A PSA About those tire TINS and date codes: Installers, It's Dates Out, for ALL tires.

[captainbeandip]

Well, it was fun chatting at BITOG for a few days. I've had enough for a while. You gentlemen can go back to arguing over motor oil and filters now.

Thanks. It was fun having you!

 

[Traction]

Here are my Blizzak WS90 directional snow tires dated 2319. The date code is outside on the pass side, and inside on the driver's side. So, whatever you are trying to prove makes no common sense to me. So now what???

 

[bullwinkle]

Here are my Blizzak WS90 directional snow tires dated 2319. The date code is outside on the pass side, and inside on the driver's side. So, whatever you are trying to prove makes no common sense to me. So now what???

View attachment 205221

View attachment 205223

Sounds like somebody needs to sue Bridgestone, they made them wrong!! That’s the problem with directional tires-they don’t make them left handed and right handed. The date code is going to be on one side, so 2 of them will have to be on the inside.

 

[krzyss]

What about directional tires? You would need to run 2 of them backwards to have the date code outside. I've been a tire installer for 22 years and both sides should be labeled if it was required to be visible. Most people don't have a clue on how to check it anyway.

Precisely my point. If directional tire is also asymmetric (outside has a date) then you have left and right tires, like shoes.
Very inefficient from inventory management point of view.

Krzyś

 

[krzyss]

Those are pretty much idiot proof, and the manufacturers place all the DOT data on the side marked "Outside". That's what the above Pirelli decision was stressing. Those asymmetricals have additional assurances of being installed right.

Your second point is the key one, and I sympathize with you. Most customers are not too savvy. And just won't make the effort to check their goods if it's too hard. And that's what part of what the big Firestone scandal was all about. People couldn't figure out what was on their cars.

This seems ridiculous. But when people get killed because of a defective tire, you would be shocked how vicious and ruthless the lawyers can get to go after anyone involved.

There are tire safety recalls all the time.

Why give them an opening? It's such a simple practice to stay out of trouble.

Directional tires have “rotation direction arrow”, I think on both sides. Directional tires do not have “outside”.

Directionality and asymmetry are two separate and not related attributes.

Maybe you need extra labeling to never mount tires inside out? Like tread inside the tire after mounting. I bet it can be done with some effort.

Krzyś

 

[Ethan2]

Lots of smoothbrains in this thread talking about date codes when OP is talking about TINs

 

[Vercingetorix]

Lots of smoothbrains in this thread talking about date codes when OP is talking about TINs

 

[Jimmy_Russells]

Those are pretty much idiot proof, and the manufacturers place all the DOT data on the side marked "Outside". That's what the above Pirelli decision was stressing. Those asymmetricals have additional assurances of being installed right.

What are you talking about? He asked about directional tires and your response is about asymmetric tires? Directional tires have two date codes on the inside only, always.

 

[GMBoy]

It probably helps in these situations to also give a little historical perspective, as sometimes the present moment seems very different from the past, which is often prologue. If the numb skulls and clowns want to label it a rant, that's their problem. I'm merely presenting it as a little tire, and a little safety, history.

In talking to colleagues who are still doing this, the industry is presently in one of its "happy times". Most manufacturers make a solid product, and there are no major industry catastrophes at the present. So it is easy for the good ol' boys in the Carolinas or Texas or elsewhere to sit and laugh at some of the things the

HEY now! Good old boys from Texas and the Carolinas?? Being originally from Maryland I swear the most good old boys I knew were in your state -PA

 

[Carmudgeon]

Paging @CapriRacer …

 

[bdcardinal]

BFG KO2 tires have the date code on the side with the white letters. Is it illegal to not have the white letters out? Makes no sense

I have seen 2 article numbers for AT KO2s for white letter and black wall.

 

[SubLGT]

......And thereafter, in a series NHTSA decisions, that Rule was clarified and explained as to why, and why "Intended Outboard Side" is not just about directionals or asymmetricals, but all tires:

Tires manufactured after September 1, 2009 must be labeled with the TIN on the intended outboard sidewall of a tire and either the TIN or partial TIN on the other sidewall ...

What specific information is required in a "partial TIN" ?

 

[Jetronic]

Your rant is dumb. As long as the date code is stamped somewhere into the tire, the legal obligation has been met. If the date code being on the outside is so important to you, politely tell this to the tire shop BEFORE they mount the tires. To me, this sounds like it's completely not the tire guys fault, it's YOUR FAULT. If you return to the shop on Monday to make the guy flip and re-balance the tires, PAY HIM FOR DOING IT! Do NOT go off on him like a crazy person like you did here.

One more thing, no one is going to sue you if your tire blows out and kills someone and they find that the date code was on the inside.

The date code on all of your meds is really what you should be checking.

When you buy directional tyres, you will either end up with 2 date codes on the inside or 2 tyres mounted backwards. I know what I prefer. Date codes are meaningless to me, I tend to buy tyres that are new models so I never end up with old stock anyway.

 

[Jetronic]

Precisely my point. If directional tire is also asymmetric (outside has a date) then you have left and right tires, like shoes.
Very inefficient from inventory management point of view.

Krzyś

And if you have different sizes front and back you end up having to buy 4 different tyres. Recipe for disaster.

 

[Aredeeem]

It probably helps in these situations to also give a little historical perspective, as sometimes the present moment seems very different from the past, which is often prologue. If the numb skulls and clowns want to label it a rant, that's their problem. I'm merely presenting it as a little tire, and a little safety, history.

In talking to colleagues who are still doing this, the industry is presently in one of its "happy times". Most manufacturers make a solid product, and there are no major industry catastrophes at the present. So it is easy for the good ol' boys in the Carolinas or Texas or elsewhere to sit and laugh at some of the things the regulators come up with, as all is generally well and peaceful. Especially those who don't remember or weren't around for some of the past catastrophes.

Installers and field techs are still getting into trouble today, but it is usually for really dumb things. Basic stuff, like improper tire repair.

But it's not and wasn't always that way. There appear to be cycles of times like we now have, where most of the tires are good with not too many "bombs", and periods about every 10-15 years or so that can best be described as "****storms", where a bad product and safety earthquake rocks the entire industry, right down to the field level.

My experience with it only goes back to about 1970 or so. But from the older hands, I've been told that there were some problems in the early 60s, when a couple ply were being peeled off the bias sidewalls to accommodate the growing market for low profile tires, and that weakened some sidewalls a little too much. But the 60s were mainly about the vehicles as far as safety things were concerned.

The first big "****storm" I was involved with was the first Firestone one in the mid to late 70s. And the way it works is that a really bad tire gets out there, not just a couple hundred, but a couple hundred thousand of them, people start getting injured and killed, there is a storm of litigation and ruthless scrutiny, the regulators eventually get involved, and then some changes are made that affect the industry going forward. The problem with the Firestones then was that the company got caught flatfooted in the radial takeover of the market, and rushed to make them in some places and on some equipment that they maybe shouldn't have, and also with some other design issues that degraded belt integrity over time. The tires were literally exploding. But don't think that installers weren't getting sucked into it. Victims look to drag in everyone in the product chain if they can. And tire makers are notorious for not admitting any fault or making any changes. It costs them a ton of money when they do. If they can deflect to others, they will.

And all that stuff above happened through the mid and later 70s, until Firestone finally agreed to a recall in 78. There were a lot of changes, in the manufacturing and across the field, and the industry was ratted. It basically wrecked what was the best run tire company in the late 60. And despite all that upheaval, there were still people driving around on 500s for a while. Crazy. But after that, we had a relatively "happy time" through the 80s and into the 90s, with (mainly) good tires. No really big ones hit for a while.

And then, it happened again. And everyone was shocked that it involved Firestone again, along with Ford, and the Explorer earthquake. Again, another ****storm. Tons of litigation, the regulators jumped in, Congress even dipped their beak in. And lots of field people always get sucked into the blame vortex, because that's how litigation goes. Ugly time. For everyone. And it's scary if you're anywhere close to it as a party.

And that second Firestone/Ford one was the impetus for a lot of the evolving tire labeling and recall reporting regulations we see today.

The pattern usually is, people get complacent during a happy time, eventually someone gets too sloppy or aggressive (often in the face of a combination of economic and technology changes), a really bad tire gets out there, and then the ****storm hits. Lots of people get heavily scrutinized for how they handled things, right down to the tire shops, and they dump some more rules and standards on to try and avoid it in the future. Rinse and repeat.

Since the second Firestone/Ford matter, things have not been too bad. The one sizable one in recent years involved a lot of badly made Chinese made tires coming in, and primarily some distributors got crushed over that one. But a lot of shops got sucked into that litigation vortex, too. It happens every time.

We're now still in a "happy time". So people can laugh and poke fun at the tire rules again. I'm retired, so I'm happy ,too.

Most of the recalls today, thankfully, are for technical flaws. Like not complying with some of those new placard rules. And that's a good thing.

It's just my sense, but it's a lot like the San Andreas fault. Earthquake, damage, repairs, change of standards, and then a calm period, before the next one after so much time. With the ongoing push into run flats, eco compounds and designs, and even the extra weight and wear loads that the new generations of battery powered cars are demanding, it's probably just another matter of time before the next big one. And maybe we're even a little overdue on one.

And whenever that happens, all the lawyers and regulators are going to be scrutinizing everyone involved again, looking for culprits and to shift blame, and looking to drop some more rules and standards on everyone. Maybe the next one won't be so bad as the last one, and that would be great. But history warns otherwise.

For the little mom and pop shop with kids in college and struggling to pay the mortgage and all the employees paid nowadays, these things can be a daunting situation when they hit. And it was in the past. Don't think the tire shops don't suffer when a really bad tire hits. Especially those wedded to a particular brand.

So the broader context for all of this is the past, which is easily forgotten. And I suspect a lot of it has been forgotten, or never known, especially for the younger drivers, who are used to generally good tires and few if any disasters. And also explaining the history of it, which always involved a lot of very nasty scrutiny, looking for any opening to get after anyone who might have been involved, if only to deflect the financial blame for it.

And that's why I pointed out these trivial new mounting decisions and tire labeling standards. Because when the next industry ****storm hits, as it inevitably will, they will be looking for any opening to drag people in. They will be looking for reasons, any reason, to spread the blame and the damages. Minor technical ones like these are enough to open the door and invite you in for the litigators. Even reasons that the younger clowns are laughing at now. Once they get you in, then you are forced to enjoy the ride, until your carrier settles, or worse. And just flipping the **** tires around is an easy one to avoid giving them an opening for the average installer. It only requires eyeballs.

I'm not planning to sue or yell at anyone over mine. I'll go back on Monday, have them remount the tires, and politely explain the reasons. Because I do look at the DOT codes when there is a recall, and I don't want to have to pull the wheels or put it on lift to do so. I'm too old to crawl under the cars anymore. And also for the next guy should I sell the vehicle.

So laugh away. As I said above, it's your business how you handle things, and your business how the system then handles you when it turns.

Well, it was fun chatting at BITOG for a few days. I've had enough for a while. You gentlemen can go back to arguing over motor oil and filters now.

If you were concerned about ever running out of tire failure litigation cases your latest BITOG foray should ease your mind.

 

[CapriRacer]

Paging @CapriRacer …

Yes, yes! I've been watching. I didn't feel the need to comment until now.

What specific information is required in a "partial TIN" ?

If I am reading the regulation correctly, the 8 or 9 digits of the 12 or 13 digits that are not the 4 digit date code.

********************************
(Obligatory, I am not a lawyer.)

I think what Vovlohead is saying is that tire shops should be aware that there exists some legal liability to mount tires correctly and among those things is mounting the TIN number outwards so it can be easily seen. The TIN (Tire Identification Number) is also called the DOT number or DOT code or serial number.

The way the current regulations read the tire manufacturer has to have the full TIN on the side intended out. That means the white side of a WSW, RWL, OWL, and not the black side. The regulation doesn't say the tire is required to be mounted in any particular orientation. Clearly, a dually set of tires is going to have a problem as each side of the tire is intended to be mounted out. Same with directional tires. Assymetrical tires will have a note on the sidewall saying "This Side Out" or words to that effect - and, of course, the full TIN will be on that side.

Further Volvohead is advocating the tire manufacturers be required to have the full TIN on both sides of the tire - not currently required. This was discussed thoroughly back in the early 2000's when the new regulations were proposed and what came out - and what is currently required - is only on the one side. I don't expect the regulations to be changed.

What I suspect is going to happen is that in litigation, the issue of partial TIN will be raised as a way to potentially hold tire installers at least partially responsible if a tire failure occurs. That means that tire dealers will hire folks like me to testify to the effect that a tire installer CAN'T install the TIN outboard in all cases. I won't go into the detail of what the testimony will include, but suffice it to say that the plaintiffs also have to hire an expert - and that costs money. Further, I don't think this is going to be fruitful for the plaintiff's attorney, so I am suggesting they shortcut the learning process and not start.

And in case you were wondering that last paragraph was a message for Volvohead and like-minded attorneys. By the same token, this whole thread should be a message to tire installers everywhere that they need to tighten up their training of employees.

 

[SubLGT]

...Further Volvohead is advocating the tire manufacturers be required to have the full TIN on both sides of the tire - not currently required. This was discussed thoroughly back in the early 2000's when the new regulations were proposed and what came out - and what is currently required - is only on the one side. I don't expect the regulations to be changed.....

Why are tire manufacturers opposed to having a full TIN on both sidewalls?

 

[SC Maintenance]

Why are tire manufacturers opposed to having a full TIN on both sidewalls?

I presume like everything else it costs more. Another 25 cents a tire that everyone bears, or the manufacturer eats.

How often do you need to look at your TIN. Most people never. If you have a car you don't use very often, then you maybe need the date code, or if there is a recall. For most people they never need to know - there is neither a recall and they mile their tires out long before age. So in most cases its a non productive cost. And you still have one if you ever really need it.

 

[krzyss]

My problem is:
How often a customer runs to their vehicle to check the TIN to make sure there is or there is not a recall?
Sell it as a service during change over? May be.
Tracking original buyers is a pain too as cars are sold, tires are sold. Notifying car owners is not perfect; tire owners is even more imperfect.

Krzyś

 

[CapriRacer]

Why are tire manufacturers opposed to having a full TIN on both sidewalls?

Here let me show you:

One TIN is easy to replace and the other is up inside a hot mold difficult to get to. Only the date code has to be changed, but it has to be changed every week.