Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to groupPost Subject:
tires older than 6 years old could kill you
check the date of manufacture on your tires. If there is a number on a
tire say 434 (the last number after a long list of numbers and
letters) then the tire was manufactired in the 43rd week of 1994 if
the number is 2505 then the tire was manufactured in the 25th week of
2005. According to ABC news 20/20 any tire older than 6 years old
could separate and you could lose control of your vehicle and be
killed.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/popup?id=4819387
tire say 434 (the last number after a long list of numbers and
letters) then the tire was manufactired in the 43rd week of 1994 if
the number is 2505 then the tire was manufactured in the 25th week of
2005. According to ABC news 20/20 any tire older than 6 years old
could separate and you could lose control of your vehicle and be
killed.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/popup?id=4819387
In article <8af5e441-6097-4bfc-911b-fe3c7a471884@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
<boxing@sasktel.net> wrote:
>check the date of manufacture on your tires. If there is a number on a
>tire say 434 (the last number after a long list of numbers and
>letters) then the tire was manufactired in the 43rd week of 1994 if
>the number is 2505 then the tire was manufactured in the 25th week of
>2005. According to ABC news 20/20 any tire older than 6 years old
>could separate and you could lose control of your vehicle and be
>killed.
>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/popup?id=4819387
Where does that six year number come from? Somebody just pulled it out
of a hat, that's where.
I have seen tread separation on tires that were poorly stored, in much
less than six years. I have also seen tires much older with no separation
issues.
What you want to see is a plot of the separation incident rate versus the
age of the tires so you can make an informed decision for yourself rather
than just taking a scalar number from a reporter.
In addition, if you are driving older tires, or even if you are driving
brand new tires, you should inspect your tires whenever you check the air
pressure, which should be pretty often. Pay attention to how the car
drives. Often with tire problems you will get a good bit of warning that
something is wrong, but too many drivers just ignore the signs and keep
driving.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
<boxing@sasktel.net> wrote:
>check the date of manufacture on your tires. If there is a number on a
>tire say 434 (the last number after a long list of numbers and
>letters) then the tire was manufactired in the 43rd week of 1994 if
>the number is 2505 then the tire was manufactured in the 25th week of
>2005. According to ABC news 20/20 any tire older than 6 years old
>could separate and you could lose control of your vehicle and be
>killed.
>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/popup?id=4819387
Where does that six year number come from? Somebody just pulled it out
of a hat, that's where.
I have seen tread separation on tires that were poorly stored, in much
less than six years. I have also seen tires much older with no separation
issues.
What you want to see is a plot of the separation incident rate versus the
age of the tires so you can make an informed decision for yourself rather
than just taking a scalar number from a reporter.
In addition, if you are driving older tires, or even if you are driving
brand new tires, you should inspect your tires whenever you check the air
pressure, which should be pretty often. Pay attention to how the car
drives. Often with tire problems you will get a good bit of warning that
something is wrong, but too many drivers just ignore the signs and keep
driving.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
boxing@sasktel.net wrote:
>
> check the date of manufacture on your tires. If there is a number on a
> tire say 434 (the last number after a long list of numbers and
> letters) then the tire was manufactired in the 43rd week of 1994 if
> the number is 2505 then the tire was manufactured in the 25th week of
> 2005. According to ABC news 20/20 any tire older than 6 years old
> could separate and you could lose control of your vehicle and be
> killed.
> http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/popup?id=4819387
The only tire I've ever had that self destructed spectacularly was
relatively new. Probably about 3 or 4 years old with about 30K miles on
it. It did so at 70 MPH on an SUV. It didn't kill me. In fact, it wasn't
that big a deal to pull over onto the shoulder.
Sure, an old tire may be more likely to blow out than a new one. But if
you don't panic, its no big deal. So I'm going to run them down to
minimum tread depth. As long as I keep them properly inflated and
rotated and check them for bumps, I don't care how old they get.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: This publication is the sole property of monkey #108765
and his typewriter. It does not represent the opinions of any other
primate, either alive or dead, or any descendants thereof.
>
> check the date of manufacture on your tires. If there is a number on a
> tire say 434 (the last number after a long list of numbers and
> letters) then the tire was manufactired in the 43rd week of 1994 if
> the number is 2505 then the tire was manufactured in the 25th week of
> 2005. According to ABC news 20/20 any tire older than 6 years old
> could separate and you could lose control of your vehicle and be
> killed.
> http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/popup?id=4819387
The only tire I've ever had that self destructed spectacularly was
relatively new. Probably about 3 or 4 years old with about 30K miles on
it. It did so at 70 MPH on an SUV. It didn't kill me. In fact, it wasn't
that big a deal to pull over onto the shoulder.
Sure, an old tire may be more likely to blow out than a new one. But if
you don't panic, its no big deal. So I'm going to run them down to
minimum tread depth. As long as I keep them properly inflated and
rotated and check them for bumps, I don't care how old they get.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: This publication is the sole property of monkey #108765
and his typewriter. It does not represent the opinions of any other
primate, either alive or dead, or any descendants thereof.
On May 10, 3:38 am, box...@sasktel.net wrote:
> check the date of manufacture on your tires. If there is a number on a
> tire say 434 (the last number after a long list of numbers and
> letters) then the tire was manufactired in the 43rd week of 1994 if
> the number is 2505 then the tire was manufactured in the 25th week of
> 2005. According to ABC news 20/20 any tire older than 6 years old
> could separate and you could lose control of your vehicle and be
> killed.http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/popup?id=4819387
That show is long decoding tire manufacture date and woefully short on
information actually showing a correlation between age and dangerous
deterioration. It's sensationalist reporting that I would expect to
see on the cover of a National Enquirer and not from ABC News.
> check the date of manufacture on your tires. If there is a number on a
> tire say 434 (the last number after a long list of numbers and
> letters) then the tire was manufactired in the 43rd week of 1994 if
> the number is 2505 then the tire was manufactured in the 25th week of
> 2005. According to ABC news 20/20 any tire older than 6 years old
> could separate and you could lose control of your vehicle and be
> killed.http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/popup?id=4819387
That show is long decoding tire manufacture date and woefully short on
information actually showing a correlation between age and dangerous
deterioration. It's sensationalist reporting that I would expect to
see on the cover of a National Enquirer and not from ABC News.
On May 16, 10:05 am, "*" <nos...@this.addy.com> wrote:
> n/m
Does n/m stand for Not Mature? Just a guess...
> n/m
Does n/m stand for Not Mature? Just a guess...
John S. <hjsjms@cs.com> wrote in article
<3a1b1cd2-686e-4396-aac2-67dced7a8066@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>...
On May 16, 10:05 am, "*" <nos...@this.addy.com> wrote:
> n/m
Does n/m stand for Not Mature? Just a guess...
----------
Believe what you wish, but at least I can read the newspapers and tire
trade publications that outlined the practice of certain Chinese tire
builders of NOT including the bonding layer between the tread and carcass
which caused NEW tires to come apart at Interstate speeds.
I thought most intelligent people realized that n/m stood for "no message",
but I guess I failed to account for the non-intelligent.
On May 17, 9:41 am, "*" <nos...@this.addy.com> wrote:
> John S. <hjs...@cs.com> wrote in article
> <3a1b1cd2-686e-4396-aac2-67dced7a8...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>...
> On May 16, 10:05 am, "*" <nos...@this.addy.com> wrote:
>
> > n/m
>
> Does n/m stand for Not Mature? Just a guess...
>
> ----------
>
> Believe what you wish, but at least I can read the newspapers and tire
> trade publications that outlined the practice of certain Chinese tire
> builders of NOT including the bonding layer between the tread and carcass
> which caused NEW tires to come apart at Interstate speeds.
>
> I thought most intelligent people realized that n/m stood for "no message"=
,
> but I guess I failed to account for the non-intelligent.
After having posted a message with no content and reading your
response it would appear both Not Mature and No Message still apply.
> John S. <hjs...@cs.com> wrote in article
> <3a1b1cd2-686e-4396-aac2-67dced7a8...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>...
> On May 16, 10:05 am, "*" <nos...@this.addy.com> wrote:
>
> > n/m
>
> Does n/m stand for Not Mature? Just a guess...
>
> ----------
>
> Believe what you wish, but at least I can read the newspapers and tire
> trade publications that outlined the practice of certain Chinese tire
> builders of NOT including the bonding layer between the tread and carcass
> which caused NEW tires to come apart at Interstate speeds.
>
> I thought most intelligent people realized that n/m stood for "no message"=
,
> but I guess I failed to account for the non-intelligent.
After having posted a message with no content and reading your
response it would appear both Not Mature and No Message still apply.
"*" <nospam@this.addy.com> writes:
>n/m
Are they exploding tyres made with gunpowder impregnated into the rubber?
8-)
Craig.
--
Craig's Saab C900 Page at | Craig's Classic Saab Workshop - Sydney .au
http://lios.apana.org.au/~c900 | http://www.classicsaab.net and other URL's
Email: c900@lios.apana.org.au | For Saab 99/C900/9000 Enthusiasts World-Wide!
Alternate: saabonaut@gmail.com | Web-forums, galleries, library, links, etc.
>n/m
Are they exploding tyres made with gunpowder impregnated into the rubber?
8-)
Craig.
--
Craig's Saab C900 Page at | Craig's Classic Saab Workshop - Sydney .au
http://lios.apana.org.au/~c900 | http://www.classicsaab.net and other URL's
Email: c900@lios.apana.org.au | For Saab 99/C900/9000 Enthusiasts World-Wide!
Alternate: saabonaut@gmail.com | Web-forums, galleries, library, links, etc.
