanst666 05/26/2014 at 12:57

0

I can understand a car that sits collecting dust and is never driven having 10 y/o tires, but regardless of age or income you are legally expected to maintain your vehicle, it's why we have yearly safety inspections.

noringnocare > Tom McParland 05/26/2014 at 14:51

0

You know how to get them to pass this law? Made the tiremakes CEOs drive on THEIR tires that are 15 years old.... across the country promoting why expiration dates are not necessary. Let's see who makes it from LA to NY first.

noringnocare > KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs 05/26/2014 at 14:53

0

or just slash them on the spot.

gmporschenut also a fan of hondas > KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs 05/26/2014 at 16:33

0

I know in Mass they revoke your registration, which will also void your insurance. As insurance is required, thus if anything happens you then can face criminal charges .

His Stigness > Tom McParland 05/27/2014 at 02:07

0

I see very old tires quite often, especially on older cars. I've seen tires that were 15 years old and had so many cracks in them with tons of tread and people don't replace them. People think if there's tread then they're fine.

From what I've seen as a tech, I think tires should be replaced every 5 years, but there are some caveats to that. If the tire is constantly used everyday and driven a fair amount, then that's not needed, on better tires, like the Michelin Defender. That tire as a tread life warranty of 90k miles, and I've seen them go that long, and they don't show very much crackin.

But I have seen some Michelin touring tires that show cracking with some tread left, but I know the car is not driven very often.

Michelin may recommend replacement only every 10 years, but that comes with the caveat of proper storage. Of they're stored outside they won't last that long with irregular use.