This tire any good still?

[rshunter]

Originally Posted By: CVette
HAHAHAHAHAHA @ rshunter.

IMO, your family's safety is not worth riding on the tire any longer. Replace it!

There's nothing like the threat of liability to tip the balance in the customer's favor.

Good customer relations, and the potential for positive "word-of-mouth", should have precluded such a thread. This is really just bad business practice by CT.

 

[dishdude]

It doesn't take long to scuff a tire like that on the outside, but what matters is what is on the inside that you can't see. If they just plugged the tire from the outside, I would be nervous.

If they actually dismounted it and patched it from the inside, then hopefully someone knowledgeable checked the inside.

I would take it back and have it dismounted and inspected by someone qualified.

 

[jje]

The valve was replaced, so it was dismouted on at least one side. Probably only that one side. I dont know if it was inspected as she took it there herself. I expect they did have a look at it, but we didn't watch them do it.

As soon as I can I'll go over there and ask them, but it's a big store and unlikely to find the kid who did it. I might be able to inspect myself on my own (I have that equipment available, when there's time to do it) and look for abrasion on the inside.

 

[rshunter]

The fact that the OP can detect a noticeable difference in the structure of the sidewall says a lot. The scuffed area would be the point that was forced against the road surface, which also means that this is the point at which the internal reinforcements were essentially folded in half. They are not designed to be subjected to these kind of conditions. A reduction in the rigidity of the structure of the sidewall suggests that there has been a delamination of the internal layers.

 

[ravenchris]

Looks like you will be the village idiot if anybody gets harmed because you did not take this very suspect tire out of service.

 

[rpn453]

If it looks bad enough to concern you, I'd say you should replace it. Cheap peace of mind.

Originally Posted By: rshunter
There's nothing like the threat of liability to tip the balance in the customer's favor.


Except you'd probably just get laughed at for talking like that in Canada! We don't really do the frivolous lawsuit thing here.

 

[rshunter]

Originally Posted By: rpn453
Except you'd probably just get laughed at for talking like that in Canada! We don't really do the frivolous lawsuit thing here.

It's nice to see that people in Canada have become so mellow that killing someone, by leaving a damaged product in service, is no big deal. This would explain CT's attitude, though. Now those speeders, those guys should go to jail and have everything they own seized, according to the head of the OPP.

It only proves things have become worse since the days when my family lived in Newfoundland. My father asked a friend, who was with the RCMP, what he thought would happen if he went out and planted a flag on this island and declared its independence. The response? "Don't do it. We'd probably surrender, and then you'd have to take care of all of us..." Sad, but true.

 

[Mr Nice]

For less than $60 installed, its wise just to replace it.

 

[addyguy]

When I worked at WM, anytime you could see a 'line' like this on the tire, 90% of the time it was damaged enough on the inside to replace. Not always, but most of the time. An inspection of the inside of the tire is needed.

 

[rpn453]

Originally Posted By: rshunter
It's nice to see that people in Canada have become so mellow that killing someone, by leaving a damaged product in service, is no big deal.


It would certainly be a big deal if all that happened but, at this point, threatening a lawsuit toward some nobody working at a large chain store for an unlikely future event while in a country where civil lawsuits are uncommon and where they don't pay out ludicrous amounts of money anyway would probably lead the person behind the counter to think you're irrational. You'd probably do better by expressing your safety concerns to them and seeing how confident they are that the tire is truly safe. The people working there are probably just following corporate procedures and are not going to provide any special treatment based on the threat of a highly theoretical lawsuit. If they thought the tire was safe in the first place, that's not going to change their mind. However, it wouldn't be a bad idea to confirm that they actually looked closely at the inside of the tire and have confidence that the tire is okay, and if the tire still doesn't seem safe to you, you'd be wise to change it regardless of their opinion.

Any idea why the valve may have broken, jje? Combined with the safety concerns, if the CT-installed valve may have been defective or improperly installed, I'd be surprised if you couldn't get a comparable new tire at a pro-rated cost without too much effort.

 

[Audi Junkie]

It's not bad.

 

[rshunter]

Well, the comment was more a "tongue-in-cheek" reference to impressing upon them the potential ramifications. I'd never be so literal to some guy who, in the grand scheme of things, amounts to a nobody. The point is that most guys in such a position are looking at nothing more than what their margins are.

Ultimately, the point is that when CT provides a warranty, it shouldn't half-@ss its fulfillment of its obligations under that warranty. As long as the OP has a concern for the safety of the tire, CT should do what is necessary to alleviate that concern. Personally, I'd contact CT corporate, express my concerns, and ask that they stand behind their supposed coverage.

No slight meant to Canada, or Canadians, by my previous comments, BTW. Some of my fondest memories are of my childhood in Canada, I'm just appalled at what's being done to the place and the attitudes toward individual's rights and protections...

Cheers

 

[Lorenzo]

Originally Posted By: jje
... it seemed weaker to the touch at the white line than nearer to the tread or nearer to the bead ...
That's your answer, go ahead and replace it.

 

[gregmp]

In all honesty, that tire is probably fine. It doesnt' even appear as if it is missing any rubber. If belts were damaged, it would show up soon enough. Just keep your eye on it.

I've had tires that looked much worse with no problems from them. If you want the best safety from your tires, buy new ones when they are only half worn out.

 

[rpn453]

Originally Posted By: rshunter
Well, the comment was more a "tongue-in-cheek" reference to impressing upon them the potential ramifications. I'd never be so literal to some guy who, in the grand scheme of things, amounts to a nobody. The point is that most guys in such a position are looking at nothing more than what their margins are.

Ultimately, the point is that when CT provides a warranty, it shouldn't half-@ss its fulfillment of its obligations under that warranty. As long as the OP has a concern for the safety of the tire, CT should do what is necessary to alleviate that concern. Personally, I'd contact CT corporate, express my concerns, and ask that they stand behind their supposed coverage.


I hear you, and I don't disagree, but the OP hasn't yet presented any concerns to the CT store, so I don't think they can be demonized at this point. Anyway, I simply had a mental image of myself standing in line at the CT parts counter while the guy in front of me rants to the kid at the counter about suing the corporation, and I figured I'd be laughing in that situation. My initial comment came across more offensively than I intended. Really, it might not even be that unusual to hear people in Canada talk about lawsuits outside of the land of socialist auto insurance (Saskatchewan).

Originally Posted By: rshunter
No slight meant to Canada, or Canadians, by my previous comments, BTW. Some of my fondest memories are of my childhood in Canada, I'm just appalled at what's being done to the place and the attitudes toward individual's rights and protections...


I doubt it has changed that much. Sure, the Ontario police now have the ability to stomp on the rights of someone who is speeding in a customized car or had a couple beers yet isn't legally drunk, but those sorts of knee-jerk laws are not exclusive to Canada.

 

[jje]

I went to the store. The person I talked to assured me that they had definitely inspected the tire for everything you've talked about here, that they wouldn't let something unsafe out the door for risk of failure. I won't get anywhere with that store now, really.

I guess I'll have to take it into work and inspect it internally myself. Like several have said already, in their experience there isn't a problem, but I'm still leaning toward replacing it with a new tire (myself).

 

[rshunter]

Originally Posted By: rpn453
My initial comment came across more offensively than I intended. Really, it might not even be that unusual to hear people in Canada talk about lawsuits outside of the land of socialist auto insurance (Saskatchewan).

It's interesting to see how much the missing non-verbal ques affect a conversation on-line. I've seen guys get into absolute e-fights when they were actually agreeing with each other.

It's funny, but my dad misses the cheaper auto insurance. Then again, he never had to make use of it...

Originally Posted By: rpn453
I doubt it has changed that much. Sure, the Ontario police now have the ability to stomp on the rights of someone who is speeding in a customized car or had a couple beers yet isn't legally drunk, but those sorts of knee-jerk laws are not exclusive to Canada.

I'm looking forward to spending some time in maritime Canada this summer. I really miss the place, to tell the truth.

I hear you, about the "knee-jerk" laws. It looks like we're about to make many in the world look like amateurs at the practice. The people who've been coming here as "medical tourists" may have to start looking elsewhere. I won't even mention the personal freedoms issues, as it's depressing enough as it is...

 

[jje]

Yesterday a friend of mine who's worked in a tire store for the past 6 years had a look at the outside of the tire. He said what some of you said: it does not look bad at all, he has seen worse do just fine, but an inspection of the inside would be needed. Also watch for any signs of a bubble forming if the rubber separated at all from the carcass - even with that there's lots of warning time. In fact, in his opinion CT (more even than the long-running business he still works for) wouldn't let out a product that has poses a safety risk - their reputation is paramount, and if anything it's in their interest to sell another tire. I appreciate first-hand knowledge like his and from others in this thread.

So today I took it off the rim to look at it. The outside (the side in the pictures) is a lot better to look at now. The inside side (the one that faces the driver) is about 1/3 as scuffed. curb-rash kind of scuffed.

The interior of the tire, except for a little bit of a shine where the rim would have rubbed, didn't have any sign of wear or contact at all. None, if I hadn't looked for something in that exact line, it wouldn't have been seen.

I'll keep it as is, and see how it goes. It doesn't look at least now, with the inspection and observation from experienced people inthe field, that there would be anything to worry over.

 

[RacerE7773]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete

Hard to say. If it were me, I'd get it replaced.