John Horner

jim beam wrote:
> Mike Hunter wrote:
>
>> You certainly are entitled to your opinion but a US Senate
>> investigation, numerous courts cases and admissions by the tire
>> manufacture involved in the court settlements, have proven that what
>> you believe that led you to that opinion, is wrong. Do some research
>> on Firestones tires, WBMA
>
>
> excuse me, but when is it ok for a vehicle to roll when a tire blows? i
> don't care if it's tread separation, broken bottle or gunshot, NO
> VEHICLE SHOULD EVER ROLL AS THE RESULT OF A FLAT.

Explorers and similar vehicles are top heavy and very easy to roll. My
neighbor just totaled her Explorer when it slid wide on a wet corner
(first rain of the season in California is a bad, bad thing). When the
car hit the curb, boom, over it goes.

People have been buying these tall vehicles thinking they are getting
safety, but what they are really getting is a much higher probability of
rolling over and the privledge of blocking the line of site for those of
use driving reasonable sedans and station wagons.

Several years ago my in-laws rolled their Explorer on a narrow road when
swerving to avoid an accident. That vehicle, and many similar ones, is
a top heavy monster with tall sidewall tires and is very, very easy to
roll. Neither of the two people I'm talking about are agressive
drivers and they have never rolled any of their other vehicles.

In the Firestone situation I see two problems. First, Firestone made a
bunch of tires which were more failure prone under high heat conditions
than are most tires. Second, the Explorer is a top heavy short vehicle
which is very easy to roll over. Combine the two and you have a bunch
of accidents.

John

Charlie S

What about your spare tire......it's probably never been out of the
trunk. It should have no sun damage.

Who replaces that compact spare after 10 years. I know I don't.

This subject is something to think about especially if you use your
spare on the freeway at over 70 MPH.




in Sat, 12 Nov 2005 01:19:46 GMT, Hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote:

>On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 15:24:47 -0800, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
>>
>> "Steve" <amkb@bnd.inv> wrote in message
>> news:v4t6n1prs0t6iao1328f825c60ua7nch0p@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> Excerpts from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113158615653093082.html
>>>
>>> Bridgestone has broken ranks with the rest of the US rubber industry
>>> in recommending a maximum life span for passenger and light-truck
>>> tires.
>>>
>>> In a recent technical bulletin to its dealers, the tire maker said all
>>> tires - including spares - that are more than 10 years old should be
>>> replaced, regardless of their external appearance. The company cited
>>> the same recommendation issued in September by the Japan Automotive
>>> Tire Manufacturers Association.
>>>
>>
>> <snip rest>
>>
>> I was under the impression that 10 years was standard on the life of a tire.
>> I bought a new spare a few years ago because the one I had (a full-size
>> spare) was in excess of 10 years old.
><Whistling...> (still has the original spare in his '85 Corolla GTS AND
>his '85 Celica GTS...)

Hachiroku

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 21:52:57 -0800, Charlie S wrote:

> What about your spare tire......it's probably never been out of the
> trunk. It should have no sun damage.
>
> Who replaces that compact spare after 10 years. I know I don't.
>
> This subject is something to think about especially if you use your
> spare on the freeway at over 70 MPH.

The '85 Rolla has a full size spare, the Celica a 'compact'...it's bigger
than a lot of REGULAR tires on other cars!!!

>
>
>
>
> in Sat, 12 Nov 2005 01:19:46 GMT, Hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 15:24:47 -0800, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Steve" <amkb@bnd.inv> wrote in message
>>> news:v4t6n1prs0t6iao1328f825c60ua7nch0p@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>> Excerpts from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113158615653093082.html
>>>>
>>>> Bridgestone has broken ranks with the rest of the US rubber industry
>>>> in recommending a maximum life span for passenger and light-truck
>>>> tires.
>>>>
>>>> In a recent technical bulletin to its dealers, the tire maker said all
>>>> tires - including spares - that are more than 10 years old should be
>>>> replaced, regardless of their external appearance. The company cited
>>>> the same recommendation issued in September by the Japan Automotive
>>>> Tire Manufacturers Association.
>>>>
>>>
>>> <snip rest>
>>>
>>> I was under the impression that 10 years was standard on the life of a tire.
>>> I bought a new spare a few years ago because the one I had (a full-size
>>> spare) was in excess of 10 years old.
>><Whistling...> (still has the original spare in his '85 Corolla GTS AND
>>his '85 Celica GTS...)

jim beam

John Horner wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> Mike Hunter wrote:
>>
>>> You certainly are entitled to your opinion but a US Senate
>>> investigation, numerous courts cases and admissions by the tire
>>> manufacture involved in the court settlements, have proven that what
>>> you believe that led you to that opinion, is wrong. Do some research
>>> on Firestones tires, WBMA
>>
>>
>>
>> excuse me, but when is it ok for a vehicle to roll when a tire blows?
>> i don't care if it's tread separation, broken bottle or gunshot, NO
>> VEHICLE SHOULD EVER ROLL AS THE RESULT OF A FLAT.
>
>
> Explorers and similar vehicles are top heavy and very easy to roll. My
> neighbor just totaled her Explorer when it slid wide on a wet corner
> (first rain of the season in California is a bad, bad thing). When the
> car hit the curb, boom, over it goes.
>
> People have been buying these tall vehicles thinking they are getting
> safety, but what they are really getting is a much higher probability of
> rolling over and the privledge of blocking the line of site for those of
> use driving reasonable sedans and station wagons.
>
> Several years ago my in-laws rolled their Explorer on a narrow road when
> swerving to avoid an accident. That vehicle, and many similar ones, is
> a top heavy monster with tall sidewall tires and is very, very easy to
> roll. Neither of the two people I'm talking about are agressive
> drivers and they have never rolled any of their other vehicles.
>
> In the Firestone situation I see two problems. First, Firestone made a
> bunch of tires which were more failure prone under high heat conditions
> than are most tires. Second, the Explorer is a top heavy short vehicle
> which is very easy to roll over. Combine the two and you have a bunch
> of accidents.
>
> John

ok, but let me ask again, why does it matter what brand the tire is? i
don't care if the tire's been shot out with a rocket propelled grenade
or if the tread has separated, the vehicle should not roll!!! and it
was known by the manufacturer that this vehicle had an exaggerated roll
propensity before it even went on sale. fact is, tire has nothing to do
with it. statistically, firestone had no greater failure rate than any
other tire, but the whitewash [and firestone's ineptitude at recognising
a political scapegoating exercise] made accusations of "it's the tire's
fault" stick. but hey, we all know that if the lie is big enough and
repeated often enough...