anyone changed tires after this?

On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 13:23:57 -0600, Nicholas
> wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:52:23 -0600, "hls" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> I watched it. There was not a shred of evidence presented showing
>>> "old" tires were any more likely to come apart then new ones. All it
>>> shows is a lawyer who makes millions suing people making unsupported
>>> statements of danger. Industry groups who will benefit by making you
>>> throw away good tires and buy new ones, and of course, the news media
>>> who have to show stories to scare you, whether fact based or not, to
>>> get ratings. If there is research showing a statistically meaningful
>>> relationship between age (unused) and use why isn't it ever cited. The
>>> closest they came was showing a picture of an unidentified tire being
>>> spun on a machine while they said "research shows". What research,
>>> who did it, where can I get a copy, etc... I've had numerous "old"
>>> tires and have NEVER had a problem with them. On the other hand,
>>> we've had MANY NEW tires come flying apart, usually Firestones.
>>
>>I agree. To get back to the original post, months ago (or is it years now?)
>>I would have to go into the archives, and I may do that if I run out of
>>everything
>>else to do.
>
>I made the post couple/few years ago when I was *active* in this n/g,
>and caught a little flack for it. Posted by

>
>This is an OLD story, but I still don't know what to make of it. You
>hear that 40,000 die on highways in the US every year. How many are
>from tire failure? Nobody knows.
>
>Lg


All 40,000 died of speed too fast. After all, Cops with a GED are
experts at everything related to highways.

On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 15:15:04 -0600, "hls" > wrote:

>
>"Nicholas" > wrote in message
>>
>> I made the post couple/few years ago when I was *active* in this n/g,
>> and caught a little flack for it. Posted by
>>
>>
>> This is an OLD story, but I still don't know what to make of it. You
>> hear that 40,000 die on highways in the US every year. How many are
>> from tire failure? Nobody knows.
>>
>> Lg
>
>I remember you very well. I think you got a little irked at me when I told
>you
>my Michelins had 7 years on them and plenty of tread, and didnt intend to
>replace
>them.
>
>Finally, I did replace them, but they lasted a long long time.
>
>I am trying the high end Kumho's now. So far, they are excellent.

Never *irked* at you personally. I think I had just taken enough ****
from the Bob's to put me in a bad mood overall.

Yah tires are important. They are all that stand between us and death
when we're up to speed on the interstate. We should be able to trust
them with our lives.

I'm still running on my Continentals with 40K on them, good tread left
and since I keep it garaged, no UV damage or ozone degradation. I'm
surprised they have as much tread on them as they do, but then again,
I keep an eye on the tire pressures and adjust seasonally according to
weather conditions (hot/cold). I know Nate doesn't like em, but on my
Merc, they work a treat.

Anyhow, it's a complicated subject because there are so many players
in the market now. Chinese tires, US tires, who knows what else. My
next set will be Continentals as they were OEM on the vehicle, and I'm
sure that Ford/Lincoln/Mercury took time to get the right tires on
that car for good handling and best ride combination. Recalling 5
million tires isn't what anybody wants. Or if the ride isn't good to
begin with, the customer doesn't buy the vehicle to begin with. So
they're important for safety and sales. Often overlooked by the
average joe.

Happy holidays to you and the group, and wishing you a prosperous and
healthy 2010.

Lg

On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 14:46:45 -0700, Ashton Crusher >
wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 13:23:57 -0600, Nicholas
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:52:23 -0600, "hls" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> I watched it. There was not a shred of evidence presented showing
>>>> "old" tires were any more likely to come apart then new ones. All it
>>>> shows is a lawyer who makes millions suing people making unsupported
>>>> statements of danger. Industry groups who will benefit by making you
>>>> throw away good tires and buy new ones, and of course, the news media
>>>> who have to show stories to scare you, whether fact based or not, to
>>>> get ratings. If there is research showing a statistically meaningful
>>>> relationship between age (unused) and use why isn't it ever cited. The
>>>> closest they came was showing a picture of an unidentified tire being
>>>> spun on a machine while they said "research shows". What research,
>>>> who did it, where can I get a copy, etc... I've had numerous "old"
>>>> tires and have NEVER had a problem with them. On the other hand,
>>>> we've had MANY NEW tires come flying apart, usually Firestones.
>>>
>>>I agree. To get back to the original post, months ago (or is it years now?)
>>>I would have to go into the archives, and I may do that if I run out of
>>>everything
>>>else to do.
>>
>>I made the post couple/few years ago when I was *active* in this n/g,
>>and caught a little flack for it. Posted by

>>
>>This is an OLD story, but I still don't know what to make of it. You
>>hear that 40,000 die on highways in the US every year. How many are
>>from tire failure? Nobody knows.
>>
>>Lg
>
>
>All 40,000 died of speed too fast. After all, Cops with a GED are
>experts at everything related to highways.

Speed Kills. No doubt about it. Ever seen a car cut in two by a tree
by some guy who couldn't keep it on the road? I've driven by this
more than once.

Anyhow, cops have Interceptor Tires, rated for much higher speeds than
the stuff you and I buy. Same with their engines. Interceptor
engines. Their vehicles are hunter/predator vehicles, and are
designed for performance, not comfort. At least in the USA where I
live. Don't know about elsewhere. But if you want to torture test a
tire, put it on a New York City taxi cab ;0) Then again, they don't
do highway driving at hi speeds, so maybe they're not a good overall
choice.

The most important things are you wheels/tires and brakes. Everything
else is somewhere under those top two items of interest IMO, when it
comes to safety. And ironically, they may be the two things that most
people ignore the most.

Lg

"Nicholas" > wrote in message
> Happy holidays to you and the group, and wishing you a prosperous and
> healthy 2010.
>
> Lg

Thanks and the same to you. The manufacturer doesnt always pick the
"best" tires for you. I learned that with our Avalon. It came with
expensive
Michelins which lasted about 30K miles.

They had great adherence, and were quiet, but treadlife was not acceptable.

That is why I went to Kumho.

I dont mind trying something new, but I dont swallow the first hook that
goes in the water.

On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 16:17:53 -0600, Nicholas
> wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 14:46:45 -0700, Ashton Crusher >
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 13:23:57 -0600, Nicholas
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:52:23 -0600, "hls" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> I watched it. There was not a shred of evidence presented showing
>>>>> "old" tires were any more likely to come apart then new ones. All it
>>>>> shows is a lawyer who makes millions suing people making unsupported
>>>>> statements of danger. Industry groups who will benefit by making you
>>>>> throw away good tires and buy new ones, and of course, the news media
>>>>> who have to show stories to scare you, whether fact based or not, to
>>>>> get ratings. If there is research showing a statistically meaningful
>>>>> relationship between age (unused) and use why isn't it ever cited. The
>>>>> closest they came was showing a picture of an unidentified tire being
>>>>> spun on a machine while they said "research shows". What research,
>>>>> who did it, where can I get a copy, etc... I've had numerous "old"
>>>>> tires and have NEVER had a problem with them. On the other hand,
>>>>> we've had MANY NEW tires come flying apart, usually Firestones.
>>>>
>>>>I agree. To get back to the original post, months ago (or is it years now?)
>>>>I would have to go into the archives, and I may do that if I run out of
>>>>everything
>>>>else to do.
>>>
>>>I made the post couple/few years ago when I was *active* in this n/g,
>>>and caught a little flack for it. Posted by

>>>
>>>This is an OLD story, but I still don't know what to make of it. You
>>>hear that 40,000 die on highways in the US every year. How many are
>>>from tire failure? Nobody knows.
>>>
>>>Lg
>>
>>
>>All 40,000 died of speed too fast. After all, Cops with a GED are
>>experts at everything related to highways.
>
>Speed Kills. No doubt about it. Ever seen a car cut in two by a tree
>by some guy who couldn't keep it on the road? I've driven by this
>more than once.
>
>Anyhow, cops have Interceptor Tires, rated for much higher speeds than
>the stuff you and I buy.

Are you stuck in the 60's?? They have the same Z-rated tires that
come on most anything else. Due to drive shaft issues the cop crown
vics were, for several years, speed limited to less then 130 mph. I
used to drive almost that fast in a 70 Plymouth with low bid gvt bias
tires on it.


>Same with their engines. Interceptor
>engines.

Are you stuck in the 60's. Due to the cost of getting an engine
emission certified no one does "interceptor" engines anymore. They
are the same engines anyone else can buy. The only difference,
sometimes, is they may not offer that engine in the car unless it's
ordered as the police vehicle because they don't want to screw up
their CAFE number.


>Their vehicles are hunter/predator vehicles, and are
>designed for performance, not comfort.

The current PI Crown Vic is essentially the same as what anyone can
buy. The main difference now days between teh cop versions and
non-cop are higher output electric system to handle the lights and
radios and an added oil and ps cooler.

> At least in the USA where I
>live.

The 60's???

> Don't know about elsewhere. But if you want to torture test a
>tire, put it on a New York City taxi cab ;0) Then again, they don't
>do highway driving at hi speeds, so maybe they're not a good overall
>choice.
>

If you want to torture test a tire put it on something that carries a
lot of weight at high speed, such as the typical fat county sheriffs
car after the dumbfrick has packed in his morning dozen donuts.


>The most important things are you wheels/tires and brakes. Everything
>else is somewhere under those top two items of interest IMO, when it
>comes to safety. And ironically, they may be the two things that most
>people ignore the most.
>


At least your closing makes some sense.

>>This is an OLD story, but I still don't know what to make of it. You
>>hear that 40,000 die on highways in the US every year. How many are
>>from tire failure? Nobody knows.
>
>All 40,000 died of speed too fast. After all, Cops with a GED are
>experts at everything related to highways.

Nahh, a lot of them die from too much beer before driving and/or too
much attention paid to the cellphone and the hamburger they're eating.
Driving too fast for conditions is certainly right up there, though.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

<snip>



>> Anyhow, cops have Interceptor Tires, rated for much higher speeds than
>> the stuff you and I buy.
>
> Are you stuck in the 60's?? They have the same Z-rated tires that
> come on most anything else. Due to drive shaft issues the cop crown
> vics were, for several years, speed limited to less then 130 mph. I
> used to drive almost that fast in a 70 Plymouth with low bid gvt bias
> tires on it.


Actually, I have a 2006 Crown Vic P.I. car. The cop tires are very
different, to the tune of $350 per tire (Firestone 235R55/17), as
compared to the Firehawks I wound up buying at about $700 for a set of 4.



--
Steve Walker
(remove wallet to reply)

"Steve Walker" > wrote in message
...
> <snip>
>
>
>
>>> Anyhow, cops have Interceptor Tires, rated for much higher speeds than
>>> the stuff you and I buy.
>>
>> Are you stuck in the 60's?? They have the same Z-rated tires that
>> come on most anything else. Due to drive shaft issues the cop crown
>> vics were, for several years, speed limited to less then 130 mph. I
>> used to drive almost that fast in a 70 Plymouth with low bid gvt bias
>> tires on it.
>
>
> Actually, I have a 2006 Crown Vic P.I. car. The cop tires are very
> different, to the tune of $350 per tire (Firestone 235R55/17), as compared
> to the Firehawks I wound up buying at about $700 for a set of 4.

> --
> Steve Walker
> (remove wallet to reply)

I would guess the cops order the special packages on some of their units,
not on others, and the amount of equipment available used to be substantial.

My tires are rated at 168 mph, or more, just like the Michelins they
replaced.
Main difference is the OEM selected Michelin has a much poorer expected
tread life.

A couple of my friends, Porsche owners, essentially talked me out of buying
a Porsche, because they had to replace their tires at 10-15K miles, at about
$2100. It isnt Porsche's fault, really....mostly very specific purpose
tires
and possibly some over aggressive driving.

"jed" > wrote in message
...
> was just about to buy a new set from costco, have to look numbers little
> closer
>



I looked at the van and the tire they said failed, its an astro van that's
about
15-20 years old and the tire that failed looks like it was nearly bald.

I don't doubt that tires get harder and more likely to fail as they get
older,
but I think this guys old van had old shot tires on it when it crashed.
But there is no money in that so off to the ambulance chaser he goes.



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---