My front right tire (stock Michelin) suddenly lost all of its air while
cruising along on a parkway. By the time I felt the loss (seconds) in my
steering and reaching the side of the road the tire was totally destroyed. I
changed it and took the tire to the nearest Michelin dealer thinking that it
would be replaced under the Michelin guarantee. The dealer examined the tire
and reported that there were no obvious reasons for the loss of air, no
punctures in the tread, valve appeared okay and concluded that somehow the
tire lost air due to some external force that could not be determined
because the tire was severely damaged. The sidewalls were shredded as if I
drove the car for a considerable distance on the flat tire. He spoke to
Michelin customer service and they offered to replace the tire for half the
cost ($100) of a new tire ($200). I think this is a very poor effort on
Michelin's part in support of their product. Since there is no evidence of a
puncture they are blaming the user for the failure instead of assuming the
doubt and replacing the tire, after all the tire could have failed due to
"poor workmanship or manufacturing defect"

Bottom line Michelin's guarantee is very explicit in stating what it will
"not" cover- everything or nothing depending on who reads it. If there is no
evidence of a puncture then Michelin assumes the tire is free of defects but
somehow was damaged from some external force ergo forget any guarantee.

At the end of the day I did not accept the Michelin offer because to do so I
would have had to sign a waiver of my rights giving up any recourse I may
have to recover my loss. I went to another Michelin dealer and purchased a
new tire for about the amount of the replacement tire offer from Michelin.
Has anyone experienced the tire guaranty mumbo jumbo and if so have you been
able to get some relief from the manufacturer???

BoB

--
BoB

 

"BoB De" <decabobnospam@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:x4cNb.32310$G04.6637561@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.n et...

> At the end of the day I did not accept the Michelin offer because to do so
I
> would have had to sign a waiver of my rights giving up any recourse I may
> have to recover my loss.

Which, had you accepted,would have been $100.

I went to another Michelin dealer and purchased a
> new tire for about the amount of the replacement tire offer from Michelin.

So, now you're at *two* trips to tire stores, and time at both, I'm
guessing.
For a hundred bucks?

What if the problem was with the _rim_? Why should Michelin be liable for
that?

 

"BoB De" <decabobnospam@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:x4cNb.32310$G04.6637561@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.n et...

> At the end of the day I did not accept the Michelin offer because to do so
I
> would have had to sign a waiver of my rights giving up any recourse I may
> have to recover my loss.

Which, had you accepted,would have been $100.

I went to another Michelin dealer and purchased a
> new tire for about the amount of the replacement tire offer from Michelin.

So, now you're at *two* trips to tire stores, and time at both, I'm
guessing.
For a hundred bucks?

What if the problem was with the _rim_? Why should Michelin be liable for
that?

 

"BoB De" <decabobnospam@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:x4cNb.32310$G04.6637561@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.n et...

> At the end of the day I did not accept the Michelin offer because to do so
I
> would have had to sign a waiver of my rights giving up any recourse I may
> have to recover my loss.

Which, had you accepted,would have been $100.

I went to another Michelin dealer and purchased a
> new tire for about the amount of the replacement tire offer from Michelin.

So, now you're at *two* trips to tire stores, and time at both, I'm
guessing.
For a hundred bucks?

What if the problem was with the _rim_? Why should Michelin be liable for
that?

 

"BoB De" <decabobnospam@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:x4cNb.32310$G04.6637561@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.n et...

> At the end of the day I did not accept the Michelin offer because to do so
I
> would have had to sign a waiver of my rights giving up any recourse I may
> have to recover my loss.

Which, had you accepted,would have been $100.

I went to another Michelin dealer and purchased a
> new tire for about the amount of the replacement tire offer from Michelin.

So, now you're at *two* trips to tire stores, and time at both, I'm
guessing.
For a hundred bucks?

What if the problem was with the _rim_? Why should Michelin be liable for
that?

 

You got the standard reply. I used to be a Firestone tire dealer. Now
days there isn't much that would be covered. About the only thing is
tread separation that has not resulted in total failure. Better to have
coverage with your car insurance. The guys I have delt with at State
Farm are much better at keeping their customers happy then any tire
company I know of. bob

Stephen Bigelow wrote:
>
> "BoB De" <decabobnospam@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:x4cNb.32310$G04.6637561@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.n et...
>
> > At the end of the day I did not accept the Michelin offer because to do so
> I
> > would have had to sign a waiver of my rights giving up any recourse I may
> > have to recover my loss.
>
> Which, had you accepted,would have been $100.
>
> I went to another Michelin dealer and purchased a
> > new tire for about the amount of the replacement tire offer from Michelin.
>
> So, now you're at *two* trips to tire stores, and time at both, I'm
> guessing.
> For a hundred bucks?
>
> What if the problem was with the _rim_? Why should Michelin be liable for
> that?

 

You got the standard reply. I used to be a Firestone tire dealer. Now
days there isn't much that would be covered. About the only thing is
tread separation that has not resulted in total failure. Better to have
coverage with your car insurance. The guys I have delt with at State
Farm are much better at keeping their customers happy then any tire
company I know of. bob

Stephen Bigelow wrote:
>
> "BoB De" <decabobnospam@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:x4cNb.32310$G04.6637561@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.n et...
>
> > At the end of the day I did not accept the Michelin offer because to do so
> I
> > would have had to sign a waiver of my rights giving up any recourse I may
> > have to recover my loss.
>
> Which, had you accepted,would have been $100.
>
> I went to another Michelin dealer and purchased a
> > new tire for about the amount of the replacement tire offer from Michelin.
>
> So, now you're at *two* trips to tire stores, and time at both, I'm
> guessing.
> For a hundred bucks?
>
> What if the problem was with the _rim_? Why should Michelin be liable for
> that?

 

You got the standard reply. I used to be a Firestone tire dealer. Now
days there isn't much that would be covered. About the only thing is
tread separation that has not resulted in total failure. Better to have
coverage with your car insurance. The guys I have delt with at State
Farm are much better at keeping their customers happy then any tire
company I know of. bob

Stephen Bigelow wrote:
>
> "BoB De" <decabobnospam@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:x4cNb.32310$G04.6637561@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.n et...
>
> > At the end of the day I did not accept the Michelin offer because to do so
> I
> > would have had to sign a waiver of my rights giving up any recourse I may
> > have to recover my loss.
>
> Which, had you accepted,would have been $100.
>
> I went to another Michelin dealer and purchased a
> > new tire for about the amount of the replacement tire offer from Michelin.
>
> So, now you're at *two* trips to tire stores, and time at both, I'm
> guessing.
> For a hundred bucks?
>
> What if the problem was with the _rim_? Why should Michelin be liable for
> that?

 

You got the standard reply. I used to be a Firestone tire dealer. Now
days there isn't much that would be covered. About the only thing is
tread separation that has not resulted in total failure. Better to have
coverage with your car insurance. The guys I have delt with at State
Farm are much better at keeping their customers happy then any tire
company I know of. bob

Stephen Bigelow wrote:
>
> "BoB De" <decabobnospam@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:x4cNb.32310$G04.6637561@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.n et...
>
> > At the end of the day I did not accept the Michelin offer because to do so
> I
> > would have had to sign a waiver of my rights giving up any recourse I may
> > have to recover my loss.
>
> Which, had you accepted,would have been $100.
>
> I went to another Michelin dealer and purchased a
> > new tire for about the amount of the replacement tire offer from Michelin.
>
> So, now you're at *two* trips to tire stores, and time at both, I'm
> guessing.
> For a hundred bucks?
>
> What if the problem was with the _rim_? Why should Michelin be liable for
> that?

 

It isn't about money but I am frustrated by the unresponsiveness of Michelin
to claim that it is not their problem. As an engineer I was never so certain
that the product I designed was never at fault and in 50 years of driving I
have never experienced a road hazard that completely destroyed a tire like
this one. Yes it could have been a faulty rim or any of many causes
including tire failure due to improper manufacture. But, I am dead in the
water unless I can afford a lawyer go to court and sue and maybe get the
tire replaced, so I am stuck replacing the tire at my cost and venting my
frustration for an unfair treatment of my problem.

BoB De

"Stephen Bigelow" <sbigelowPOV@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:NZdNb.148581$AAe1.21860@news01.bloor.is.net.c able.rogers.com...
>
> "BoB De" <decabobnospam@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:x4cNb.32310$G04.6637561@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.n et...
>
> > At the end of the day I did not accept the Michelin offer because to do
so
> I
> > would have had to sign a waiver of my rights giving up any recourse I
may
> > have to recover my loss.
>
> Which, had you accepted,would have been $100.
>
> I went to another Michelin dealer and purchased a
> > new tire for about the amount of the replacement tire offer from
Michelin.
>
> So, now you're at *two* trips to tire stores, and time at both, I'm
> guessing.
> For a hundred bucks?
>
> What if the problem was with the _rim_? Why should Michelin be liable for
> that?
>
>

 

It isn't about money but I am frustrated by the unresponsiveness of Michelin
to claim that it is not their problem. As an engineer I was never so certain
that the product I designed was never at fault and in 50 years of driving I
have never experienced a road hazard that completely destroyed a tire like
this one. Yes it could have been a faulty rim or any of many causes
including tire failure due to improper manufacture. But, I am dead in the
water unless I can afford a lawyer go to court and sue and maybe get the
tire replaced, so I am stuck replacing the tire at my cost and venting my
frustration for an unfair treatment of my problem.

BoB De

"Stephen Bigelow" <sbigelowPOV@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:NZdNb.148581$AAe1.21860@news01.bloor.is.net.c able.rogers.com...
>
> "BoB De" <decabobnospam@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:x4cNb.32310$G04.6637561@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.n et...
>
> > At the end of the day I did not accept the Michelin offer because to do
so
> I
> > would have had to sign a waiver of my rights giving up any recourse I
may
> > have to recover my loss.
>
> Which, had you accepted,would have been $100.
>
> I went to another Michelin dealer and purchased a
> > new tire for about the amount of the replacement tire offer from
Michelin.
>
> So, now you're at *two* trips to tire stores, and time at both, I'm
> guessing.
> For a hundred bucks?
>
> What if the problem was with the _rim_? Why should Michelin be liable for
> that?
>
>

 

It isn't about money but I am frustrated by the unresponsiveness of Michelin
to claim that it is not their problem. As an engineer I was never so certain
that the product I designed was never at fault and in 50 years of driving I
have never experienced a road hazard that completely destroyed a tire like
this one. Yes it could have been a faulty rim or any of many causes
including tire failure due to improper manufacture. But, I am dead in the
water unless I can afford a lawyer go to court and sue and maybe get the
tire replaced, so I am stuck replacing the tire at my cost and venting my
frustration for an unfair treatment of my problem.

BoB De

"Stephen Bigelow" <sbigelowPOV@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:NZdNb.148581$AAe1.21860@news01.bloor.is.net.c able.rogers.com...
>
> "BoB De" <decabobnospam@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:x4cNb.32310$G04.6637561@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.n et...
>
> > At the end of the day I did not accept the Michelin offer because to do
so
> I
> > would have had to sign a waiver of my rights giving up any recourse I
may
> > have to recover my loss.
>
> Which, had you accepted,would have been $100.
>
> I went to another Michelin dealer and purchased a
> > new tire for about the amount of the replacement tire offer from
Michelin.
>
> So, now you're at *two* trips to tire stores, and time at both, I'm
> guessing.
> For a hundred bucks?
>
> What if the problem was with the _rim_? Why should Michelin be liable for
> that?
>
>

 

It isn't about money but I am frustrated by the unresponsiveness of Michelin
to claim that it is not their problem. As an engineer I was never so certain
that the product I designed was never at fault and in 50 years of driving I
have never experienced a road hazard that completely destroyed a tire like
this one. Yes it could have been a faulty rim or any of many causes
including tire failure due to improper manufacture. But, I am dead in the
water unless I can afford a lawyer go to court and sue and maybe get the
tire replaced, so I am stuck replacing the tire at my cost and venting my
frustration for an unfair treatment of my problem.

BoB De

"Stephen Bigelow" <sbigelowPOV@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:NZdNb.148581$AAe1.21860@news01.bloor.is.net.c able.rogers.com...
>
> "BoB De" <decabobnospam@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:x4cNb.32310$G04.6637561@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.n et...
>
> > At the end of the day I did not accept the Michelin offer because to do
so
> I
> > would have had to sign a waiver of my rights giving up any recourse I
may
> > have to recover my loss.
>
> Which, had you accepted,would have been $100.
>
> I went to another Michelin dealer and purchased a
> > new tire for about the amount of the replacement tire offer from
Michelin.
>
> So, now you're at *two* trips to tire stores, and time at both, I'm
> guessing.
> For a hundred bucks?
>
> What if the problem was with the _rim_? Why should Michelin be liable for
> that?
>
>

 

"BoB De" <decabobnospam@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:2gfNb.35592$G04.7286302@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.n et...
> It isn't about money but I am frustrated by the unresponsiveness of
Michelin
> to claim that it is not their problem. As an engineer I was never so
certain
> that the product I designed was never at fault and in 50 years of driving
I
> have never experienced a road hazard that completely destroyed a tire like
> this one. Yes it could have been a faulty rim or any of many causes
> including tire failure due to improper manufacture. But, I am dead in the
> water unless I can afford a lawyer go to court and sue and maybe get the
> tire replaced, so I am stuck replacing the tire at my cost and venting my
> frustration for an unfair treatment of my problem.

What's your problem? They offered to give you 50% off the purchase price of
a new tire, yet you're complaining that they should do more.

You're saying IF you had the money, you'd get a lawyer to sue them for the
full amount of a new tire. A little bit ludicrous if you ask me (you didn't,
but, that's the bonus side of usenet, you get more than you asked for [for
free too]).

If you're willing to replace the tire out of your own pocket, why not take
them up on their 50% offer. Then still whine and cry that you were held up,
by the big bad tire manufacturer.

--
Brian
www.accesswave.ca/~orion

 

"BoB De" <decabobnospam@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:2gfNb.35592$G04.7286302@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.n et...
> It isn't about money but I am frustrated by the unresponsiveness of
Michelin
> to claim that it is not their problem. As an engineer I was never so
certain
> that the product I designed was never at fault and in 50 years of driving
I
> have never experienced a road hazard that completely destroyed a tire like
> this one. Yes it could have been a faulty rim or any of many causes
> including tire failure due to improper manufacture. But, I am dead in the
> water unless I can afford a lawyer go to court and sue and maybe get the
> tire replaced, so I am stuck replacing the tire at my cost and venting my
> frustration for an unfair treatment of my problem.

What's your problem? They offered to give you 50% off the purchase price of
a new tire, yet you're complaining that they should do more.

You're saying IF you had the money, you'd get a lawyer to sue them for the
full amount of a new tire. A little bit ludicrous if you ask me (you didn't,
but, that's the bonus side of usenet, you get more than you asked for [for
free too]).

If you're willing to replace the tire out of your own pocket, why not take
them up on their 50% offer. Then still whine and cry that you were held up,
by the big bad tire manufacturer.

--
Brian
www.accesswave.ca/~orion