Shop refused to mount my tires

[IndyIan]

I think it comes down to this.
Some of us rarely see sustained 65 mph in even 80f.
We are not running anywhere near load rating.
Therefore if we keep air in the tires, we won't have a problem with a tire that is still rated in excess of our actual running conditions, but not as much as the OEM rating.

 

[CapriRacer]

First, I wonder why I didn't see this thread when it was first started. Was it in another subcategory?

Second, allow me to express sympathy towards the OP, exranger06. To arrive on time for an appointment, only to wait = bad. To find out that they won't perform the service = very frustrating.

But in the tire shop's defense, there are a couple of things I've picked up over the years.

Even signing a waiver isn't enough to absolve a tire shop of responsibility. The courts have ruled that tire shops have specialized knowledge that the average person lacks, and they can NOT avoid that responsibility.

Lawyers work on what they can make money on. (There are exceptions). If they think they can get money out of someone with deep pockets, then they will continue to press their case. A tire shop is pretty vulnerable - and they don't have particularly deep pockets.

And the idea of applying non-specified parts to a car opens a whole area of legal liability. Tire sizing and speed ratings create an opportunity for lawyers to work in. Knowing what I know, there is plenty of arguments to extract huge sums of money from people. The only thing a tire shop can do is follow the "rules" - and if they don't, their legal liability could be quite large.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Wow, what a pile!

Originally Posted By: raytseng
i didn't read through all 8 pages of spew that is in this thread,

But I didn't see anyone bring up the point that this is a business decision as much as it is for liability/lawsuits.

The cheapskates who are buying lower rated tires are also the same cheapskates who are going to be coming back for warranty claims when those tires (potentially) wear out slightly faster, as they are likely running hotter than their design even at 65mph.


Explain, in detail, EXACTLY why tires rated for 118MPH (or even 99MPH) will run "hotter than their design" at 65MPH. Be specific.

Quote:
Especially if it's the cheapskate who's buying on the internet and then showing up with tires the shop doesn't want to mount, who will jumpship to the cheapest place next time.
An in-person customer who at least is appreciating the store's business, and where the store can tell him up-front they will or won't do that mount.


If you do not want people to bring in mail-order tires, then you should not be a Tire Rack Preferred Installer!

Quote:
A business doesn't want to be dealing with that potential nonsense and it's a no-win situation where they either have an angry customer who's going to be posting on forums or yelp tarnishing their business or eating a warranty claim.
(e.g. the groupon effect)

Better to just nip it in the bud, and only want to have good customers and smooth business.

When I got V->H as the Michelin exalto a/s tire got discontinued; The manager let me know he wasn't going to give me the warranty, but this was in-person. (This is a bit more reasonable than (H->T) exception, especially since this was due to wanting a specific tire of exact same model, of a premium brand, and not just to save money.


So...in your world, would everyone with a 9C1 Caprice, an AHB Diplomat, or an older P71 Crown Victoria have to scrap their cars? Tires for those in the OE size and speed rating are no longer available anywhere at any price!

And again: when I replaced GY Assurances (H-rated) with Winterforce snows (S-rated) on my Magnum, nobody had a problem with that! When I replaced S-rated P-metrics on my Cherokee with Q-rated Treadwrights, no problem.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: IndyIan
I think it comes down to this.
Some of us rarely see sustained 65 mph in even 80f.
We are not running anywhere near load rating.
Therefore if we keep air in the tires, we won't have a problem with a tire that is still rated in excess of our actual running conditions, but not as much as the OEM rating.


I ran 80+ in 90-degree heat for most of two hours a few years back on T-rated tires (Cooper Cobra GT, 235/70R15) without a problem.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: CapriRacer
First, I wonder why I didn't see this thread when it was first started. Was it in another subcategory?


Yes.

Quote:
Second, allow me to express sympathy towards the OP, exranger06. To arrive on time for an appointment, only to wait = bad. To find out that they won't perform the service = very frustrating.

But in the tire shop's defense, there are a couple of things I've picked up over the years.

Even signing a waiver isn't enough to absolve a tire shop of responsibility. The courts have ruled that tire shops have specialized knowledge that the average person lacks, and they can NOT avoid that responsibility.

Lawyers work on what they can make money on. (There are exceptions). If they think they can get money out of someone with deep pockets, then they will continue to press their case. A tire shop is pretty vulnerable - and they don't have particularly deep pockets.

And the idea of applying non-specified parts to a car opens a whole area of legal liability. Tire sizing and speed ratings create an opportunity for lawyers to work in. Knowing what I know, there is plenty of arguments to extract huge sums of money from people. The only thing a tire shop can do is follow the "rules" - and if they don't, their legal liability could be quite large.


The gaping hole in your argument is, of course, that nobody thinks twice about putting S or T-rated (or even Q-rated!) winter tires on a car with H or V-rated OE tires! Been there and done that!

 

[yonyon]

What gaping hole is that? Winter tires are intended for use in cold weather. If you run your winter tires at high speed in hot weather and they fail it's your problem. The tire shop is protected because a reasonable person would not expect a winter tire to be suitable for high speed use in hot weather.

 

[Astro14]

There is no "gaping hole" in Capri Racer's post...it wasn't an argument...he's a tire engineer...he understands the speed ratings better than anyone else in this thread. He even talks about winter tires (used in cold weather) on his site.

 

[gaijinnv]

We are focusing on Speed Rating in this thread, but forgetting that a Speed Rating describes only one aspect of a tire's performance and we cannot ignore the effect the Speed Rating has on other aspects of a tire's performance.

For example; given two tires, appropriately sized for a vehicle, of the same design and type (e.g. P-Rated All-Season) and properly inflated. The difference is, one has a lower Speed Rating than the other.

Now run the car with each of these tires over a severe pot hole or other road hazard of your choice.

Which tire, the one with a higher Speed Rating or the one with the lower Speed Rating, is more likely to survive the encounter?

That's right - the one with the higher Speed Rating.

So, when car and tire manufacturers spec a tire for its "performance" on any given vehicle, they are also factoring in its ability to survive road hazards - not just matching the Speed Rating of the tire to the theoretical top speed of the vehicle.

Food for thought.

 

[tommygunn]

My car came with V-rated tires--and a 65 sidewall! At least there are a couple good options though. But, the top speed of my car is above 130 (the limit of the H-rating)

Used tire shops are much less likely to care about speed rating.

I also agree with this:
Originally Posted By: dishdude
I am sure if you walked in there to buy tires and all they had on the shelf were T rated tires, they would have had no problem installing them.


One of my pet peeves is (usually GM) cars that are governed to 110-ish yet come with Z-rated tires. There is no reason for that! S-rated tires would be just fine, maybe T, H at the most.

Although most government regulations can be silly, I do think they shouldn't be allowed to equip brand new cars with a speed limit more than one higher than the top speed of the car. For example, in my example above, if the car is limited to 110 mph (which is almost the 112-mph limit S), they wouldn't be allowed to go more than one rating higher than S, which would be T.

Japan limits all cars to 112 mph, which happens to coincide with the S rating. What is their policy on tire speed ratings?

 

[AdmdeVilleneuve]

Darn. I should not be in the garage thumbing through a manual with gloves on before typing things without gloves on.

Actually, the 2006 Civic manual has more forceful language on tire replacement with OE load range and speed rating than the 2002 Civic. I apologize for stating it does not.

But, my experience with DT and the info still on their site is puzzling to me given the stance of other vendors (Costco, etc).

Don

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: gaijinnv
We are focusing on Speed Rating in this thread, but forgetting that a Speed Rating describes only one aspect of a tire's performance and we cannot ignore the effect the Speed Rating has on other aspects of a tire's performance.

For example; given two tires, appropriately sized for a vehicle, of the same design and type (e.g. P-Rated All-Season) and properly inflated. The difference is, one has a lower Speed Rating than the other.

Now run the car with each of these tires over a severe pot hole or other road hazard of your choice.

Which tire, the one with a higher Speed Rating or the one with the lower Speed Rating, is more likely to survive the encounter?

That's right - the one with the higher Speed Rating.

So, when car and tire manufacturers spec a tire for its "performance" on any given vehicle, they are also factoring in its ability to survive road hazards - not just matching the Speed Rating of the tire to the theoretical top speed of the vehicle.

Food for thought.


How do you figure? The higher the speed rating, the stiffer the sidewall...less give in the sidewall means a harder impact...an S or T rated tire has softer sidewalls and they would be more likely to absorb the impact...so I would say just the opposite of what you said would be true...

 

[fdcg27]

Our '09 Forester came on V-rated tires even though it's governed to 100 mph.
Why would Subaru have used a more expensive tire than what the car's top speed would require?
I don't know, but I do know that Subaru knows more about the dynamics of the vehicle than I do, so when the time came to replace the original tires, it got V-rated tires.
The car's OEM will always know more about what the car needs than any of us will, except maybe CapriRacer.
I'm not inclined to try to save a couple of bucks on a set of tires by ignoring the recommendations of the manufacturer of the vehicle.
Tires are too cheap on a cost per mile basis to worry about the difference in cost between a tire with the recommended speed rating and a cheaper tire of a lesser speed rating.
Having written all of the above, I do know of at least one local shop that will mount anything you bring them at a reasonable cost and will do a nice balance as well.
Walmart ain't gonna do this, nor will most chain tire shops.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: yonyon
What gaping hole is that? Winter tires are intended for use in cold weather. If you run your winter tires at high speed in hot weather and they fail it's your problem. The tire shop is protected because a reasonable person would not expect a winter tire to be suitable for high speed use in hot weather.


Is it your contention that NOBODY runs snows all year?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Quote:
Why would Subaru have used a more expensive tire than what the car's top speed would require?


Either they got a great deal on them, or they met the three most common OE tire requirements (low noise, LRR, wearing like iron) better than others.

 

[yonyon]

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle

Is it your contention that NOBODY runs snows all year?


No. It is my contention that anyone running snows at highway speed in warm or hot weather should expect problems and is solely responsible for the result.

 

[Joe1]

The lesson to be learned is to be proactive and ask the shop owner if they will install a non-OEM approved part on a vehicle BEFORE scheduling an appointment.

What the OP experienced is a prevalent practice that has been discussed many times here.

 

[MCompact]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27

I'm not inclined to try to save a couple of bucks on a set of tires by ignoring the recommendations of the manufacturer of the vehicle.
Tires are too cheap on a cost per mile basis to worry about the difference in cost between a tire with the recommended speed rating and a cheaper tire of a lesser speed rating.


Exactly. I remember a thread I ran across in a Mustang forum a few years ago- some "high performance enthusiasts" were griping that a few local tire shops wouldn't mount S rated tires on their Mustang GTs.
Imbeciles...

 

[krzyss]

But they never exceed 55 in the left lane, so what is the problem?

Krzys

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: MCompact
Originally Posted By: fdcg27

I'm not inclined to try to save a couple of bucks on a set of tires by ignoring the recommendations of the manufacturer of the vehicle.
Tires are too cheap on a cost per mile basis to worry about the difference in cost between a tire with the recommended speed rating and a cheaper tire of a lesser speed rating.


Exactly. I remember a thread I ran across in a Mustang forum a few years ago- some "high performance enthusiasts" were griping that a few local tire shops wouldn't mount S rated tires on their Mustang GTs.
Imbeciles...


Now THAT I can understand, but a shop refusing to put "S" or "T" rated tires on a non-high performance vehicle is ridiculous...this is what happens when we allow lawyers to make all of our decisions for us....all common sense goes right out the window!

 

[RF Overlord]

Originally Posted By: yonyon
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Is it your contention that NOBODY runs snows all year?
No. It is my contention that anyone running snows at highway speed in warm or hot weather should expect problems and is solely responsible for the result.

But that's exactly the point of this thread; people who are stupid enough to run snow tires in July are exactly the same people who will cry "no one told me not to do that" and want to sue. Remember this is America, where everything is someone ELSE'S fault.