Tire Age: Safety Hazard - Excessive Paranoia - or Sales Promo

[stonecoldtx]

I think there are a lot of people missing the point--brand new tires sitting on a shelf don't rot, at least, not in our lifetime.

Sure, a tire will age when mounted on a wheel, installed on a car, and then driven. That's because there are many heat cycles that occur, and of course, exposure to ozone, which helps oxidize the rubber and accelerate "dry rot".

The article is implying that if you buy tires from a store that are over a certain number of years old, but have NEVER been installed, that they still are unsafe, and I call BS on that.

I have only had one vehicle in recent history that had "old" tires, and that's my '70 Mustang; the tires on it were 11 years old (until I switched to a set of 2003 Mach 1 wheels and tires back in November), and I took a couple of 1000 mile road trips on them with no problems whatsoever, so even if they ARE old, I would think that the heat/cool cycles, miles run and exposure to the elements have more of an effect than if the car sat . . .

 

[Rookie71]

I have more paranoia about NEW Firestones than about other brand's 6 year old tires...

 

[TT670]

I think there are a lot of people missing the point--brand new tires sitting on a shelf don't rot, at least, not in our lifetime.

Sure, a tire will age when mounted on a wheel, installed on a car, and then driven. That's because there are many heat cycles that occur, and of course, exposure to ozone, which helps oxidize the rubber and accelerate "dry rot".

The article is implying that if you buy tires from a store that are over a certain number of years old, but have NEVER been installed, that they still are unsafe, and I call BS on that.

I have only had one vehicle in recent history that had "old" tires, and that's my '70 Mustang; the tires on it were 11 years old (until I switched to a set of 2003 Mach 1 wheels and tires back in November), and I took a couple of 1000 mile road trips on them with no problems whatsoever, so even if they ARE old, I would think that the heat/cool cycles, miles run and exposure to the elements have more of an effect than if the car sat . . .

From the day the tires come out of the mold they begin to deteriorate, doesnt matter if theyre on a car or not. Exposure to atmospheric conditions all work against a tires lifespan even when stored on a rack. Although I agree a tire thats been sitting in a store for a few years is still safe to use(as long as its not pushed to its design limits..ie speed) I think the age thing is still a pretty good bargaining chip for a discount.

 

[blown65]

From the day the tires come out of the mold they begin to deteriorate, doesnt matter if theyre on a car or not. Exposure to atmospheric conditions all work against a tires lifespan even when stored on a rack. Although I agree a tire thats been sitting in a store for a few years is still safe to use(as long as its not pushed to its design limits..ie speed) I think the age thing is still a pretty good bargaining chip for a discount.

X2, this car was always in the garage except when it went to the drags. It may of at most seen the outside a total of a couple months over the life of those tires.

You guys that dont worry, you can keep taking your chances all you want, tires are cheap.

 

[stonecoldtx]

X2, this car was always in the garage except when it went to the drags. It may of at most seen the outside a total of a couple months over the life of those tires.

You guys that dont worry, you can keep taking your chances all you want, tires are cheap.

A tire that has been mounted and endured the heat/cool cycles will always be more worn than one that's been sitting on a shelf, and again, I re-iterate that the article is implying that a tire that has been sitting on a shelf for a number of years is unsafe. One more time, I call BS on that notion.

I want them to PROVE to me that there is sufficient deterioration of the tire in, say, 6 or 7 years of sitting on a shelf compared to one that just came out of the mold. I need PROOF, and I say they can't prove it.

I need laboratory results showing the difference in the tire composition as a result of aging. I need definitive hard evidence, such as cutting up both a tire that's been sitting on a shelf, and one right out of the mold, and SHOW that there is a difference in their chemical makeup.

I say there AIN'T any such test of this nature to support their assertions, and without proof, it is what it is--BS.

I've been around too long, and seen too many tires used as I've described with no problems to fall for this sort of crap . . .

I have more paranoia about NEW Firestones than about other brand's 6 year old tires...

LOL--that has to be the funniest thing I've seen all day!! I remember the old Firestone recall of the SUV tires several years back! Frickin' hilarious!

 

[ron67fb]

I want them to PROVE to me that there is sufficient deterioration of the tire in, say, 6 or 7 years of sitting on a shelf compared to one that just came out of the mold. I need PROOF, and I say they can't prove it.

Didn't you listen to the reporter? The British said so! How much more scientific can he get?

 

[stonecoldtx]

Didn't you listen to the reporter? The British said so! How much more scientific can he get?

LOL!! Too funny!!

 

[66 Restomod]

New tires are the way to go

Since my car is modified, I wanted a good tire. I spent $500 on a set of Dunlop Direzza Star Specs for my '66 recently to replace other Dunlop tires that looked fine, but were sold probably 7 years ago. The new tires are simply way better (quieter, better handling, better traction, no vibration). Good fresh tires make a big difference in how the car drives, and today's tire technology is awesome. I'm glad I spent the money on new tires and would do it again (same ones too).

 

[zookeeper]

Very, very good point. If you get even a little frisky with your car, then by all means buy good tires. A set of tires cost a fraction of what having the side of your car replaced (or your life) when a tire grenades during a high-speed corner exhibition. In my case, my wife's Corvette sees extremely little use, and when it is driven, it's at a very sedate pace. Is it the most prudent thing to do? Probably not. But I'm weighing the odds, I suppose. The car is over-insured and the likelihood of anything severe going wrong is very, very remote. If I were the type to lie awake at night worrying about old tires, older cars without ABS and air bags, the cops, the IRS, the boogie man and anything else that could kill me, I'd just sell the car and take up needlepoint...

 

[tx65coupe]

My personal opinion is that old tires need to be replaced no matter if they have dry rot or not. I think that the 6 years might be a bit over kill for certain cars, but tires do get hard as they get old.

We have a 1997 Cobra than came with Comp TAs that didn't last long (2 years) on the front or the rear. Then we put a set of Michelin Pilots on it and those were great and lasted a long time. We replaced them at about 7 years due to dry rot starting. I will say that for about a year or so before that, they had become hard. The wet and dry traction was not the same anymore.

I have seen tires that were only a few years old start to dry rot too.

I will say what has already been said. Tires are cheaper than just replacing or fixing any other bad thing that can happen due to tire failure.

If your car is a daily driver or if you drive it in a spirited manner keep halfway fresh tires on it. If it is a weekend cruiser that doesn't even see highway speeds and only gets driven around town, its your call I guess.

I would rather have a new set 100 dollar set of 4 Pep Boys specials that a set of bad ass tires than were old.