Francesca Knowles wrote:
Per mfr's recommendations for age of tires:
It's too bad the U.S.A. doesn't have a Rubber Manufacturers Association like the Brits do. These are the people that supply the material from which tires are MADE- not makers of the tire itself. Presumably they'd know what they're talking about in terms of the makeup up of the finished product.
According to Tire Rack's Tire Tech site(not Capriracer's private blog- the other one) these folks issued the following warning in 2001:
Tire Rack Tire Tech wrote:
The British Rubber Manufacturers Association (BRMA) recommended practice issued June, 2001, states "BRMA members strongly recommend that unused tyres should not be put into service if they are over six years old and that all tyres should be replaced ten years from the date of their manufacture."
I actually think that even if not "advertised", most American companies follow the same guidelines, at least when ASKED about the subject. This may be partly due to raised public awareness after ABC aired that 2008 video on the subject of overage tires being sold all over the country.
THAT was a public relations problem, and the industry has definitely adjusted....
There is an RMA in the US. One of the main reasons it will be difficult if not impossible for any tire company to come out with a hard number is the lawyers in the US. The moment one company states "x" years there will be thousands of lawsutes from people who bought tires with certain expectations of having "y" numbers of years service but now can't so they want a 100% refund.
The other reason is competition. Imagine for a moment that Michelin said 6 years, Bridgestone said 7 years and Goodyear said 66 months. Now since most buy tires based on cost so you take the price and divide by the number of years to make your buying decision. Do you want to try and be competative in that market?
In the US it is against the law for the tire companies to discuss and agree on a max tire age so no one wants to be first because the competators will simply go a few months longer and you will end up out of business. You cannot change to match the competition because that will result in millions of dollars of inventory being worthless.
Then what happens if A. you wear your tires out before the age limit? You will sue for a refund. B. you fail to properly inflate your tire and it fails before the age limit? The tire company now has to prove itself innocent and that the tire was not properly maintained. C. You take care of your tires, don't drive much and they still have 25% tead left when the clock runs out. Now if they fail for any reason you are responsible for all damage or for the accident etc because you didn't change the tires at the age limit. Are you prepared for someone to tell you that you have to replace your tires when you think they are OK?
On the engineering side the facts are that if you spend all your time in Ohio your tires will "age" at about half the rate of what you would see if you spent all your time in Florida. So now how would you monitor where the owner spent their time?
The other reality is that England is a bit smaller than Michigan so the temperature range (aging rate) is significantly more uniform than in the US. Read my post on
Tire Covers and at the end you can see a comment on different aging rates based on if you use covers or not.
In closing, DOT has been working for over 10 years trying to develop a simple, repeatable, aging test so they could include it in the regulations. So far, even with the support of the tire industry they have not found a test that takes even most of the variables into consideration never mind all the variables and the lawyers will sue if you don't consider all the possibilities.
