In my almost 40 years of car ownership, I only had 1 catastrophic tire failure. Right front tire on a set of 13" tires on a Subaru GL-10 exploded at approximately 85mph (back in the early 90's). Was traveling on I-10 in Florida heading eastbound. Have had many flats from running over things in the road and according to where the damage was, mostly was able to fix it and move on. That was with regular tires. I had one set (yes both) of snow tire 'retreads' back in the early mid 70's that had sidewall failures due to being stored over the summer months right next to an electric motor. I had asked the landlord to let me put them in his basement, he agreed, I put them in the corner of the basement against a wall, and later on he moved them next to his building water circulation pump. I found this out later on after the tires both failed (for the exact same reason). The ozone generated from the electric motor attacked the rubber and degraded it. After mounting them on the car for the cold weather/snow/ice season, they failed within a couple of days. Both the inside and outside sidewalls cracked from center to the tread along their entire radius'. Luckily, they didn't instantly collapse, they leaked slow enough to feel it and pull over (slow enough time to feel the sway and react to it by pulling over off the highway that at that time was a 75mph interstate).


In my opinion, tire inspections should be done once a month or when something either gets hit or run over. Cracks in the rubber actually isn't an indication the tires are no good. Yes, I said that and stand by it. I see way too many people replacing things (anything, the list is incomprehensible sometimes) before its service life is to the point of it being a requirement. I just disagree with a whole litany of people who (for their own reasons many which are self serving) replace or are coerced to replace something that does not need replacing. Tires may have cracks in the rubber, it depends on quite a lot of different things if the tire is made unserviceable because of them. To err on the side of safety is totally understandable but many times a retailer who replaces perfectly good tires usually makes a good profit (all profit) off those tires he gets from you.


One defining indication that a tire needs replacing is if it is losing air and it is not leaking from the stem or rim bead. A bead should not suddenly start leaking, and unless something hit the base of a stem or Schrader valve, that stem or Schrader valve should not leak. If you just put air in or had taken air out you can suspect something lodging onto the seal of the stem/Schrader valve seat, allowing air to slowly leak out. That bead, once seated/sealed, would have to have had quite an impact to move (break) the seal made when assembled. If a tire is internally damaged where air is being lost, and you have ruled out a crack in the rim, a broken seal at the stem/Schrader valve assembly, or debris in the cap depressing the valve to allow air to leak (old trick to talk people into buying a set of tires, or malicious pranks from idiots who think flattening tires (or having someone lose control when a tire is dangerously low on air), then the tire itself has a path through its construction requiring replacement. Depending on the age and condition of the matching tire on its axle, you might have to think about buying two. It is not required to buy tires in pairs, or a whole set. The rule is you must use the same spec tire that is on the opposing side axle. Even the tread pattern isn't any more of a consideration except in the minor influences it has in the actual handling of the car, and its individual harmonic of the 'noise' it generates. Anything else is marketing, personal preferences, or aesthetics driving those decisions.


I just cannot tell you how many times I see and hear people spending monies on things they do not need to spend it on, only to later lament it didn't fix the problem (or perceived problem), and in the process they broke or damaged something during the unnecessary repair (if you could call it that). If you've ever wondered why a repair bill had a bunch of other parts listed (if they supplied a detailed parts list) then imagine taking something apart that has been locked in place for many years, and couple that with the fact others are doing the 'work' because you feel incapable of doing it yourself (yeah I know its getting harder and harder to DIY but this forum does quite an outstanding job of reassuring most, as evidenced by the refreshingly giddy feedbacks posted after someone tackles a project or job someone quotes them an ungodly amount to have done to have them do).




Finally, many 'experts' sum up 'this' reasoning or 'that' reasoning (time to replace and why, ect ect) that you can just throw hands up when it comes to 'expert' opinions. Thankfully, this member just does it when he needs them based on his expertise derived from a lifetime of actual experiences. No I do not run them past the approximately 2/32" wear, but knowing they are that worn I behave differently behind the wheel. One of the driving factors when replacing a set is the UTQG, after that the price with influences perceived on the reviews and ratings of the actual performances realized. I've been looking for a set since the original conti's are still on her. Yes the ride is hard, yes they are noisy, I don't mind it! They still have tread, they still hold air commensurate with the weather (meaning both sets test to the same pressures as a pair based on the weather conditions, tested cold, or after a drive without one side 'sitting' in the sun). I wonder if when I do settle on a price of the set I get, if the ride will so much different as to sway me into thinking the tires are 'bad'? Bad or good, they'll stay on the car until they need replacing (if they don't get recalled or fail prematurely).




HAPPY MOTORING!