The FAMOUS tyre Report........

[Jas278]

My tyre report..............


Report on 4 Tyres:
branded
‘BRONCO’ Grizzly Claw
 belonging to Mr  Jason Stray
 
Ref: SAG / 05 / 12 / LTS










Report prepared for
Marcus Sabin,
Leicester Trading Standards












Report prepared by
S.A. Green – HND, ONC.






INTRODUCTION

I am currently employed by ‘Starco’ Europe, which is part of the ‘Scandinavian Tyre and Rim Company’, as Technical Director.  In addition to my responsibility for technical matters in the UK, my role extends to technical support for all 13 plants around Europe and Russia. The Company manufactures wheels, tyres and wheel assemblies for supply as Original Equipment to vehicle manufacturers.  Previously, Goodyear had employed me for fifteen years until May 2000.  My final position as Technical Training Manager, gave me responsibility for all Technical Training of company personnel operating throughout the UK, Europe and the Middle East. Prior to this position I was Manager of Product Performance and Service department for six years until 31st December 1994.  In this role I had occasion to examine many thousands of tyres having failed either in service, or as a result of systematic destructive testing.

I began my career with British Leyland as an apprentice and gained extensive experience in all aspects of automotive engineering in both design and practical skills. I hold an HND qualification in Mechanical Engineering and an ONC in Electronics.  Following my apprenticeship I worked for 11 years in research and development, specifically dealing with axles, brakes and suspension systems as part of a vehicle design team.  I specialise in all aspects of vehicle design and behaviour, and in particular, tyres, their performance, and the interaction between tyres and vehicle suspension design.

I have been asked to examine the subject tyre(s) with the purpose of identifying the reasons for their current condition, the nature of any structural failure and any possible implications to the merchantable and safe condition for sale.  I was given the information that the wheels and tyres were fitted to a ‘Landrover Discovery’ 4 x 4 vehicle and had only travelled for a relatively short distance since they were supplied.

THE TYRE(S)

I examined 4off wheel and tyre assemblies at a private address in Hinckley, at the request of Mr Marcus Saban of Leicester Trading Standards, the details of which were as follows:

Tyre size: LT 265/75R16    
Service description: 112Q
Brand: ‘Bronco’ Grizzly Claw
TDR: 14mm centre-line – 17mm at shoulder
Production date / Serial No: No markings

Other markings:   Retread made in England – conforms to BSAU 144


EXAMINATION

Following a careful examination of the wheels and tyres, the following details were noted:

Wheel Assembly No. 1

 The first of four tyres was examined having been fitted to the front of the vehicle, to reveal a structural failure in the shoulder area of the tyre such that complete and catastrophic deflation had occurred.

There was clear evidence of rubber degradation and cracking due to overheating and rubber reversion at the base of the large shoulder blocks and also at the junction between these blocks and the carcass where there are naturally uneven stresses due to the heavy lug design.  
The carcass showed clear signs of distress at these same points and had suffered separation between radial cords and also belt edge, resulting in structural failure.  The carcass had suffered from severe abrasion and overheating in the shoulder areas as was evidenced by the inner liner condition.  I was unable to detect any evidence of a penetration which might have caused the deflation.  The deflation appears to have been caused by the break-up of the tyre structure, the evidence of overheating being such that it had occurred over a relatively short distance including the time taken for the driver to pull over and stop when it was realised that the tyre had failed.

Wheel Assembly No. 2

The second tyre, also having been fitted to the front of the vehicle, was also showing similar signs of rubber reversion in the shoulder blocks with some cracks beginning to appear.  However, this tyre remained intact insofar as it was still inflated and no major structural failure was immediately apparent.

Wheel Assembly No’s 3 & 4

These two tyres remained in apparently sound and inflated condition.

Balance Weights

The following quantities of balance weights were seen to be fitted to the wheel assemblies, having been balanced by the tyre shop who supplied the new wheels and tyres;

Wheel assembly #1 – 225 grams
Wheel assembly #2 – 200 grams
Wheel assembly #3 – 190 grams
Wheel assembly #4 – 100 grams


TERMS OF REFERENCE

There are standards laid down within European Directives ECE108 / ECE109 regarding the manufacture and testing of such remoulded tyres.

These performance requirements are specifically to ensure that process quality is consistent to the original development of the remoulded product, and that any such product is capable of being operated within the performance suggested by its service description.

The markings ‘conforms to BSAU 144’ are out-dated and obsolete for two reasons (i) They are now superseded by ECE 108 / 109, & (ii) In any event, there were several suffix additions and revisions to BSAU 144 even when it was current, no such suffix is marked on these tyres, this means that these markings were insufficient even when last BSAU 144 was current.

The remoulding processor is totally responsible for ensuring that the carcasses gleaned from tyres having previously worn-out treads, are in suitable condition for both the re-moulding process and the subsequent safe operation with the new re-moulded tread. A further requirement is dynamometer testing (sometimes referred to as ‘drum’ testing) for the required duration to prove that the tyre tread design, rubber compounds used and re-manufacturing process are all of such integrity that they are safe for continuous operational use up to the full load and speeds indicated by that service description.

The above mentioned dynamometer tests are required to be repeated during production runs to ensure that each subsequent batch also complies with the same requirements.
 
CONCLUSIONS

The tyres fitted to the front axle of the vehicle whilst it was lightly loaded (as was the case according to Mr Stray), would be subjected to a higher load than those on the rear axle due to the un-laden weight distribution of the vehicle, additionally, the steering forces would also load the shoulder areas of the tyres more than those at the rear.  This is therefore a fair indication that the loads at the front axle, although being far below what the tyres are able to carry according to their service description, creates the differing results.  Both front tyres were showing signs of distress, with one of them having failed completely, both rear tyres being in better condition than the front ones.  

The two front tyres showed clear evidence of overheating and rubber reversion in the shoulder areas and as the tyres were not carrying their maximum load, this tends to indicate a small safety margin with regard to heat generation and satisfactory running temperature.  

Mr Stray informed me that he had operated these tyres in the same way as on previous sets of tyres and at the same correct recommended pressures for the vehicle, and I am unable to detect any collaborative evidence for under-inflation prior to the complete deflation of the tyre due to the carcass break-up.  

The quantity of balance weights fitted would give concern regarding the uniformity of the re-moulded tyres; generally, re-moulded tyres have very good uniformity as the action of buffing off the worn-out tread tends to reduce any run-out within the original carcass.  It is interesting also to note that the worst offender in this regard, was in fact the same tyre on the front of the vehicle which had failed.

It would be a matter for further investigation as to whether the remoulding manufacturer has in fact dynamometer tested the original remould design and/or the subsequent production batches, to prove the ability of the tyres to be operated safely at the rated load and speed in accordance with ECE 108 / 109.  

These tyres do not carry the required markings to indicate that they comply with the required testing procedures for the above mentioned standards.

It is therefore my considered opinion that these tyres do not comply with the necessary regulations, governing the sale of such tyres for use on the public highway.  








Stephen Alan Green – December 2005.

[Digsit]

Makes interesting reading don't it :shock:

Welcome home Jas

[Edge]

Looks like Mr.Bronco is in deep diddly :shock:

[Range Rover Blues]

Interesting, and rather thorough.

[driftwood]

nice  

you were lucky jason just imagine, could have been worse for a different driver!
my opinion....throw the book at'em

[Richie_EB4]

Interesting  :? ..........wonder how many more tyres out there are the same. :(

[davidlandy]

So is the report saying that these tyres are illegal for use on your public highways ?

[muddyweb]

I have been contacted by Bronco 4x4 and advised that they have been in touch with their solicitors to consider legal action regarding the publication of this report.

I would ask that you bear this in mind when posting any further comments on this subject.

[V8MoneyPit]

Yes, I have to concur with Tim. Although the report is technically 'factual' it might have been wise to ask the advice of the moderators and admin team before running the risk of legal action against them. It is, you must remember, the 'owner' of the web site that is responsible for the content.

It is a credit to the team, and a reflection on the 'free' nature of Mud Club,  that this thread has been left open and not simply removed. Other forums would have reacted very differently, I'm sure.

I don't intend any offence to Jas here, just my thoughts on a sensitive subject.

[Skibum346]

Had a wonder over to their stand at Malvern... noticed that the grizzly claws still have the same markings on them.   :shock:

[scorpio]

Must admit I had a look at there stand at Malvern and noticed certain tyres had yellow chalk marks all over them where the tread and casing seemed to be parting company, not a good thing for a tyre that had never been on the road.

[Bulli]

it seems strange that tyres are available without the latest codings. Im sure pirelli, bridgestone et al would remove yres from sale as a matter of course when they no longer meet the current legislation.

[Jas278]

It amazes me that according to the ECE these tyres that I purchased are not  in accordance with the regulations governing tyres ,yet everybody else is at fault or wrong...........I wish somebody would explain why these tyres comply to Ece regs when a man who is a specialist in this field says the opposite....As for Bronco what message are they sending out using bully boy tactics...........its a public forum of which they are a member ,I wish they would use this forum ,(or send me a letter ) explaing there side of  events.........and as to how  my tyres met ECE 108/109 tyre regs..........

[dew1911]

I have been contacted by Bronco 4x4 and advised that they have been in touch with their solicitors to consider legal action regarding the publication of this report.

I would ask that you bear this in mind when posting any further comments on this subject.

Surley as long as the post is factual and contains no slander then they don't have a tire to stand on...


EDIT: Sorry, terrible pun!

[fisha]

To me, the original post is an expressed opinion and not necessarily directing others to change their opinion.  There is a bit of a difference to me as to what makes something liable or not.    

To me, you should be allowed to say:  " I dont like this product, or i have had a bad experience with .... "

but openly saying "I dont like this product and so none of you should buy it " is a different matter.

I used to have a set of Bronco tyres and i have to admit that they behaved and performed very well,however, I'm not surprised that this issue is still appearing with the treads.   Its something i have read about for many years.   I have my own opinions on why it happens, but there you go.


Now, having a little look round on the web, there are some points to consider regarding that report.    

Here is a copy and paste from a page here

A serach round google for similar types of information shows that most county councils repeat the same information.   According to most of the pages i've read, tyres are supposed to display a proper E mark  ECE108 /109 type mark, but for retreads, most of the information says that the BS approval mark is correct / appropriate. . . . however, that the approval mark should be a suffixed one.   So i would personally be of the opinion that "BS AU 144" on a tyre would not comply to the statements made below, but "BS AU 144e " would.

Jas,   the only thought i have is that you should seek cliarification on the exact applicable standards through your local trading standards authority.

Selling Safe Part-worn Tyres

The Motor Vehicle Tyres (Safety) Regulations 1994, as amended, set out minimum safety standards for the supply of part-worn tyres. To comply, it is important that you and your staff are fully aware of these Regulations.

Under the Regulations, it is illegal to supply any part-worn tyre that is capable of being fitted to a motor vehicle or trailer unless the following conditions are met:

Marking

Part-worn tyres (except retreads) should have an EC approval mark (for example E11) and a speed and load capacity index (for example 76 S), moulded into the side wall at the time of manufacture.

In addition, all types of part-worn tyres must be marked 'PART-WORN' in upper case letters at least 4mm high.

This wording must be permanently and legibly applied to the tyre, otherwise than by hot- branding or cutting into the tyre and adjacent to every approval mark.

Rubber labels can be cold-vulcanised to the tyre and are available from companies that advertise in the trade press.

Condition

Part-worn tyres, whether deflated, or inflated to the highest operating pressure at which they are designed to operate, must not have:

    * any cut over 25mm or 10% of the section width of the tyre, whichever is the greater, on the outside of the tyre, deep enough to reach the ply or cord;
    * any internal or external lump, bulge or tear caused by separation or partial failure of its structure;
    * any ply or cord exposed internally or externally;
    * any penetration damage that has not been repaired.

In addition, the grooves of the original tread pattern of the tyre must be at least 2mm deep across the full breadth of the tread and around the entire outer circumference of the tyre.

Part worn retreaded tyres

Part-worn tyres that have been retreaded must have:

    * BS AU 144b, 144c, 144d, or 144e markings on the side wall, or
    * an ECE approval mark, or
    * a permanent mark to identify the original model and manufacturer, the word 'RETREAD' moulded onto or into its sidewall (in upper case letters at least 4mm high), and further markings in accordance with ECE rules. You may need to seek further advice as to which rules apply.

The indication 'PART WORN' must also appear next to the BS or ECE approval mark, or next to the word 'RETREAD'.

For tyres marked BS AU 144e, a speed category symbol and load capacity marking should be present.

A tyre has to comply with all the requirements detailed above whether or not it is fitted to a rim.

We recommend that a thorough inspection of the tyre must be made before fitting to the rim, and after fitting and inflating the tyre to the highest operating pressure. Tyres which are sold unfitted will need to be inspected with particular care, as it is still an offence to supply tyres with the defects listed above which become detectable when the tyre is inflated. Inflation and inspection is recommended.

Repaired tyres

If a tyre has been repaired, it must have been properly repaired.

Any tyre that has been repaired should be inspected very carefully. Repairs need to comply with BS AU 159f, 1997 - Repairs to Tyres on the Public Highway. If you are not competent to judge a repair, we suggest the tyre is disposed of.

Tyres in storage

It is also illegal to have unsafe tyres in possession for sale, so you will need to be clear what is and what is not for sale. If you have tyres in storage, but not intended for sale, they should be clearly marked as such.

Penalties

Conviction could render you liable to a penalty of six months imprisonment, a fine of up to �5,000 or both.

�

This leaflet is not an authoritative interpretation of the law and is intended only for guidance. For further information, please contact your local Trading Standards Service.

Last reviewed/updated: April 2006

© 2006 itsa Ltd on behalf of the Trading Standards Institute.

[Jas278]

My problem is sorted , the tyre report was carried out by a Tyre Expert ,If he says the tyres dont carry the correct markings  ect  ,thats good enough for me, He has nt done been/seen and still working everyday with tyres for no reason...............