Accord EX V6 Tire problem
02-10-2004 | 01:20 AM
#31
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Accord EX V6 Tire problem
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 09:04:44 -0600, TL <tlehman@visi.com> wrote:
>I'd be frustrate too. You expect companies to stand behind products,
>and with a very new one, assume the benefit of the doubt in favor of
>the customer. Their offer of $100 was probably reasonable if the tire
>were priced fairly by the dealer. $200 for that tire is way out of
>line, I think. Or if they'd said half of the real cost, then you'd
>only be out $50.
>
>FYI, some years ago I hit a pick of metal on the interstate. I only
>know this because at the last minute I saw it just before I hit it. It
>had an angle and apparently angled up and cut through the sidewall of
>my tire. As with you, by the time I got to the side of the road, the
>tire was very chewed up. It was just happen chance that the place it
>cut was about the only part that hadn't been totally destroyed. So it
>is possible that you hit something.
>
>On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:46:38 GMT, "BoB De"
><decabobnospam@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>It isn't about money but I am frustrated by the unresponsiveness of Michelin
>>to claim that it is not their problem. As an engineer I was never so certain
>>that the product I designed was never at fault and in 50 years of driving I
>>have never experienced a road hazard that completely destroyed a tire like
>>this one. Yes it could have been a faulty rim or any of many causes
>>including tire failure due to improper manufacture. But, I am dead in the
>>water unless I can afford a lawyer go to court and sue and maybe get the
>>tire replaced, so I am stuck replacing the tire at my cost and venting my
>>frustration for an unfair treatment of my problem.
>>
>>BoB De
>>
>>"Stephen Bigelow" <sbigelowPOV@rogers.com> wrote in message
>>news:NZdNb.148581$AAe1.21860@news01.bloor.is.net .cable.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?
>>>
>>>
>I'd be frustrate too. You expect companies to stand behind products,
>and with a very new one, assume the benefit of the doubt in favor of
>the customer. Their offer of $100 was probably reasonable if the tire
>were priced fairly by the dealer. $200 for that tire is way out of
>line, I think. Or if they'd said half of the real cost, then you'd
>only be out $50.
>
>FYI, some years ago I hit a pick of metal on the interstate. I only
>know this because at the last minute I saw it just before I hit it. It
>had an angle and apparently angled up and cut through the sidewall of
>my tire. As with you, by the time I got to the side of the road, the
>tire was very chewed up. It was just happen chance that the place it
>cut was about the only part that hadn't been totally destroyed. So it
>is possible that you hit something.
>
>On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:46:38 GMT, "BoB De"
><decabobnospam@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>It isn't about money but I am frustrated by the unresponsiveness of Michelin
>>to claim that it is not their problem. As an engineer I was never so certain
>>that the product I designed was never at fault and in 50 years of driving I
>>have never experienced a road hazard that completely destroyed a tire like
>>this one. Yes it could have been a faulty rim or any of many causes
>>including tire failure due to improper manufacture. But, I am dead in the
>>water unless I can afford a lawyer go to court and sue and maybe get the
>>tire replaced, so I am stuck replacing the tire at my cost and venting my
>>frustration for an unfair treatment of my problem.
>>
>>BoB De
>>
>>"Stephen Bigelow" <sbigelowPOV@rogers.com> wrote in message
>>news:NZdNb.148581$AAe1.21860@news01.bloor.is.net .cable.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?
>>>
>>>
02-10-2004 | 01:20 AM
#32
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Accord EX V6 Tire problem
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 09:04:44 -0600, TL <tlehman@visi.com> wrote:
>I'd be frustrate too. You expect companies to stand behind products,
>and with a very new one, assume the benefit of the doubt in favor of
>the customer. Their offer of $100 was probably reasonable if the tire
>were priced fairly by the dealer. $200 for that tire is way out of
>line, I think. Or if they'd said half of the real cost, then you'd
>only be out $50.
>
>FYI, some years ago I hit a pick of metal on the interstate. I only
>know this because at the last minute I saw it just before I hit it. It
>had an angle and apparently angled up and cut through the sidewall of
>my tire. As with you, by the time I got to the side of the road, the
>tire was very chewed up. It was just happen chance that the place it
>cut was about the only part that hadn't been totally destroyed. So it
>is possible that you hit something.
>
>On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:46:38 GMT, "BoB De"
><decabobnospam@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>It isn't about money but I am frustrated by the unresponsiveness of Michelin
>>to claim that it is not their problem. As an engineer I was never so certain
>>that the product I designed was never at fault and in 50 years of driving I
>>have never experienced a road hazard that completely destroyed a tire like
>>this one. Yes it could have been a faulty rim or any of many causes
>>including tire failure due to improper manufacture. But, I am dead in the
>>water unless I can afford a lawyer go to court and sue and maybe get the
>>tire replaced, so I am stuck replacing the tire at my cost and venting my
>>frustration for an unfair treatment of my problem.
>>
>>BoB De
>>
>>"Stephen Bigelow" <sbigelowPOV@rogers.com> wrote in message
>>news:NZdNb.148581$AAe1.21860@news01.bloor.is.net .cable.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?
>>>
>>>
>I'd be frustrate too. You expect companies to stand behind products,
>and with a very new one, assume the benefit of the doubt in favor of
>the customer. Their offer of $100 was probably reasonable if the tire
>were priced fairly by the dealer. $200 for that tire is way out of
>line, I think. Or if they'd said half of the real cost, then you'd
>only be out $50.
>
>FYI, some years ago I hit a pick of metal on the interstate. I only
>know this because at the last minute I saw it just before I hit it. It
>had an angle and apparently angled up and cut through the sidewall of
>my tire. As with you, by the time I got to the side of the road, the
>tire was very chewed up. It was just happen chance that the place it
>cut was about the only part that hadn't been totally destroyed. So it
>is possible that you hit something.
>
>On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:46:38 GMT, "BoB De"
><decabobnospam@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>It isn't about money but I am frustrated by the unresponsiveness of Michelin
>>to claim that it is not their problem. As an engineer I was never so certain
>>that the product I designed was never at fault and in 50 years of driving I
>>have never experienced a road hazard that completely destroyed a tire like
>>this one. Yes it could have been a faulty rim or any of many causes
>>including tire failure due to improper manufacture. But, I am dead in the
>>water unless I can afford a lawyer go to court and sue and maybe get the
>>tire replaced, so I am stuck replacing the tire at my cost and venting my
>>frustration for an unfair treatment of my problem.
>>
>>BoB De
>>
>>"Stephen Bigelow" <sbigelowPOV@rogers.com> wrote in message
>>news:NZdNb.148581$AAe1.21860@news01.bloor.is.net .cable.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?
>>>
>>>
02-10-2004 | 01:20 AM
#33
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Accord EX V6 Tire problem
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 09:04:44 -0600, TL <tlehman@visi.com> wrote:
>I'd be frustrate too. You expect companies to stand behind products,
>and with a very new one, assume the benefit of the doubt in favor of
>the customer. Their offer of $100 was probably reasonable if the tire
>were priced fairly by the dealer. $200 for that tire is way out of
>line, I think. Or if they'd said half of the real cost, then you'd
>only be out $50.
>
>FYI, some years ago I hit a pick of metal on the interstate. I only
>know this because at the last minute I saw it just before I hit it. It
>had an angle and apparently angled up and cut through the sidewall of
>my tire. As with you, by the time I got to the side of the road, the
>tire was very chewed up. It was just happen chance that the place it
>cut was about the only part that hadn't been totally destroyed. So it
>is possible that you hit something.
>
>On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:46:38 GMT, "BoB De"
><decabobnospam@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>It isn't about money but I am frustrated by the unresponsiveness of Michelin
>>to claim that it is not their problem. As an engineer I was never so certain
>>that the product I designed was never at fault and in 50 years of driving I
>>have never experienced a road hazard that completely destroyed a tire like
>>this one. Yes it could have been a faulty rim or any of many causes
>>including tire failure due to improper manufacture. But, I am dead in the
>>water unless I can afford a lawyer go to court and sue and maybe get the
>>tire replaced, so I am stuck replacing the tire at my cost and venting my
>>frustration for an unfair treatment of my problem.
>>
>>BoB De
>>
>>"Stephen Bigelow" <sbigelowPOV@rogers.com> wrote in message
>>news:NZdNb.148581$AAe1.21860@news01.bloor.is.net .cable.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?
>>>
>>>
>I'd be frustrate too. You expect companies to stand behind products,
>and with a very new one, assume the benefit of the doubt in favor of
>the customer. Their offer of $100 was probably reasonable if the tire
>were priced fairly by the dealer. $200 for that tire is way out of
>line, I think. Or if they'd said half of the real cost, then you'd
>only be out $50.
>
>FYI, some years ago I hit a pick of metal on the interstate. I only
>know this because at the last minute I saw it just before I hit it. It
>had an angle and apparently angled up and cut through the sidewall of
>my tire. As with you, by the time I got to the side of the road, the
>tire was very chewed up. It was just happen chance that the place it
>cut was about the only part that hadn't been totally destroyed. So it
>is possible that you hit something.
>
>On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:46:38 GMT, "BoB De"
><decabobnospam@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>It isn't about money but I am frustrated by the unresponsiveness of Michelin
>>to claim that it is not their problem. As an engineer I was never so certain
>>that the product I designed was never at fault and in 50 years of driving I
>>have never experienced a road hazard that completely destroyed a tire like
>>this one. Yes it could have been a faulty rim or any of many causes
>>including tire failure due to improper manufacture. But, I am dead in the
>>water unless I can afford a lawyer go to court and sue and maybe get the
>>tire replaced, so I am stuck replacing the tire at my cost and venting my
>>frustration for an unfair treatment of my problem.
>>
>>BoB De
>>
>>"Stephen Bigelow" <sbigelowPOV@rogers.com> wrote in message
>>news:NZdNb.148581$AAe1.21860@news01.bloor.is.net .cable.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?
>>>
>>>
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
travishcecil
honda / acura
1
01-13-2008 06:39 AM
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)