Michelin tire blow out!!

[ClassBGirl]

On a recent trip to the Western end of the Florida panhandle, we had a blowout on the right rear inside tire. Luckily it was on a straight section of Interstate Hwy with very wide and flat shoulders and we were able to safely pull off in heavy traffic.
Good Sam Road Side Service is a VERY good service. Worth every penny. They got the service truck called for us, and changed out the tire with our spare within 2 hrs from when I called them. They called several times to check to be sure the service truck had arrived, and that we were taken care of.
We also ended up getting all 7 tires replaced, installed, and balanced free of charge. Michelin had a recall for the dates of manufacture for my tires. I had checked them when the recall first came out, but didn't continue to followup as time passed. Mine were later added. The tire dealer spotted it when we went to get a new spare. He checked all tires and they were in the recall. He got the tires in for us, and replaced them on our way back home from Florida. We were very lucky in more than one aspect! Very fortunate that it was not a front tire blowout!!

[Skid_Row_Joe]

Charlie D. wrote:
OP-Go the the Michelin website and register those tires. IMO, very few dealers will register them. Failure to register tires is one of the reason people don't get notified of recalls.

Actually going by your retailer/tire shop will get you more up-to-date information of your tires, than 'registering' them.

[Charlie_D_]

OP-Go the the Michelin website and register those tires. IMO, very few dealers will register them. Failure to register tires is one of the reason people don't get notified of recalls.

[Skid_Row_Joe]

Does this Michelin recall include any of the Michelin Ribs tires?

[jadatis]

Tireman9 wrote:

jadatis wrote:
The Plyrating is still used in Europe, thoug for instance 8PR does not mean anymore that there are realy 8 ply's used in the tire.
Only means that it can hold yust as much pressure in as the old plyrating tire.
Yust another way of expressing instead of Loadkind.
Gathered this information and put it in a picture.
Not ready completely and blue printed means I am not shure if this name or pressure is used , and left empty I did not now.
Here the picture so you can see the differences between American and European system.
Notice the differce of 50/55 psi for C-load/6PR and the different PSI's in Europe used for D-load/8PR wich could give failures in the lists if an european tire is used in the American market.

Do tyres in Europe that are not stamped "DOT" actually say "6PR" or similar?
A tire stamped "DOT" is going to be confusing as it is trying to meet two different set of standards.

When walking the dogs I looked on a Truck tire.
Gave the same number combinations as is given behind DOT so xxxx/yyyy/zzzz/wwjj but no DOT before it.
Gave only single loadindex 160L and second 158M on sidewall.
Gave both loadrange J and 18pr .

So I think because no DOT to it they allowed themselfes to give double system.

Was a very wide tire so probably only used in single load , so no Dual load maxload given.

EDIT: yet another truck-tire seen, same Loadindexes but now DOT before the numbers and verry small LR L with 900kpa/130 psi.
Wonder why they skipped LR K
Because
H-load LR H = 120 psi
J-load LR J = 125 psi
L-load LR L = 130 psi
that I load is skipped is because it lookt to much J, but K??

[pnichols]

pnichols wrote:
What are the other quantitative tire standards criteria I should use for beefiness shopping so as to not have to rely on manufacturers' marketing hype to locate more beefy tires?

Paul,

Thanks much for trying to answer my question above on what else to look for in tire ratings when trying to get more beefiness.

I guess no one else can provide a better approach to shop for it at tire replacement time. :h

[PaulJ2]

Don't know what happened Pnichols, it posted in the center of yours--sorry.

Paul

[PaulJ2]

pnichols wrote:

PaulJ2 wrote:
All I know is I used to have fairly common rock punctures off road and some even on ordinary gravel roads. Since I went with the beefier tire carcess, none since.

Paul, so how did you come up with, or locate, a more beefier carcass?

Our 11,800 lb. 24 foot Class C motorhome's weight probably requires about 65 lbs. in the four rear tires and maybe 65 lbs. in the two front tires ... per official weight versus pressure charts. These pressures are just outside what Load Range D tires would handle.

Disregarding my Load Range and/or ply rating approach, what mud and snow tread tires in Load Range E would be more beefier than my M&S2 Michelin Load Range E tires ... and how did you come up with this recommendation?

To clarify, the C tires I was refering to are on my daily driver Jeep Cherokee, not an RV. I guess after reading all the hype I started reading the tire sidewall info on some of the different tire brands I ran across. These happen to be BFG's AT's. Don't know if these are even available in the sizes for a class C RV.
I guess my recomendation was because I had far less problems with them because of the way I use the vehicle, than the other brands. Not sure if this would apply to a dually RV or not. My 3/4 ton Chevy spends most of it's time on pavement so I have been happy with the Bridgstones that came on it.
In summary it seems the tire is very stiff and heavy compared to others so I went with that for my use. Nothing very scientific.
I do agree with going up in ply rating but still using the pressure rating for your actual load is the way to go. Gives you a bit more "head room"?

My approach says upgrade to Load Range G and/or higher ply rating mud & snow tires and run them at the same 65 lbs. all around to get more beefiness, but the experts in this discussion say to use criteria other than upgraded Load Range or higher ply rating in order to locate tires with increased beefiness. What are the other quantitative tire standards criteria I should use for beefiness shopping so as to not have to rely on manufacturers' marketing hype to locate more beefy tires?

[pnichols]

PaulJ2 wrote:
All I know is I used to have fairly common rock punctures off road and some even on ordinary gravel roads. Since I went with the beefier tire carcess, none since.

Paul, so how did you come up with, or locate, a more beefier carcass?

Our 11,800 lb. 24 foot Class C motorhome's weight probably requires about 65 lbs. in the four rear tires and maybe 65 lbs. in the two front tires ... per official weight versus pressure charts. These pressures are just outside what Load Range D tires would handle.

Disregarding my Load Range and/or ply rating approach, what mud and snow tread tires in Load Range E would be more beefier than my M&S2 Michelin Load Range E tires ... and how would one come up with such a recommendation?

My approach says upgrade to Load Range G and/or higher ply rating mud & snow tires and run them at the same 65 lbs. all around to get more beefiness, but the experts in this discussion say to use criteria other than upgraded Load Range or higher ply rating in order to locate tires with increased beefiness. What are the other quantitative tire standards criteria I should use for beefiness shopping so as to not have to rely on manufacturers' marketing hype to locate more beefy tires?

[PaulJ2]

Tireman9 wrote:

PaulJ2 wrote:
As a follow up....The C rated tire says on the sidewall--tread 3 ply polyester, 2 ply steel, and 2 ply nylon. Sidewall 3 ply polyester.
I suspect this is for more puncture resistance, not load carrying,correct?

What feature are you assuming is going to provide improved puncture resistance against something like a nail?

More puncture resistance than what tire?

Since I don't have access to the spec or test data for the tire in question I can only guess which is not sound engineering.

I would guess the rubber composition would be the main reason for puncture resistance then, and yes nothing will stop a nail.
All I know is I used to have fairly common rock punctures off road and some even on ordinary gravel roads. Since I went with the beefier tire carcess, none since. Oh well maybe just lucky. Interesting topic anyway. Thanks guys.

[CapriRacer]

Tireman9 wrote:
Capri
Maybe you can tell me which tire that I designed was "stronger": The 8Ply rated tire or the 10 Ply rated tire with identical specification to the 8 PR tire except for the additional 5 strands of bead wire and the change in sidewall marking plate?

I guess I am having trouble wrapping my mind around how bead wire in itself affects load capacity or puncture resistance or impact resistance or general durability.:h

Oh wait maybe it was the change in the mold sidewall marking plate.:S

Your point is well taken. You and I both know that it is common for the same tire to be labeled with different load ranges - just for ease of manufacture.

[CapriRacer]

PaulJ2 wrote:
As a follow up....The C rated tire says on the sidewall--tread 3 ply polyester, 2 ply steel, and 2 ply nylon. Sidewall 3 ply polyester.
I suspect this is for more puncture resistance, not load carrying,correct?

No, I don't think so.

I suspect the 3rd body ply of polyester is there more for marketing purposes. Many people think the same way pnichols does - that more plies are better - and that is not lost of the tire manufacturers. Adding an extra ply adds a bit of manufacturing cost, but might result in a HUGE markup.

The 2 nylon plies are for separation resistance.

The fact that this makes the tire every so slightly thicker would result in less punctures going through - but I don't think the difference is enough to worry about.

[jadatis]

Whatever the real streaght is of different tires , fact is that the tire-makers grooped them in a system.
If you have a sertain sise and speed of tire and pressure for wich the maximum load is calculated. all tires of different brands have the same maximum load.
Little difference between American TRA and European ETRTO system but thats only because difference in AT-pressure used to calculate the maximum load, and the rounding that is done to the first lower Loadindex.

So there can be for instance different constructed 235/75/16 LT D-load tires of TRA system with same maximum load given though to laws of nature the one can bare more load at the same pressure without damaging at a sertain speed then the other.

But this is nothing we can use if we want to determine the advice pressure, we have to go from the information given.

So if , to get ontopic, the Michelin has only yust the maximum load to laws of nature, as given on sidewall it sooner damages when for instance little overloading or lower pressure by misreading of pressure-scale, then an American tire wich ofcource can stand a higher load then given on sidewall:h at the same speedcode.

And again , for this topic this damage done can still be not related to the right pressure for the load to laws of nature, or can be a combination, so a pressure/loadcombination that is yust slightly over the edge and in combination with hitting something that particular damage exists.

[Tireman9]

PaulJ2 wrote:
As a follow up....The C rated tire says on the sidewall--tread 3 ply polyester, 2 ply steel, and 2 ply nylon. Sidewall 3 ply polyester.
I suspect this is for more puncture resistance, not load carrying,correct?

What feature are you assuming is going to provide improved puncture resistance against something like a nail?

More puncture resistance than what tire?

Since I don't have access to the spec or test data for the tire in question I can only guess which is not sound engineering.

[PaulJ2]

As a follow up....The C rated tire says on the sidewall--tread 3 ply polyester, 2 ply steel, and 2 ply nylon. Sidewall 3 ply polyester.
I suspect this is for more puncture resistance, not load carrying,correct?