Tire life

wrote:
> Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
>
>
>>I have to say it, I can't understand why people always try to save that bit
>>of money and increase their risk (even if funds are short). Plus, a cheap
>>tyre may wear out quicker.
>>
>>I certainly can't afford to buy cheap.
>
>
> Long ago, I had Firestone 500 tires, the company's premium tire at the
> time and top-rated by Consumer Reports. All 4 developed tread
> separation because of moisture introduced during the manufacturing
> process, and the 500s were subject to recall, federal investigation,
> and class action lawsuit. Firestone replaced them with their
> successor, the 721, but all 4 of mine failed the same way in 40,000
> miles. I decided not to take another chance, so I replaced them with a
> cheap brand called "Empire," and those tires were fine for about 60,000
> miles.
>

And Firestone is ISO 9000.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

Dori A Schmetterling wrote:

> ...As you may know, when a business first starts writing SOPs (standard
> operating procedures) for getting the quality system registered under 9000,
> the SOPs should reflect actual practice, but I am sure a lot write what they
> think they should be. SOPs have to be updated regularly to take into
> account changes in practice.
> 2) It also has to be understood that if I as a client approve a sample
> product (at whatever level of quality), whether it is a tyre or a chemical
> or whatever, then I expect it to remain at that quality until there is an
> authorised change.

Also, even if the process per se does not change, at least in the
automotive industry, if location of a production line changes - whether
from one room in a building to another room in the same building OR from
a plant in the US to a plant in Mexico or vice-versa, the production
line has to be certified all over again (in the automotive industry,
that is called PPAP'ing - pronounced pee-pap - what in the "old days"
was called "first article approval").

> IIRC 9002 does not cover the development process whereas 9001 does. ISO
> 9001 itself has nothing to do with the design of a new product, just with
> the process of getting there.

Yes - and even that is a joke in the U.S. auto industry. The process
"requires" that a FMEA (Failure Modes and Effects Analysis - pronounced
feemah - just like the federal agency for disaster relief) be done both
for the assembly or component design *and* for the manufacturing process
for same. A FMEA on the simplest part can take a team of various
disciplines several man-weeks to complete - a very tedious process that
sometimes requires those involved to lock themselves in a room or rent a
hotel room for several days.

By its very definition, the paper work and numbers generated by the
design FMEA had to feed into the beginning of the process FMEA. If you
follow the book, it is, by definition, impossible to do the process FMEA
(P-FMEA) without the design FMEA (D-FMEA) already in hand.

When I was in automotive, our first tier customer (the ones that imposed
all this crap on us) were the designers. It was their responsibility to
feed us the completed D-FMEA before we started the P-FMEA. But the way
it really worked was that they would tell us that they did not have the
resources to do the D-FMEA, but they were still going to require a P-MEA
out of us - even though that was a philisophical, technical, and
practical impossibility. When we protested, we were told that that's
the way it had to be. It was clear that not to do it would mean we
could not do business with them. Inevitable results: We had to fake the
intitial input to start our P-FMEA (prime the pump so to speak), yet a
meaningful and useful P-FMEA relies on the starting point being good
information. Ever hear the expression "Garbage in, garbage out"? Well
that was it by definition.

So there you have it. The faking of the entire quality system started
with firm direction and winking from the customer themselves - the ones
who required us to use the system. Any wonder the suppliers end up
faking the rest of it when the faking was formally kicked off by the
customer themselves? Any wonder the Firestone/Ford tire debacle
happened, followed by the inevitable finger pointing?

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 21:41:15 -0400, Bill Putney >
wrote:

wrote:
>> Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I have to say it, I can't understand why people always try to save that bit
>>>of money and increase their risk (even if funds are short). Plus, a cheap
>>>tyre may wear out quicker.
>>>
>>>I certainly can't afford to buy cheap.
>>
>>
>> Long ago, I had Firestone 500 tires, the company's premium tire at the
>> time and top-rated by Consumer Reports. All 4 developed tread
>> separation because of moisture introduced during the manufacturing
>> process, and the 500s were subject to recall, federal investigation,
>> and class action lawsuit. Firestone replaced them with their
>> successor, the 721, but all 4 of mine failed the same way in 40,000
>> miles. I decided not to take another chance, so I replaced them with a
>> cheap brand called "Empire," and those tires were fine for about 60,000
>> miles.
>>
>
>And Firestone is ISO 9000.
>

And both the 500 and the 721 predate ISO by a good 20 years.


>Bill Putney
>(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with the letter 'x')

On 23 Sep 2005 20:54:39 -0700, "larry moe 'n curly"
> wrote:

>
>TheSnoMan wrote:
>
>> > My father said that the radials he bought in the 1970s with treadwear
>> > ratings of about 150 lasted about 35,000-40,000 miles, but today's
>> > tires rated for 400 don't seem to last any longer. Apparently the
>> > federal government stopped checking the test results around the time
>> > Reagan became President.
>
>> To many varible here as the wear rating does not factor in car weight,
>> alignment and vehical usage. A heavier vehical will eat the tires
>> quicker than a lighter one will amd FWD cars will wear front tires
>> quicker if you do not rotate tham from time to time. (which you should
>> do RWD or FWD.
>
>The car with the old radials on it was heavier and RWD, and all the
>tires in question wore down very evenly. I think that tire
>manufacturers have simply been exaggerating the treadwear numbers.


AND - Many vehicles are under-tired from the factory so the tire
doesn't stand a chance.

Of course, that is revalidating a previously validated process. (Not a
function of ISO 9000 but of GMP - good manufacturing practice, at least in
the pharmaceutical industry.)

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
[...]
>
> Also, even if the process per se does not change, at least in the
> automotive industry, if location of a production line changes - whether
> from one room in a building to another room in the same building OR from a
> plant in the US to a plant in Mexico or vice-versa, the production line
> has to be certified all over again (in the automotive industry, that is
> called PPAP'ing - pronounced pee-pap - what in the "old days" was called
> "first article approval").
[...]

As an ordinary consumer I have no particular knowledge of the ratings you
have mentioned. The rating of which I am aware is the speed, and I don't
think manufacturers fit the incorrect type. Imagine the lawsuits if a tyre
fails at 100 mph (rated at good for 110) when a car is rated to go at 120.

DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Lon" > wrote in message
...
[...]
>
>>>Having worked in industry in engineering and management in competitive
>>>situations, I've got to believe that there's a quite a bit of stretching
>>>of the specs. by the manufacturers, and there's probably very little if
>>>any meaningful enforcement for truth in specifications.
>>
>>
>> My father said that the radials he bought in the 1970s with treadwear
>> ratings of about 150 lasted about 35,000-40,000 miles, but today's
>> tires rated for 400 don't seem to last any longer. Apparently the
>> federal government stopped checking the test results around the time
>> Reagan became President.
>>
> If I recall correctly [and if not, am sure I'll be corrected], the
> tread wear rating is done by the manufacturer against their own
> designated "100 rating" tire. In other words, the ratings have
> not a lot of meaning within a brand and even less between brands
> from different source manufacturers--of which there really aren't
> that many left.
>

KWS wrote:
> ISO9000 is a marketing tool. Having ISO9000 merely means that you have met
> the prescribed criteria: you have a quality manual, you have procedures
> that document what you do, an accredited body has audited your facility to
> ensure this is all in place, etc. etc. It has just about nothing to do with
> the real quality of products. Many organizations will not deal with
> suppliers that are not ISO certified; that's their motivation to get it.
> It's a joke.

Yes, and a protectionist move by Europe against the US and Japan.

Yes, it is all about documentation and has nothing to do with the
underlying quality of the products. I can develop a process that
consistently produces bad product and still get ISO 9000 certification.

Matt

Dori A Schmetterling wrote:

> I said it is to ensure reproducibility. (Whether it does for a particular
> company is another matter.)

It doesn't even necessarily ensure that. It ensures that you document
your process(es) and, ostensibly, that you follow the processes. It
doesn't nothing to ensure that the processes achieve any particular result.


> And what is "real" quality?

I like the definition that Crosby uses. Quality is meeting the
requirements. This both ensures that you have requirements defined for
your product and that you meet them, all of them, all of the time.

It also gets away from the "better" defition of quality that is nearly
useless. Things like saying that a Cadillac is higher quality than a
Chevrolet. A Cadillac certainly has more features than a Chevrolet, but
it may or may not be of higher quality.

Matt

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hi,
>
> I need advice about assessing tire quality from the experts/ gurus in
> this forum.
>
> With regards to tire composition and characteristics, what are the
> important things I need to look out for when assessing quality of an
> unbranded tire.

You're American aren't you ?

wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 21:41:15 -0400, Bill Putney >
> wrote:
>
>
wrote:

>>>Long ago, I had Firestone 500 tires, the company's premium tire at the
>>>time and top-rated by Consumer Reports. All 4 developed tread
>>>separation because of moisture introduced during the manufacturing
>>>process, and the 500s were subject to recall, federal investigation,
>>>and class action lawsuit. Firestone replaced them with their
>>>successor, the 721, but all 4 of mine failed the same way in 40,000
>>>miles. I decided not to take another chance, so I replaced them with a
>>>cheap brand called "Empire," and those tires were fine for about 60,000
>>>miles.
>>>
>>
>>And Firestone is ISO 9000.
>>
>
>
> And both the 500 and the 721 predate ISO by a good 20 years.

I'm sure you're right - I was thinking of the later Ford Exploder thing.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')