Aging tire law???

[path1]

Maybe good for consumer??

Maryland House Bill 580 would require a tire dealer who sells a tire more than three years old to give the buyer a written statement that the tire is not new, and that many automobile manufacturers recommend that a tire should be replaced after six years, regardless of the remaining tread depth

https://www.tirebusiness.com/article/20140214/NEWS/140219938/proposed-bill-on-tire-aging-draws-fire-...

[CapriRacer]

D & M wrote:
...... No one has a specific number. Six, seven, ten. Take your pick. I don't agree or disagree with the theory, I just think that the Maryland House has more important things to worry about.

Here's my take on this:

1) Because the local environment has such an effect on tire aging, it doesn't make sense for there to be a federal law. Any law would have to take into account the difference between - say - Arizona and Minnesota. That just won't work. So this has to be done at a local level.

2) Traditionally, vehicles are regulated at the state level and not lower. In some respects it makes sense for there to be a state law on tire age, rather than - say - county by county.

3) It is all too common for tire dealers not to rotate their stock and not to pay attention to the age of their tires. I remember one tire dealer who returned "new stock" that he insistent he had bought less than 2 year prior, but the tires were 15 years old. Nope, not possible.

4) Tire aging is going to vary by tire manufacturer - and each tire manufacturer is going to have a different take on where to draw the line and how to express it. It should be no surprise that there is going to be some variation.

So it might make sense to make a state law informing the consumer when he is getting 3 year old tires (or worse). It might also make sense to require vehicles to have tires to be newer than some age (even if it is arbitrary), in order to prevent some tire failure accidents. I see both of these things as part of what a state legislature should consider. It is in their jurisdiction and there is a need for regulations to protect citizens from fraud and unnecessary risks (particularly risks caused by other people's neglect.)

[Bumpyroad]

D & M wrote:
No one has a specific number. Six, seven, ten. Take your pick. I don't agree or disagree with the theory, I just think that the Maryland House has more important things to worry about.

So they should pick a number between 6 and 10 and run with it. after all this isn't like setting an expiration date on pharmaceuticals where they actually do periodic assays to demonstrate the degradation curve.
bumpy

[D___M]

wny_pat wrote:

D & M wrote:
Where did the sponsor of the bill get his expertise in tire manufacturing? The truth is, no one knows when tires are supposed to be replaced. The major manufacturers can't even agree. The DOT doesn't have a position on this, so I don't see where the nanny's in the House of Delegates need to protect me.

Actually the DOT has it down pretty well: http://www.safercar.gov/Vehicle+Shoppers/Tires/Tires+Rating/Tire+Aging

Pat,

I looked at this website and others before I posted in the hope that the House and Senate weren't wasting our time and money (again).

IMHO,the DOT is regurgitating what the tire manufactures are saying. No one has a specific number. Six, seven, ten. Take your pick. I don't agree or disagree with the theory, I just think that the Maryland House has more important things to worry about.

[wny_pat1]

OldRadios wrote:
I like this line:

"Tire dealers testifying at the hearing agreed that heat, punctures and poor handling accelerate the degradation of a tire, but insisted that with proper storage a tire can last many years.

"A 10-year-old tire can be better than a newer tire that's sat out in the sun," said Ralph Schissler, president of Atlantic Tire in Baltimore."

Don't have a garage? Just remove your tires and store them each time between uses...

I have to agree that the part about informing the buyers that their new tires they just bought are already three years old is a good idea.

Wonder if any of them have ever been in the average distributobship warehouse. Hot as hell in the summer, well over 100 degrees! And at night they really cool off because there is no insulation. That can't be good for tires.

[wny_pat1]

D & M wrote:
Where did the sponsor of the bill get his expertise in tire manufacturing? The truth is, no one knows when tires are supposed to be replaced. The major manufacturers can't even agree. The DOT doesn't have a position on this, so I don't see where the nanny's in the House of Delegates need to protect me.

Actually the DOT has it down pretty well: http://www.safercar.gov/Vehicle+Shoppers/Tires/Tires+Rating/Tire+Aging

[Bumpyroad]

OldRadios wrote:
I like this line:


Don't have a garage? Just remove your tires and store them each time between uses...

that's why I bought and used tire covers for storing my MH.
bumpy

[atreis]

OldRadios wrote:

I have to agree that the part about informing the buyers that their new tires they just bought are already three years old is a good idea.

Me too. They're also not preventing the purchase - just helps with making an informed decision.

[OldRadios]

I like this line:

"Tire dealers testifying at the hearing agreed that heat, punctures and poor handling accelerate the degradation of a tire, but insisted that with proper storage a tire can last many years.

"A 10-year-old tire can be better than a newer tire that's sat out in the sun," said Ralph Schissler, president of Atlantic Tire in Baltimore."

Don't have a garage? Just remove your tires and store them each time between uses...

I have to agree that the part about informing the buyers that their new tires they just bought are already three years old is a good idea.

[Cloud_Dancer]

Jay Leno needs to replace the tires on at least 49 of his car-collection vehicles.....:B

[Mmaxed]

path1 wrote:
Maybe good for consumer??

Maryland House Bill 580 would require a tire dealer who sells a tire more than three years old to give the buyer a written statement that the tire is not new, and that many automobile manufacturers recommend that a tire should be replaced after six years, regardless of the remaining tread depth

https://www.tirebusiness.com/article/20140214/NEWS/140219938/proposed-bill-on-tire-aging-draws-fire-...

Might be good for the consumer if you don't want odd ball sizes in the dealer's inventory. If the dealer knows inventory will devalue just sitting there he is not going to stock slow movers. With every new car or pickup having a new tire size, they already need a huge inventory to have a needed tire. A law like this will get rid of the slow movers.

[Harvey51]

It is a good idea to have the tires mounted so the date codes are on the outside on the vehicle. Easier to check them.

[JJBIRISH]

well they already have tires imbedded with transmitter chips, some day you will drive through a ez pass area and data collected could be passed to your insurance… who know what type of data these chips are capable of collecting…. Certainly age, but maybe even speeds, acceleration/ deceleration rates, GPS tracking…

[Jarlaxle]

mpierce wrote:
I would wager that even the 10 yr that Michelin and Cooper quote, are a "worse case" scenario.

Which would be very hot climates, out in the sun full time, etc.

If you live in a cooler climate, less sun farther north, etc., that tire probably will be good for quite a bit longer than 10 yrs. With inspection of course.

I am using truck tires here on the farm that are over 20 years old, looking good. Local use, not a lot of miles. Takes FOREVER to wear them out. Still look good.

These large, truck tires are very well built. Much more so than the cheap, China bomb trailer tires that get talked about.

We have an old pup trailer at work that still uses lock-ring wheels and the old 10.00-20 tube tires. It runs off-brand tires ("Union" and "New Pride") with dates from 1997 and 1999...it has run these tires for years and comes in loaded to the roof & heavy at least twice a week! They have some scuffing (especially the right outside dual), but aren't cracking and look fine.

[Jarlaxle]

rickeoni wrote:
Any tire manufacturer will tell you if the the DOT code is over three years old it can not be sold as a new tire. Also anything over 6 years old should be changed as the tire is starting to degrade. This is from tire manufacturers and not me.....
I bet a lot of people are going to go and check the date code on their tires now.

IIRC, it's late 2001 on my Caddy...the old V-rated Eagle GT's (235/70VR15, the CHP Caprice tire), what I think might be the last complete set in the COUNTRY. 😞

The Glacier Grip snows on my Dak are about 6 months old.