Tire life

Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
> ISO 9000? If so, all it means is that the manufacturer has (should have)
> procedure in place to ensure reproducibility at whatever quality level the
> manufacturer has decided.

In reality, it doesn't work that way, at least in the automotive world
below first tier. In the automotive world, QS9000 is strictly a CYA for
the first tier customer so that when a problem occurs, they have the
smoking gun in the supplier's own documentation, or have proof that the
supplier's documentation was falsified (good product went out, bad
product was recieved at the customer - how could that be?) - the latter
is often the case because the customer continued to take mandated cost
cuts from the supplier (in what they pay per supplied wigdet) while
requiring more and more bull**** quality documentation (as opposed to
genuine quality documentation) that the supplier could no longer afford
to hire the people to implement because of the cost cuts. The
supplier's only remaining choice is to shut down (because all of their
customers are automotive and require the same bullsh** system) or set up
a streamline system of faking the documentation.

(Remember Firestone tires on Ford Explorers?)

In the same way, JIT gets *******ized. The first tier customer mandates
that inventory control is JIT for them and down thru all tiers of the
supply chain. In reality, that just means that the supplier hides a
reserve stock so that when the inevitable sh** happens in the supply
chain, they can continue to ship product and save the custmor's a**.
The customer knows about this, but realizes that it keeps them out of
hot water, so a lot of winking goes on. But it's the corporate
religion, so know one dares speak up against it or change it.

> I.e. once good. always good or once nasty, always nasty.
>
> 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.

As the saying goes: If you want economy, you have to pay for it.

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

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.

I've audited more suppliers than I can remember. The first thing I do is
politely accept a copy of their certification, thank them for it, put it
among the papers I have collected and get on to really auditing their
processes. The best feature it provides for me is confirmation that they
should (at least in theory) have their processes documented.

Ken




"Dori A Schmetterling" > wrote in message
...
> ISO 9000? If so, all it means is that the manufacturer has (should have)
> procedure in place to ensure reproducibility at whatever quality level the
> manufacturer has decided.
>
> I.e. once good. always good or once nasty, always nasty.
>
> 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.
>
> DAS
>
> For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
> ---
>
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> [...]
> > E mark, Dot and ISO certified.
> [...]
>
>

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

And what is "real" quality?

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"KWS" > wrote in message
...
[...]
> ensure this is all in place, etc. etc. It has just about nothing to do
> with
> the real quality of products.
[...]
>
>
>
> "Dori A Schmetterling" > wrote in message
> ...
>> ISO 9000? If so, all it means is that the manufacturer has (should have)
>> procedure in place to ensure reproducibility at whatever quality level
>> the
>> manufacturer has decided.
>>
>> I.e. once good. always good or once nasty, always nasty.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> DAS
>>
>> For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
>> ---
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> [...]
>> > E mark, Dot and ISO certified.
>> [...]
>>
>>
>
>

Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
> I said it is to ensure reproducibility. (Whether it does for a particular
> company is another matter.)
>
> And what is "real" quality?

ISO 9000 doesn't ensure reproducibility - it ensures that you do what
is documented, and you document what you do. The content of the
documents and the design of the product could be as bad as you can
imagine - as long as the paperwork is in order, you remain 9000
compliant. ISO 9000 compliance means you will have more information at
hand to go back and figure out what happened if something doesn't go
right. (And that is the basis of quality improvement). On developing a
new product, ISO 9000 plays a much smaller role in product quality -
taking a back seat to good design.
While ISO 9000 is a nice idea, and it covers some important groundwork
that really shoddy companies should have but don't have in place, 9000
is mostly a label. It can be useful to skim down a field of suppliers
when the numbers are overwhelming, but to say that ensures a good
product is a mistake, IMO. So as for tires, ISO 9000 means nothing to
me. I still rely on good brand names. Crappy tires are an insult to
everything rolling on them.

Dave

1) I did not say ISO 9000 plays a role in "good" quality other than
reproducing it. The purpose of having the procedures in place is to ensure
that processes are repeated. Of course if companies ignore their own
procedures that's their look-out. Documentation is the basis of an ability
to reproduce something. If you have no guideline of how to do something,
how can you ensure that each batch/product is the same? If you just copy
what you last did, howb you do you stop "creep"?

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.

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.


At the end of the day you as a customer can select any criteria you like for
deciding on a supplier. I don't think anything I have written precludes
that.

I bet, though, that "good brand names" employ good, documented procedures to
guarantee consistency.

This is not a place to start:
http://praxiom.com/iso-9001-b.htm

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"David Geesaman" > wrote in message
...
> Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
>> I said it is to ensure reproducibility. (Whether it does for a
>> particular company is another matter.)
>>
>> And what is "real" quality?
>
> ISO 9000 doesn't ensure reproducibility - it ensures that you do what is
> documented, and you document what you do. The content of the documents
> and the design of the product could be as bad as you can imagine - as long
> as the paperwork is in order, you remain 9000 compliant. ISO 9000
> compliance means you will have more information at hand to go back and
> figure out what happened if something doesn't go right. (And that is the
> basis of quality improvement). On developing a new product, ISO 9000
> plays a much smaller role in product quality - taking a back seat to good
> design.
> While ISO 9000 is a nice idea, and it covers some important groundwork
> that really shoddy companies should have but don't have in place, 9000 is
> mostly a label. It can be useful to skim down a field of suppliers when
> the numbers are overwhelming, but to say that ensures a good product is a
> mistake, IMO. So as for tires, ISO 9000 means nothing to me. I still
> rely on good brand names. Crappy tires are an insult to everything
> rolling on them.
>
> Dave

Oops: Not a bad place to start...
http://praxiom.com/iso-9001-b.htm


DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Dori A Schmetterling" > wrote in message
...
[...]
> http://praxiom.com/iso-9001-b.htm
>
> DAS
>
> For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
> ---
>
> "David Geesaman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
>>> I said it is to ensure reproducibility. (Whether it does for a
>>> particular company is another matter.)
>>>
>>> And what is "real" quality?
>>
>> ISO 9000 doesn't ensure reproducibility - it ensures that you do what is
>> documented, and you document what you do. The content of the documents
>> and the design of the product could be as bad as you can imagine - as
>> long
>> as the paperwork is in order, you remain 9000 compliant. ISO 9000
>> compliance means you will have more information at hand to go back and
>> figure out what happened if something doesn't go right. (And that is the
>> basis of quality improvement). On developing a new product, ISO 9000
>> plays a much smaller role in product quality - taking a back seat to good
>> design.
>> While ISO 9000 is a nice idea, and it covers some important groundwork
>> that really shoddy companies should have but don't have in place, 9000 is
>> mostly a label. It can be useful to skim down a field of suppliers when
>> the numbers are overwhelming, but to say that ensures a good product is a
>> mistake, IMO. So as for tires, ISO 9000 means nothing to me. I still
>> rely on good brand names. Crappy tires are an insult to everything
>> rolling on them.
>>
>> Dave
>
>
>

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.

proclaimed:
> Hi,
>
> I need advice about assessing tire quality from the experts/ gurus in
> this forum.

Forums you mean. And I cannot imagine why you posted to equestrian
group unless you plan on putting horseshoes on your car.

Short answer. Do NOT risk your life or the lives of your passengers
on unbranded cheap tires. Or by trying to interpret specifications
where you are so obviously out of your league.
>
> 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. Assuming that the tires are used in the recommended way
> ( such as not over loading or over speeding), I have heard that there
> are several characteristics of tires which make them last longer, and I
> am hoping you can shed some light on the following:

There is absolutely no rating of a tire that will tell you anything
about the tire OTHER than the manufacturer's reputation concerning
how honest that manufacturer is in rating their tires. NOTHING.

Case in point, find a single difference between the Firestone
Exploding tires and a similar tire from Goodyear, Goodrich, Michelin,
etc.


>
> Thread depth - Does the tire last longer if it has a deeper thread?

NO. All else being equal, the thicker the tread the more the
tire will squirm and overheat at speed. NOTE that all else is
NEVER equal.
>
> Ply Rating - Is there any disadvantage to having a high ply rating,
> and is there any specific correlation between the number of plys and
> the weight. (for example each ply should add x kgs to the weight.)?

Plys can be made of steel, nylon, rayon, aramid, etc. etc. All
weigh different, and with the exception of rayon that doesn't do
too well if the ply ever gets wet due to a cut, once you know the
number of plies and what they are made of, you are still just as
ignorant of the worth of that tire as you were before you knew this.

>
> Quality of rubber - Is there variation in quality of rubber that can
> make a tire last longer. Do they mix rubber with anything to increase
> durability?

You can make a tire last a long time. So long the rubber will be
pretty much completely oxidized before you ever see tread wear. OR
you can make a tire with traction. Pick ONE. Some manufacturer's do
a pretty good job of compromising between tread wear and traction,
most don't and the smart ones rarely try.

>
> Tire patterns - what are the advantages and disadvantages of using a
> rib/lug/mix designs

None, unless the resulting tire track happens to spell a dirty word
in Arabic or something. A blockier tread will be noisier, but again
you can look at tread patterns all day and still be just as ignorant
about that tire quality than you were before you started.

>
> Weight of the tire - If it is a heavy tire would it last longer
> assuming that there is more rubber used.

No. The heaviest component in a tire tends to be steel cord and tread
belts.
>
> Sidewall - what is the difference between good quality and bad
> quality sidewall?

Good quality sidewalls are good quality sidewalls and bad quality
sidewalls are bad quality sidewalls. And that is about it.
There is no single sidewall construction appropriate for all
designs, vehicles, or driving patterns.

>
> The weather condition here is very hot, dry and sandy most of the year
> with 4 months of moderate rain. So even the well built roads tend to be
> very sandy which I assume increases tire friction. Some of the areas I
> travel through are very underdeveloped with a lot of pot holes on the
> roads. I have heard that nylon/x-ply/bias tires are better then radials
> for uneven road surfaces and radials are better for good road
> conditions, is this true?

Sand decreases traction if on a dry road. You have heard nothing of
truth.

Post your vehicle, whether you ever go offroad, and how fast you tend
to drive plus your geographic location. Nothing beats a GOOD steel
belted radial but only Pirelli and Michelin make those with the full
wrapped tread belts. You can literally drive over a railroad spike
with either tire, and even Consumer Reports has tested this. However,
some of their models have more protection in the sidewall than others.

Or there are several other brands with consistently good, durable
tires.

KWS proclaimed:

> 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.

It isn't just a joke, it is a cruel joke on anyone who actually
believes ISO has a single thing to do with actual product quality.
All it means is that you have document revision control for the
documents you CLAIM to use in your processes. It says absolutely
nothing about whether those processes should best be written on
toilet paper. And yes, I have been trained as an ISO Auditor.

larry moe 'n curly proclaimed:

> Bill Putney wrote:
>
>
>>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.