NTB rant

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: bdcardinal
those of us that own AWD cars and understand the need to have all 4 tires replaced together dont argue, just accept it and move on. its the uneducated or ignorant owners that get upset.

Good point. Unfortunately we have to arm ourselves for those people as they are the ones that cause us to make these rules
 
An FYI tire "speed ratings" are not required by law in the USA. They are required in Europe. The speed rating is really almost useless in the USA unless you are truly driving a Porsche or Vette. For general highway usage 99.8% of tires sold, even those without a speed rating for general purpose vehicles like cars and light trucks are fine for up to 100 mph during extended useage. And of course nobody should legally be driving over about 80 mph in any state.

The [censored] that some stores use concerning speed ratings is nonsense. It is about upselling you a more expensive tire.
 
I shopped at Costco for our Minivan tires and they did get out the torque wrench. The local Tires Plus did not, I reset the lugs when I got home.
 
Originally Posted By: Westerly
An FYI tire "speed ratings" are not required by law in the USA. They are required in Europe. The speed rating is really almost useless in the USA unless you are truly driving a Porsche or Vette. For general highway usage 99.8% of tires sold, even those without a speed rating for general purpose vehicles like cars and light trucks are fine for up to 100 mph during extended useage. And of course nobody should legally be driving over about 80 mph in any state.

The [censored] that some stores use concerning speed ratings is nonsense. It is about upselling you a more expensive tire.


Not true...many production sedans will easily go over 120mph and speed ratings are there for the protection of the uneducated consumer. I had an Infiniti Q45 that would do 155 with no problem.
 
Totally off topic of this except about "customers" suing at the drop of a hat even if you did no wrong. I can understand why shops stick with manufactures specs only. If you don't the bast*rds will sue your pants off for their stupidity. I work part time in a big box store and the [censored] people pull is unbelievable!!! The law is not on the retailer's side! The stupid idiot customer is always right sorry to say.

Whimsey
 
Originally Posted By: Whimsey
Totally off topic of this except about "customers" suing at the drop of a hat even if you did no wrong. I can understand why shops stick with manufactures specs only. If you don't the bast*rds will sue your pants off for their stupidity. I work part time in a big box store and the [censored] people pull is unbelievable!!! The law is not on the retailer's side! The stupid idiot customer is always right sorry to say.

Whimsey


True, and all the legal action would end up at the tire and auto manufacturers doorstep. Just ask anyone at Ford about the Firestone tire debacle.
 
And rightly deserved by Ford as they went against Firestone engineer's own recommendations to them as to what a safe tire pressure was for that vehicle/tire combo.
 
Originally Posted By: BrianWC
And rightly deserved by Ford as they went against Firestone engineer's own recommendations to them as to what a safe tire pressure was for that vehicle/tire combo.


Who ended up recalling their product? I don't think it was Ford...

Goodyear made a tire for the Explorer to the same Ford specifications, and it was recommended to be run at the same tire pressure, yet it didn't fail at the same miserable rate of the Firestone tires.

Also, Goodyear wasn't having a serious multi-year labor problem in the plant that made the majority of the tires that went on Explorers, as Firestone was. That plant was 45 miles away.
 
I'm not saying the boys from Decatur were blame-free. But Bridgestone/Firestone had also told Ford not to use the tires at 26 PSI. Well-aware of the fact that the Goodyears performed better at that pressure-it's what we switched to!
 
Originally Posted By: Donald
All these places should be using torque sticks these days to tighten up lug nuts.


Torque sticks aren't the solution. You can easily over torque lug nuts even with a torque stick. The torque stick can't compensate for a high power impact gun. 600 ft/lb and higher guns are very common these days and can easily overpower a torque stick.
I Tested them in my own shop and wouldn't allow the techs to use them.
 
As far as Costco goes- yes they even post the torque specs for your car-I purchased a couple of replacement Michelins for the Accord-the 5 lugs on one tire were so tight, I brought it back to em and asked it be done correctly. I found this out because they insist on putting the newer tires on the rear of the car--citing reasons such as reducing understeer-truth is, you'll be back sooner to purchase new rubber if they put the new ones on the back. I got home an rotated the new ones up front that is how I found the one 'tight' tire
 
When I was at GM they changed their policy when installing only 2 new tires. They insisted on installing the new tires on the rear as it was the 'safer' way to do it. The theory was you would feel the front traction fade and thus reduce speed. They also showed us all these videos of the same car driving around a wet course with different combinations of worn and new tires. With the new tires on the rear there was substantially less skidding from the rear due to the driver slowing down before he overpowered the worn tires on the front.

Perhaps Costco adopted their policy for the same reasons.
 
Originally Posted By: Rabbler
When I was at GM they changed their policy when installing only 2 new tires. They insisted on installing the new tires on the rear as it was the 'safer' way to do it. The theory was you would feel the front traction fade and thus reduce speed. They also showed us all these videos of the same car driving around a wet course with different combinations of worn and new tires. With the new tires on the rear there was substantially less skidding from the rear due to the driver slowing down before he overpowered the worn tires on the front.

Perhaps Costco adopted their policy for the same reasons.


Such policies are now common in the tire business. For those of you who disagree with putting the better tires on the rear of the vehicle, you can only thank those who can't take responsibility for their own actions, who sue others when things go wrong. Many of the same people who rant and rave about this issue would also seek legal recourse if they had an accident and could find a way to make someone else pay for their own cheapness and/or driving ineptitude.

It has been established that when tires are halfway through their tread life they get much worse wet traction than when new. Putting such tires on the rear of a vehicle while new or newer tires are on the front will lead to an oversteer condition when road surfaces are wet. Most people instinctively apply the brakes to slow down when they feel their vehicle losing control, but doing so when the rear of the vehicle is breaking loose from the road surface while the front is still maintaining traction can lead to a spin-out, which most people have a harder time recovering from than understeer induced plowing.

How is that controversial? Sure YOU may think you know better, but would YOU absolutely not sue if you lost control in the above-scenario, if legal precedent had been established (as it has in this case) and you knew you could get someone else to pay you money?

Personally, if I know that putting the more worn tires on the rear of a vehicle can expose me to such suits, and knowing that most people (or their lawyers) have the lottery/jackpot mentality, I couldn't care less how much you THINK you know, the good tires are going on the back or you're going somewhere else.
 
Originally Posted By: Big O Dave
Originally Posted By: Rabbler
When I was at GM they changed their policy when installing only 2 new tires. They insisted on installing the new tires on the rear as it was the 'safer' way to do it. The theory was you would feel the front traction fade and thus reduce speed. They also showed us all these videos of the same car driving around a wet course with different combinations of worn and new tires. With the new tires on the rear there was substantially less skidding from the rear due to the driver slowing down before he overpowered the worn tires on the front.

Perhaps Costco adopted their policy for the same reasons.


Such policies are now common in the tire business. For those of you who disagree with putting the better tires on the rear of the vehicle, you can only thank those who can't take responsibility for their own actions, who sue others when things go wrong. Many of the same people who rant and rave about this issue would also seek legal recourse if they had an accident and could find a way to make someone else pay for their own cheapness and/or driving ineptitude.

It has been established that when tires are halfway through their tread life they get much worse wet traction than when new. Putting such tires on the rear of a vehicle while new or newer tires are on the front will lead to an oversteer condition when road surfaces are wet. Most people instinctively apply the brakes to slow down when they feel their vehicle losing control, but doing so when the rear of the vehicle is breaking loose from the road surface while the front is still maintaining traction can lead to a spin-out, which most people have a harder time recovering from than understeer induced plowing.

How is that controversial? Sure YOU may think you know better, but would YOU absolutely not sue if you lost control in the above-scenario, if legal precedent had been established (as it has in this case) and you knew you could get someone else to pay you money?

Personally, if I know that putting the more worn tires on the rear of a vehicle can expose me to such suits, and knowing that most people (or their lawyers) have the lottery/jackpot mentality, I couldn't care less how much you THINK you know, the good tires are going on the back or you're going somewhere else.


So one installed do they ever get rotated?
 
Originally Posted By: bdcardinal
ive said it before, but im so glad i have an AWD car, dont have to deal with this at all. just get 4 new tires each time.


True. But with AWD such as our Haldex systems, you must rotate religiously to maintain very even tread depths, and if any tires short of a full set needs replacing, all the replacements must be shaved. Otherwise, wave bye-bye to the transfer case.
 
Originally Posted By: bdcardinal
ive said it before, but im so glad i have an AWD car, dont have to deal with this at all. just get 4 new tires each time.
You're so glad that you have to buy four tires even when they're not all needed?

It's like being glad for high taxes or extra long stop lights.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom