What constitutes a "new" tire?

I agree/6-9 months is quite acceptable. Then do your part afterwards by taking care of them.

grldst wrote:

Bill.Satellite wrote:
They are new! Where is Toyo manufactured? If it's still Japan, how would you expect to find tires that are a month old? I have not looked into Toyo in many years so if they are now US built (not just distributed) I apologize!

Big TOYO tire plant about 20 miles north of Atlanta. Don't know just what tire sizes are made there but its a big plant.

Tires date stamped 6-9 months old are fine.

Have a set of 295/75R22.5's 10 years old on the back of my Kenworth T600. I use it to pull our 5ht with with. There still 70% thread on them. No dry rot nor showing any uneven wear. I will be swapping them out in a week or so. Not because I'm scared of them, just found a set of 14 month old tires for $125. each. These will last me longer then I need them. Or I sure hope so.
Now steer tires a different story. I lost a Steer tire a year ago Feb. That tire was only 14 months old. Still think I hit something unseen on the road. That was my second steer tire blowout over the last 40 years. First time was a 3900 mile Michelin steer tire. We got a bad batch of them in 1985. This last one was a Toyo. Replaced both with new Toyo's after that. Got lucky ordered them offline and they were 7 weeks old.
Now if I swap over to a Class A. Not sure I would take the chance of 10 year old tires. But would sure sure run them out to say 7 years. As long as there not showing dry rot.

Jarlaxle wrote:
Anyone throwing away good tires because they passed some magic age, I'll take them!

im getting rid of six 10 year old samsons 275/70/22.5 next Tuesday.

the new tires were born 4820 and im ok with that

Anyone throwing away good tires because they passed some magic age, I'll take them!

Just following up to say thanks for the tips...I bought the 6-month old Toyo's and all is well.

I too would be okay for 6 months. I look hard at my tires at 5 years and aim for full replacement at 7. Likely start swapping one each time inspected at year 5 so I don't get a killer 2K bill all at once. I just got a road hazard flat after rolling over what looks like a huge nail, maybe a spike of sorts. 2.5 years old from date of purchase, with 1670 miles on them. Awaiting claim decision on reimbursement. You need read that in another thread. It was quite an ordeal. Corporate is working it for me now. But talk about disconnects on a routine situation.

JALLEN4 wrote:
I'll tell you what doesn't make sense...this ridiculous misinformation that keeps getting spread about tire age on forums. If I still owned a tire store instead of being retired I would love it! At the current rate of travel, people on here will be advocating yearly tire replacements sometime in the near future!

The 5-6 year window is a myth to begin with. No less than Michelin, probably the worlds most trusted tire company, says 5-6 years is when tires should have a yearly INSPECTION. They state tires can last ten years but should be inspected for tread separation, bulges, etc annually after five years.

The reason tires deteriorate is because of UV exposure and exposure to the elements while in use. Tires stored in a warehouse certainly are not aging at the same rate as tires traveling down the road. Tires stored on a vehicle parked in a garage are not aging at the same rate as those sitting uncovered in a wide open parking lot.

Tires fail most often because they have been damaged while in use or because they are run at improper air pressures for their use. There is simply no reason to worry about a few months old new tire being installed as the aging process is no where equivalent to one in use. There are a ton of logistical reasons why tires are not immediate production line to mounting on a vehicle. By the same token there are a ton of reasons tire aging is not linear from the production line to the end of usability. People would be much better served to be concerned about tracking tire air pressures, weight load, and annual inspection instead of these amateur "the sky is falling predictions" you find on forums such as these.

Well I think he 5 year recommendation on trailer tires is accurate. Anyone that has had a tire go bad has been at the 5-6 year mark. You can't see the belts inside a trailer tire so an inspection doesn't tell you everything. But that is how I found a shifted belt on one of my 5 year old trailer tires. ST tires see different loads than a car/t I know/MH tire does. So that is why it is recommended. And you can't feel a tire going bad on a trailer because it is far behind you.

No my MH tires I will run until I see an issue. But yes hey should always be inspected. I found my failed tire when chocking it at a campground.

JRscooby wrote:

fijidad wrote:

Ivylog wrote:
I would settle for tires up to 6 months old as new. Requiring one month, especially on a tire not made in the US is probably impossible. Only RVers are obsessed with the age of tires, especially if you replace at 6-7 years.

Thanks Ivylog. This is the first time I'll be replacing tires on a MH, so appreciate the well-reasoned response.

I think if I had a MH that used 22.5 or 24.5 tires I would talk to a local trucking co, offer to trade my original tires for some that had 50% tread. Tires that are 2 years old, and half tread will age out before wear out, in 4 years instead of 6. Win win

Well how many of you MISSED this is Class A MH?
The OP is likely looking at a less common tire size, so getting 30 day old tires is not likely going to happen, maybe six months. He is likely looking at true TRUCK tires, that a trucking operator would buy, run the tread down, then have capped at least a couple times.

valhalla360 wrote:

CapriRacer wrote:

valhalla360 wrote:

CapriRacer wrote:
It is a commonly held belief within the tire industry that any tire within 6 years of the manufacture date can be sold as "NEW". I say "belief" because I know of no data that supports (or denies) this.

6 yrs or 6 months.

I seriously doubt you could get a manufacture to go on record saying a 6yr old tire is like new.

Also, are you talking about legally or realistically? Legally, new products that have not been sold before are considered "new". Find a dealer with a 1985 Ford Ranger that's been sitting at the back of the lot never sold, the dealer can legitimately sell it as new but realistically, they aren't going to lie and say it's a 2021 model.

If you read the rest of the post, I said they TESTED the tires and could not find a difference after 3 years. They did not test beyond that because they wanted to set a policy of 3 years and wanted data to back that up. No, they didn't publish the data - it was for internal use.

So what is the 3yr policy they were testing for?
- Can't sell a tire that has set in the warehouse for 3yrs: In that case, it's a flawed test. It should then continue out for somewhere around 8-10yrs as the 3yr mark doesn't test the impact on end of life condition.
- Buyers can use the tires for at least 3 yrs if they buy and mount them immediately after manufacture: Thanks for telling us the obvious.

This story doesn't make sense.

I think the key point you are missing is that tires age much more slowly when sitting in a warehouse compared to being in service.

I'll tell you what doesn't make sense...this ridiculous misinformation that keeps getting spread about tire age on forums. If I still owned a tire store instead of being retired I would love it! At the current rate of travel, people on here will be advocating yearly tire replacements sometime in the near future!

The 5-6 year window is a myth to begin with. No less than Michelin, probably the worlds most trusted tire company, says 5-6 years is when tires should have a yearly INSPECTION. They state tires can last ten years but should be inspected for tread separation, bulges, etc annually after five years.

The reason tires deteriorate is because of UV exposure and exposure to the elements while in use. Tires stored in a warehouse certainly are not aging at the same rate as tires traveling down the road. Tires stored on a vehicle parked in a garage are not aging at the same rate as those sitting uncovered in a wide open parking lot.

Tires fail most often because they have been damaged while in use or because they are run at improper air pressures for their use. There is simply no reason to worry about a few months old new tire being installed as the aging process is no where equivalent to one in use. There are a ton of logistical reasons why tires are not immediate production line to mounting on a vehicle. By the same token there are a ton of reasons tire aging is not linear from the production line to the end of usability. People would be much better served to be concerned about tracking tire air pressures, weight load, and annual inspection instead of these amateur "the sky is falling predictions" you find on forums such as these.