Yes, I remember reading that, good article.Jalopnik had a write up about it years ago. The did some preliminary digging and how nobody was sent to prison boggles the mind.
Prison! People go to prison for few joints in some places.Jalopnik had a write up about it years ago. The did some preliminary digging and how nobody was sent to prison boggles the mind.
Goodyear also sold those G-159s to school bus and transit bus fleets(that weren’t leasing “mileage” tires that Goodyear and Firestone made just for buses). However, a school/transit bus usually doesn’t go faster than 55-65 on the highway, those buses see stop & go and city/suburban operation.Yes, I remember reading that, good article.
Long story short, Goodyear marketed tires rated for lighter and slower moving delivery vehicles like UPS trucks for the RV market. Heavier vehicles that drove at highway speeds which shouldn't have been using light duty rubber.
In Japan, you’re expected to apologize, take a bow, resign and forfeit a golden parachute. Maybe spend some time in the Tokyo pokey.Prison! People go to prison for few joints in some places.
Second, how is the chassis manufacturer or the RV converter not liable? Maybe they are, but they settled earlier to avoid the bad PR.
Goodyear would have known these chassis were being used for RVs though, and being a tire company, they should know whether they were acceptable or not.OK, a couple of things:
First, is that in the truck market, it's the buyer who specifies what tires are put on the vehicle - EXCEPT for vehicles not purposely built for customers. In those cases, it's the vehicle manufacturer who decides what tires go on.
In this case, the chassis was a bus chassis, which is usually used for intercity bus service. That is start and stop type of service, which the tires were designed for. The problem was that RV converters bought those chassis's and didn't change the tires out for something more suitable for RV service.
Ergo, I don't see how Goodyear was involved in the decision as to what tires were applied.
Second, how is the chassis manufacturer or the RV converter not liable? Maybe they are, but they settled earlier to avoid the bad PR.
Clearly Goodyear could have done a better job of handling this, but I just don't see this as a "defect". It's a "poor job of selecting tires" type of thing.
Goodyear would have known these chassis were being used for RVs though, and being a tire company, they should know whether they were acceptable or not.
Agreed. When ABC Motorhome Manufacturing Co. buys tires, maybe they’re going to be used on motorhomes.Did Goodyear install the tires on the vehicles?
If Goodyear knew they were being used in an inappropriate fashion, did they alert NHTSA or whoever the appropriate oversight body?
I know, contradictory. So while Goodyear may not have specified the tires or installed them, if they knew they were being used for an "on-road" application where they were not suitable and didn't at the very least notify the vehicle manufacturer and STOP sales, they own some of the liability here.
It's the old "what did you know and when did you know it" issue.
How is Goodyear supposed to know that tires they ship to chassis manufacturer S or F are ultimately going to be installed on RV manufacturer FRs Class A?
Agreed. When ABC Motorhome Manufacturing Co. buys tires, maybe they’re going to be used on motorhomes.
The Uniroyal tiger paw is the worst tire ever made imo.Apparently the Fed's finally twisted their arm, and Goodyear will replace/refund all G159 tires in that size
https://jalopnik.com/goodyear-finally-recalled-the-worst-tire-made-in-histor-1849028093/amp
Is it really the worst tire in history?
Because I remember the Firestone 500/721/Wilderness ATX being pretty awful