Forum Discussion

craigandsue's avatar
craigandsue
Explorer
May 16, 2013

China Bombs Got Me

I have read many posts about the poor quality of tires RV manufacturers are putting on new RV's. Well these tires (the infamous Tow Max Power King) blew on my 5er causing damage. I always check for proper inflation before traveling as I did this time. These tires were 2 years old with less than 2000 miles and were only exposed to the elements when at the dealer. I was driving 65 mph when it blew. I put on the spare and drove another 60 miles to my destination. I called the nearest Discount Tire and made arrangements for a new set of Michelin XPS Ribs to be installed prior to our trip home. On my way to the tire shop another bomb blew. When I finally made it to the tire shop, the tire folks inspected the remaining bombs and every one of them were separated except the spare. All would have blown on the trip home. I knew these were cheap tires but had no idea they were this bad. How do they allow tires like these to be on our roads. The manufacturers need to wake up and start putting decent tires on their new units.
Seeking Advice

81 Replies

Show More
  • afrescopXx's avatar
    afrescopXx
    Explorer
    May 26, 2013
    We owned a 2010 Crossroads Cruiser. In October, 2012, we had three of the four Tow Master tires blow within 20 miles. The damage was over $7,000. We now own a 2013 motorhome with Michelin XRV 22.5" tires. While there are no guarantees in this life except death, we'll take our chances with the Michelins.
  • CapriRacer's avatar
    CapriRacer
    Explorer II
    May 26, 2013
    fj12ryder wrote:
    That is some stretch of logic. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. FWIW it isn't obvious that a tire's speed rating is inversely related to its load rating. You've drawn that conclusion, but there's no reasons given to prove it's validity. Saying so does not make it so.

    Also the test you show says the 24-hour test is at 100% Load Capacity not a specific weight. So the 100% Load Capacity for an ST tire would 3400 lbs, not 3000 lbs. Still think that an ST tire could survive that? I don't.


    First, the point about speed vs load: The yearbooks published by the Tire and Rim Association have many references to the phenomenon. At the beginning of the section on LT tires, there's a table showing how to recalculate the maximum load for various speeds.

    So, No, I am not making this up.

    Second, if we are trying to compare tires, we need to get to an apples to apples comparison - and using the same "size" is a way to do that. This is particularly appropriate in that many people are replacing ST tires with LT tires of about the same size. They would use the same size if they could.

    So what I am trying to do is explore that. The fact that the rated load is different and the way the loads are rated are different is something that has to be dealt with appropriately.
  • fj12ryder's avatar
    fj12ryder
    Explorer III
    May 25, 2013
    That is some stretch of logic. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. FWIW it isn't obvious that a tire's speed rating is inversely related to its load rating. You've drawn that conclusion, but there's no reasons given to prove it's validity. Saying so does not make it so.

    Also the test you show says the 24-hour test is at 100% Load Capacity not a specific weight. So the 100% Load Capacity for an ST tire would 3400 lbs, not 3000 lbs. Still think that an ST tire could survive that? I don't.
  • CapriRacer's avatar
    CapriRacer
    Explorer II
    May 25, 2013
    JJBirish,

    There are a number of items in your post I would like to comment on, but in the interest of brevity, I’ll only focus on only one – one that I think is the key difference in our understanding of the DOT testing requirements. Perhaps we can find common ground.

    First, I hope it is clear that tire “size” plays a large role in the rated load of a tire regardless of tire type. Put another way, larger tires have more rated load than smaller tires – all other things being equal. In trying to compare rated loads of tires of different types, we need to also compare tires of the same “size”. I put the word “size” in quotes because the letters in front of the numbers (in my view) also are part of the “size” as they delineate the type of tire involved.

    When it comes to comparing LT tires and ST tires, there is a problem – very little commonality in “size”. I’m going to chose a “size” that is common to both LT’s and ST’s – 235/85R16 Load Range E:

    ST235/85R16 LR E: Max Load 3640# at 80 psi – with a speed restriction of 65 psi.

    LT 235/85R16 LR E: Max Load 3042# at 80 psi – and a common speed rating is Q = 99 mph.

    Notice the difference in rated loads and speed restrictions. I hope it is obvious that a tire’s speed capability is inversely related to its speed – that is, the higher the speed, the less load it is capable of carrying (all other things being equal) – and that is reflected above.

    So let’s take one of the DOT required LT tests and see how that plays out as far as load goes. How about this one:
    JJBIRISH wrote:
    .....=================================================

    Category B Endurance Test:

    (LT "E" tire at 50 PSI)
    4-hour test: 85% of tire maximum load rating at 75 MPH
    6-hour test: 90% of tire maximum load rating at 75 MPH
    24-hour test: 100% of tire maximum load rating at 75 MPH

    ……..

    For an LT235/85R16 Load Range E, the last step is 3042# load.

    But for an ST235/85R16 Load Range E, that’s only 84% of its rated load. Or put another way, it is only 110% of the maximum load at 50 psi.

    I think an ST tire can survive that last step.

    Comments?
  • JJBIRISH's avatar
    JJBIRISH
    Explorer
    May 24, 2013
    CapriRacer wrote:
    Sorry for the severe truncation, but I only wanted to comment on one part:
    JJBIRISH wrote:
    .....The real problem is the standard for DOT certification that sets minimum requirements for the tires safety… those minimum standards are the target that many aim for and all must meet….......


    I disagree. I am of the opinion that the standard DOT testing requirement doesn't mean the tires are safe - meaning relatively free of structural failure. In fact, it has been recognized within the tire industry that tires have to greatly exceed the DOT minimums in order to perform up to consumer satisfaction levels of nearly zero structural failures.

    As a starting point it has significant meaning when one tire is much less safe to begin with and the rules allow for it

    And just so you know, it appears that consumers expect tire failure rates to be less than about 0.01% - 1 out of 10,000 and the value has been dropping over time. You can not get that if you only meet the minimums.

    I doubt you would get failure rates much lower than 0.50% for LT truck tires although I am sure the goal in the P rated line of 0.01% is doable, while IMO the ST failure rate is in the 1.0% neighborhood…

    I am also of the opinion that ST tires can easily pass the LT tire DOT minimums - and vice versa. Where I think the problem lies is inexperience with what levels are acceptable in the marketplace. Many manufacturers think that passing the minimums is enough to assure the product (and this is not just
    about tires) is good enough - and that is just not so. While price drives a lot of initial acceptance, it is difficult to overcome a poor quality reputation.

    Here we don’t agree at all… the ST tire isn’t required to even do all of the safety test that the LT tire must pass… I think you are right that the LT could pass the required ST test but not visa-versa… even ST tires exceeding their requirements would struggle and most likely fail the minimum requirements for the LT…
    For comparison you can just look at the testing procedures that the ST tire goes through to be DOT certified for highway use, then compare the process the LT tire must pass and it’s pretty easy to see why the ST tire is problematic…

    Here is the short version of the testing they go through for that all important DOT certification…
    All testing for the ST tire is done at maximum tire air pressure…

    ================================================

    2-hour test: 88% of tire maximum load rating at 50 MPH
    30-minute test: 88% of tire maximum load rating at 75 MPH
    30-minute test: 88% of tire maximum load rating at 80 MPH
    30-minute test: 88% of tire maximum load rating at 85 MPH

    Now compare that to the testing for a LR E LT tire…

    =================================================

    Category B Endurance Test:

    (LT "E" tire at 50 PSI)
    4-hour test: 85% of tire maximum load rating at 75 MPH
    6-hour test: 90% of tire maximum load rating at 75 MPH
    24-hour test: 100% of tire maximum load rating at 75 MPH

    Low Inflation Endurance Test:

    (LT "E" tire at 37.7 PSI)
    90-minute test: 100% of maximum load rating at 75 MPH

    High Speed Performance Test

    (LT "E" tire at 60 PSI)
    30 minute test: 85% of maximum load rating at 87 MPH,
    30 minute test: 85% of maximum load rating at 93 MPH,
    30 minute test: 85% of maximum load rating at 99 MPH

    Note the all test for the ST were at full PSI and none of the test for the LT were…

    The problem is the trailer industry loves them because they can buy them cheap…
    The tire mfg. love them because they can build and sell them cheap…
    Buyers love them because they can buy them cheap…
    Tire and trailer industries ensure there is little interchangeability for light weight trailers (under 10,000 pounds) to keep you buying them…
    NHTSA has little incentive to raise the standards because they get few complaints and a lot of pressure from mfg.’s not to make changes…

    If we really want better, we need to demand better or it will never happen…
    We need to demand better from the trailer mfg. in OEM tires…
    We need to demand better from the tire mfg. to build a better trailer tire…
    We need to demand better from the regulators to require safer trailer tires…
    We need to demand it from ourselves, because until we do, it not only won’t get better but maybe will get worse…



    Tread separation is a tire problem not a ST tire problem… it is seldom caused by road hazard and mostly by an internal deficiency in the materials used or the build processes…
    Corrosion of the steel belts, old or improper adhesives, contamination of adhesives during the build process, lack of protective gum strips at the belts edge, no protective cap, misplacement of belts, all aid in or cause tread separation…
    Very often it is caused by poor quality materials and application of the inner liners themselves…

    While there are some on here that attempt to defend Chinese mfg. there is no doubt all of these problems are huge in Chinese tire mfg. plants…

    With the ST tire, I believe the problem of Chinese mfg. is magnified many times over because almost all of them are mfg. under a no-name off brand and private label companies with very little control of either material, or build quality, and the multi-level subcontracting, cheating in testing, and little to no accountability… even major companies with a physical presents there fight these same quality issues every day… importers of private label tires can never be sure one shipment will be like the last or the next, but they are cheap…. But you are correct in time it will improve, but it’s a long road because of the culture there where cheap equals quality….

    I'm afraid the Chinese have just started to learn this lesson - and in the case of tires, it requires a lot of effort (and cost) to figure out how get to that higher level. They will get there eventually, but by then some other country will have entered the market with low ball pricing (and poor quality). This is a pattern that I first saw with Japanese products in the 1950's and 60's - and continued with the Mexicans and the Koreans. I expect India to be next


    If we really want better, we need to demand better or it will never happen…
    We need to demand better from the trailer mfg. in OEM tires…
    We need to demand better from the tire mfg. to build a better trailer tire…
    We need to demand better from the regulators to require safer trailer tires…
    We need to demand it from ourselves, because until we do, it not only won’t get better but maybe will get worse…



    Tread separation is a tire problem not a ST tire problem… it is seldom caused by road hazard and mostly by an internal deficiency in the materials used or the build processes…
    Corrosion of the steel belts, old or improper adhesives, contamination of adhesives during the build process, lack of protective gum strips at the belts edge, no protective cap, misplacement of belts, all aid in or cause tread separation…
    Very often it is caused by poor quality materials and application of the inner liners themselves…

    While there are some on here that attempt to defend Chinese mfg. there is no doubt all of these problems are huge in Chinese tire mfg. plants…

    With the ST tire, I believe the problem of Chinese mfg. is magnified many times over because almost all of them are mfg. under a no-name off brand and private label companies with very little control of either material, or build quality, and the multi-level subcontracting, cheating in testing, and little to no accountability… even major companies with a physical presents there fight these same quality issues every day… importers of private label tires can never be sure one shipment will be like the last or the next, but they are cheap…. But you are correct in time it will improve, but it’s a long road because of the culture there where cheap equals quality….
    .
  • CapriRacer's avatar
    CapriRacer
    Explorer II
    May 24, 2013
    Sorry for the severe truncation, but I only wanted to comment on one part:
    JJBIRISH wrote:
    .....The real problem is the standard for DOT certification that sets minimum requirements for the tires safety… those minimum standards are the target that many aim for and all must meet….......


    I disagree. I am of the opinion that the standard DOT testing requirement doesn't mean the tires are safe - meaning relatively free of structural failure. In fact, it has been recognized within the tire industry that tires have to greatly exceed the DOT minimums in order to perform up to consumer satisfaction levels of nearly zero structural failures.

    And just so you know, it appears that consumers expect tire failure rates to be less than about 0.01% - 1 out of 10,000 and the value has been dropping over time. You can not get that if you only meet the minimums.

    I am also of the opinion that ST tires can easily pass the LT tire DOT minimums - and vice versa. Where I think the problem lies is inexperience with what levels are acceptable in the marketplace. Many manufacturers think that passing the minimums is enough to assure the product (and this is not just about tires) is good enough - and that is just not so. While price drives a lot of initial acceptance, it is difficult to overcome a poor quality reputation.

    I'm afraid the Chinese have just started to learn this lesson - and in the case of tires, it requires a lot of effort (and cost) to figure out how get to that higher level. They will get there eventually, but by then some other country will have entered the market with low ball pricing (and poor quality). This is a pattern that I first saw with Japanese products in the 1950's and 60's - and continued with the Mexicans and the Koreans. I expect India to be next.
  • 2012Coleman's avatar
    2012Coleman
    Explorer II
    May 24, 2013
    China Bombs Got Me
    Aint nobody got time for that!

    Sorry - just had to..
  • JJBIRISH's avatar
    JJBIRISH
    Explorer
    May 23, 2013
    CapriRacer wrote:
    I see this as a multi-level problem:

    1) We know that people don't do a good job of checking tire inflation pressures. We can verify that by looking at the results of surveys taken of tires in use.

    2) We also know that trailer manufacturers haven't done a good job of supplying tires that have enough rated load carrying capacity. We can verify that by looking at the results of surveys taken of trailer in use - usually done at the same time the tire pressure loads surveys are done.

    Side note: Either the trailer manufacturers need to do a better job of estimating the actual loading their trailers experience - OR - they need to do a better job of selecting tires that are rated to carry the loads the tires are being subjected to - or both! (Personally, I vote for both.)

    Further, there seems to be a misconception that a) tires are loaded evenly (based on many many comments about weighing the trailer then dividing by 4 to get the tire load) and b) that the tire load tables are recommendations (It says "maximum load" for a given inflation pressure)

    3) The tires themselves need to be further developed. I note with interest that most of the large tire manufacturers do not produce ST type tires. The only large manufacturers of note are Goodyear and Cheng Shin (Maxxis).

    So I think it is fair to ask about the weight of the trailer (See #1 and #2 above). I see this as less a criticism of the owner and more a step in helping sort out what the cause of the tire failure was - and we know that there is some overloading taking place.

    It's also fair to criticize the tire manufacturers.

    It's also fair to criticize the trailer manufacturers.

    I do not think there is a single answer to the broad question. I'll bet that the reason NHTSA hasn't done anything about ST tires (that we know of) is that they are aware of the loading issues and they are aware that very few trailer tire failures lead to personal injuries - and since "Traffic Safety" is what NHTSA is all about, the lack of personal injury reports doesn't make much of a case for their intervention.

    So I say again: If you have a tire failure, report it to NHTSA. They will not act unless there are a large number of reports.



    Let me start by saying I have used many ST trailer tires for many years and very many miles and have never had a single roadside tire failure… still using them…

    The OE Duro radials that came on my trailer had sidewall bulges on 3 tires in just a few months obviously some high quality Chinese manufacturing went into them…

    Another problem I had one time was rubber valve stems going bad and causing leakage… more fine Chinese quality manufacturing…

    Still the ST tire I use may not be of the same quality as SOME LT tires… the reason for that is the required standard for DOT certification is not as high for the ST tire as it is for other tires… I am relying on and trusting in the mfg. of my tires to far exceed those minimum standards and built me a quality tire… so far that seems to be what they have done for me and most others that use them…

    I truly believe that most of the catastrophic failures we read about are due to operator error or neglect or abuse, or from road hazard… I believe that is true for the ST tire as well as the LT tire, and often is preventable… IMHO tread separation is a major problem for the LT tire to although less than the ST…

    However almost all ST tires are mfg. in China where quality can always be questionable at best, and most of those tires are being mfg. without what has been known for many many years to be a critical part in radial tire construction (a full belt cap)… the full belt cap in curing acts like a piece of shrink-wrap over the steel belt, holding it in place and is the greatest aid in preventing separation for the life of the tire, especially at speed… to save cost most ST tire mfg. do not use this cap in their trailer tires, some use just edge strips instead and some may not use anything…
    While it has been only recently that some mfg. have started using full caps in some of their tire lines, like the new Carlisle…

    The real problem is the standard for DOT certification that sets minimum requirements for the tires safety… those minimum standards are the target that many aim for and all must meet…

    If you ask me, if they are going to be sold to use on the highway, the same minimum standard should apply to all tires on those highways…

    Nothing prevents a mfg. from exceeding those minimums, but to only pressure they get is from the trailer mfgs. demanding cost containment…
  • JJBIRISH's avatar
    JJBIRISH
    Explorer
    May 23, 2013
    powderman426 wrote:
    JJBIRISH wrote:
    The NEED for TPMS is due to lack of operator responsibility as it relates to safety issues…

    The ruling requiring them is to replace that lack of operator responsibility…

    There are no RV specific studies that have been done, but you can expect the results would be worse, as when they are unused, unseen, they are largely forgotten, and long periods of time and just sitting can add to the under inflation problem…

    That said TPMS are a good tool in the arsenal available to us and they do what the operator can’t while in motion… that is a good thing for sure…

    They still address only the air pressure, and only when in use…

    RV’s and especially trailer tires require more attention not less and not attention to air pressure only…

    Nothing scientific here, but my own observations and in talking to TPMS users, and reading different forums about them confirm that they promote less and fewer normal and visual inspections of our RV tires…

    It is my opinion that no matter what type you use or how well they work, this is over reliance on them and is counterproductive…

    Alarming a loss of air from a tire that has cracks in between the treads is help to late… cracked rubber valve stems are damaged from the outside and often visible and repairable before leaking begins… bulging sidewalls can often be seen and repaired before the tire blows out taking the underside of the trailer with it…

    I am not being critical of the TPMS or its value…

    I am being critical of the belief and often expressed idea that these things are the answer to our tire problems and overstating their value…




    I have pulled trailers with and without a TPMS and I can tell you I will never go without again. I agree that you should inspect your tires reularly, but doing that would not have helped when I picked up the 3" long bolt in my tire. Thankfully I had a monitor and was able to fix the problem BEFORE several thousnad dollars in damage had occurred. You can check and inspect your tires all you want and it wont help you one iota when you pickup something from the roadway.




    Picking something up from the roadway, as I said this is where they excel is when the vehicle is underway, but that usually results in a catastrophic loss of air, where the TPMS is of very little value in prevention, or the bolt remains in the tire and a slow leak takes place and normal inspections allow for a repair often even before the TPMS alarms…
    depending on the rate of the leak there certainly are times that the TPMS will alert the driver of the problem before the next fuel stop or overnight stop…

    I agree they are very effective in some situations and a great tool to have… but they are just a tool with a defined purpose like the lug wrench or air compressor are…

    Because of the editing by the administration, and the deletion of the post target, my post is like a fish out of water but I believe is still factual and important to say.. also the deletion and editing by the administration was proper and called for…
  • powderman426's avatar
    powderman426
    Explorer
    May 23, 2013
    JJBIRISH wrote:
    The NEED for TPMS is due to lack of operator responsibility as it relates to safety issues…

    The ruling requiring them is to replace that lack of operator responsibility…

    There are no RV specific studies that have been done, but you can expect the results would be worse, as when they are unused, unseen, they are largely forgotten, and long periods of time and just sitting can add to the under inflation problem…

    That said TPMS are a good tool in the arsenal available to us and they do what the operator can’t while in motion… that is a good thing for sure…

    They still address only the air pressure, and only when in use…

    RV’s and especially trailer tires require more attention not less and not attention to air pressure only…

    Nothing scientific here, but my own observations and in talking to TPMS users, and reading different forums about them confirm that they promote less and fewer normal and visual inspections of our RV tires…

    It is my opinion that no matter what type you use or how well they work, this is over reliance on them and is counterproductive…

    Alarming a loss of air from a tire that has cracks in between the treads is help to late… cracked rubber valve stems are damaged from the outside and often visible and repairable before leaking begins… bulging sidewalls can often be seen and repaired before the tire blows out taking the underside of the trailer with it…

    I am not being critical of the TPMS or its value…

    I am being critical of the belief and often expressed idea that these things are the answer to our tire problems and overstating their value…




    I have pulled trailers with and without a TPMS and I can tell you I will never go without again. I agree that you should inspect your tires reularly, but doing that would not have helped when I picked up the 3" long bolt in my tire. Thankfully I had a monitor and was able to fix the problem BEFORE several thousnad dollars in damage had occurred. You can check and inspect your tires all you want and it wont help you one iota when you pickup something from the roadway.

About RV Tips & Tricks

Looking for advice before your next adventure? Look no further.25,152 PostsLatest Activity: Aug 01, 2025