Tread Separation on Maxxis M8008
Has anyone experienced tread separation on Maxxis M8008 tires? I bought 4 of them in 2010 and just replaced 2 this past weekend do to separation. I am concerned because the 2 tires in question were ...
Forum Discussion
Me Again and GMW Photos (and anyone else who is interested in following this conversation),
First, there are 2 different situations being discussed:
1) What is called a "Property Damage Claim" - that is a claim where the tire failure caused damage to a vehicle. AKA, a "PDC".
Normally the tire manufacturer bypasses the dealer and handles the claim directly with the consumer - but there are some variations where the tire dealer might be involved.
Also, normally the tire manufacturer will want the tire back - along with documentation about the incident and the amount of damage. Regardless of what the determination is (that is, manufacturer at fault or not), it is required by the Federal Government that this be reported to them. But without the tire being returned, there isn't anything to report.
Usually the consumer can negotiate a settlement - even on a road hazard claim - so it is always worth the trouble to do so.
And just so you know, at one point in time, I was the guy who examined those tires.
2) A tire failure without damage to the vehicle. This is covered by the warranty. Please note that EVERY tire has a "materials and workmanship" portion of the warranty and even though there may be a time limit, the warranty period is usually long enough to make this issue of value to the consumer.
In this case, the tire dealer is directly involved. The tire dealer's incentive to do this is the money (credit) the tire manufacturer will give the dealer when the tire is returned. So, "No!", the dealer has a good reason NOT to throw the tire away.
And there is a reporting requirement for those tires as well - just like the PDC's. They are reported separately, in different formats, but they both have to be reported. Most people take this very seriously - and the folks that don't are risking some severe penalties.
But let's look at this from the tire manufacturer's point of view (and here I'm going to address the "Beta testing" remark).
I'm sure everyone is aware that there are minimal testing requirements for tires sold in the US - commonly called "DOT Tests". Those tests were based on standard industry tests - one of which is called a "Step Load" or Step-up Load".
This test consists of a tire mounted on a wheel and loaded against a test wheel at a certain load. The wheel turns at a certain speed for a certain length of time, then the load is increased and run for another increment of time. This is repeated until the tire reaches the rated load - at which point the tire passes the test.
But the industry tests continued increasing the load (in steps) until the tire failed - AND - (an important point) it is common for tire manufacturers to require their tires to meet some elevated level to assure that ALL their tires pass the test. While the government only does spot checks on compliance, there are severe penalties if the tire is found not to comply. (A recall at the very least, but there can be more penalties if needed.)
And another important point - it would not take very long for anyone observing tire performance to realize that passing the government minimums does NOT insure good tire performance. - AND - that the Step Load test can be indicator of the level of performance in the real world. This is where returning the failed tire to the manufacturer comes in.
Testing is great if it correlates to the real world. Returning the tire to the tire manufacturer not only gives the manufacturer a way to describe how the tire is performing, but it gives him a way to determine if his testing is producing the same kind of failures. If not, then the test needs to be modified.
I'll give you an example: In the process of trying to comply with the TREAD Act (the law that came out of the Ford/Firestone incident a few years back), the company I worked for developed a test which was faster to do. Unfortunately, it produced a failure mode that no one had ever seen - and more importantly, it did not produce the typical "belt leaving belt failure". Quick test, but of little value.
Further, improving the performance of a tire on the Step Load test results in an incremental improvement in field performance - as measured by the rate of return. Without these returns, the tire manufacturer will not know what the problem areas are and whether improvements actually worked.
And just so you know, at one point in time, I was the guy who analyzed the rate of returns and whether the improvements worked.
What I just described above was specific to tires, but the general system is applicable to virtually anyone offering a product or service. In other words, you won't know how you're doing if you don't get feedback. Even Starbucks offers a free coffee if you fill in an on-line form. It's their way of gauging things.
Now let's talk practical matters: Do tire dealers actually return failed tires to the manufacturer? For the most part, they do. They have contacts either directly with the manufacturer or through a distributor. Everyone involved is actively returning tires to the manufacturer. It's just part of the business.
First, there are 2 different situations being discussed:
1) What is called a "Property Damage Claim" - that is a claim where the tire failure caused damage to a vehicle. AKA, a "PDC".
Normally the tire manufacturer bypasses the dealer and handles the claim directly with the consumer - but there are some variations where the tire dealer might be involved.
Also, normally the tire manufacturer will want the tire back - along with documentation about the incident and the amount of damage. Regardless of what the determination is (that is, manufacturer at fault or not), it is required by the Federal Government that this be reported to them. But without the tire being returned, there isn't anything to report.
Usually the consumer can negotiate a settlement - even on a road hazard claim - so it is always worth the trouble to do so.
And just so you know, at one point in time, I was the guy who examined those tires.
2) A tire failure without damage to the vehicle. This is covered by the warranty. Please note that EVERY tire has a "materials and workmanship" portion of the warranty and even though there may be a time limit, the warranty period is usually long enough to make this issue of value to the consumer.
In this case, the tire dealer is directly involved. The tire dealer's incentive to do this is the money (credit) the tire manufacturer will give the dealer when the tire is returned. So, "No!", the dealer has a good reason NOT to throw the tire away.
And there is a reporting requirement for those tires as well - just like the PDC's. They are reported separately, in different formats, but they both have to be reported. Most people take this very seriously - and the folks that don't are risking some severe penalties.
But let's look at this from the tire manufacturer's point of view (and here I'm going to address the "Beta testing" remark).
I'm sure everyone is aware that there are minimal testing requirements for tires sold in the US - commonly called "DOT Tests". Those tests were based on standard industry tests - one of which is called a "Step Load" or Step-up Load".
This test consists of a tire mounted on a wheel and loaded against a test wheel at a certain load. The wheel turns at a certain speed for a certain length of time, then the load is increased and run for another increment of time. This is repeated until the tire reaches the rated load - at which point the tire passes the test.
But the industry tests continued increasing the load (in steps) until the tire failed - AND - (an important point) it is common for tire manufacturers to require their tires to meet some elevated level to assure that ALL their tires pass the test. While the government only does spot checks on compliance, there are severe penalties if the tire is found not to comply. (A recall at the very least, but there can be more penalties if needed.)
And another important point - it would not take very long for anyone observing tire performance to realize that passing the government minimums does NOT insure good tire performance. - AND - that the Step Load test can be indicator of the level of performance in the real world. This is where returning the failed tire to the manufacturer comes in.
Testing is great if it correlates to the real world. Returning the tire to the tire manufacturer not only gives the manufacturer a way to describe how the tire is performing, but it gives him a way to determine if his testing is producing the same kind of failures. If not, then the test needs to be modified.
I'll give you an example: In the process of trying to comply with the TREAD Act (the law that came out of the Ford/Firestone incident a few years back), the company I worked for developed a test which was faster to do. Unfortunately, it produced a failure mode that no one had ever seen - and more importantly, it did not produce the typical "belt leaving belt failure". Quick test, but of little value.
Further, improving the performance of a tire on the Step Load test results in an incremental improvement in field performance - as measured by the rate of return. Without these returns, the tire manufacturer will not know what the problem areas are and whether improvements actually worked.
And just so you know, at one point in time, I was the guy who analyzed the rate of returns and whether the improvements worked.
What I just described above was specific to tires, but the general system is applicable to virtually anyone offering a product or service. In other words, you won't know how you're doing if you don't get feedback. Even Starbucks offers a free coffee if you fill in an on-line form. It's their way of gauging things.
Now let's talk practical matters: Do tire dealers actually return failed tires to the manufacturer? For the most part, they do. They have contacts either directly with the manufacturer or through a distributor. Everyone involved is actively returning tires to the manufacturer. It's just part of the business.
