OK - stupid question

[project.r.racing]

Many "older" motorists use old tools for checking tyre safety is that don't apply well in 2016. Tyres do not crack anymore due to preventatives like anti-ozonants being added in the manufacturing process of pneumatic tyres.

Said tyres like what rocky's would have in the 80s or 90s have been replaced long ago cos they would have they had ozone cracks on the sidewall by 5-7 years old. Now we don't see cracks, we think the tyres are/will last longer.

I'm with the shop on this one. I wouldn't repair them either. rocky only needs to replace two tyres. So he can buy two and drive around with them on. Swap old vs new front to rear. And if all good he can tell the shop, "I told you so." If not, he can always go buy another two more.

[Mr Morlock]

I think both HKS and Rocky have applied a realistic approach to tyres and I agree with their views. The tyre companies are highly biased and it's in their interests to sell product. They might be singing from the same song book now but that did not apply for decades and they did not seem to concerned about safety in the past. It is unrealistic to think or expect people to replace tyres just based on age and ignore tread wear. The Classic car group is a prime example- cars dríven often less than a dozen times a year with nominal mileage or for that matter a run about vehicle just dríven to the shops or just around the neighbourhood.

As for a tyre shop refusing to repair a tyre that is fine if the tyre is physically dangerous but just on age I think that is not right. Just as a another side comment- what about the spare tyre- are people going to replace them when they have never been used ?

[hks_kansei]

Does anybody know if there are any regulations about this in other states?

I know Vic is simply a matter of looking at condition, regardless of age.

But does any other state check the age? or is everything here just a rule of thumb?

[project.r.racing]

They might be singing from the same song book now but that did not apply for decades and they did not seem to concerned about safety in the past.

Drink driving wasn't a safety concern decades ago either.

Attitudes and knowledge changes the way we view different things. Someone's views might change over the decades. Others just stick their head in the sand and ignore as said issues they feel they will never apply to them.

[JBT]

Does anybody know if there are any regulations about this in other states?

I know Vic is simply a matter of looking at condition, regardless of age.

But does any other state check the age? or is everything here just a rule of thumb?

There is no legislated maximum tyre age anywhere in Australia AFAIK. The references are for information and personal decisions. However, when tyre manufacturers like Michelin and Bridgestone recommend a maximum of 10 years, who am I to argue?

[Rocky]

The point about the 'spare tyre' is a good one.
My Bluebird has a 22yo spacesaver in the boot that I would not be using except in an emergency ( I have a full-size spare that I throw in the boot if I go past city limits)
I am even afraid to check pressure/inflate the thing - it uses 60psi and if it lets go it will go I will get a face full of rubber shrapnel.
The one in the MX is now 15 yrs old and I feel the same about it.

[Rocky]

OK - looks like I have had a 'win' on new tyres.
As I mentioned previously, I enquired about the Bridgestone "4 for price of 3" deal at JAX but because Potenzas/Turanzas are currently sold-out I was going to miss out on the deal - i.e. the price of a tyre = $180.
I had a think about this and decided to contact Bridgestone Aust. as it occurred to me that maybe they might give me a 'rain-check' on the "4 for 3 deal" if I pay for them NOW and wait for the 6 weeks or so that it is going to take for new stock to arrive.
Just had a call from the local Bridgestone Tyre Service to say that they don't generally operate that way but they see my point and will do the deal.
I said I needed to give JAX the chance to respond as I have the tyres on order there. Unfortunately (for JAX) they aren't able to match the 'rain-check' type deal so I have cancelled my order there and will go with the local Bridgestone supplier.
For a retiree, $180. is a meaningful amount. (45 long blacks, 5 bottles of Teachers Scotch, 3 tanks of fuel for the MX5)

[project.r.racing]

That is a lot of money for middle of the pack 205/45R16s. If $180 is a lot of money, then buying a Korean Hankook or Kumho will get more milage, grip and cost less.

[JBT]

That is a lot of money for middle of the pack 205/45R16s. If $180 is a lot of money, then buying a Korean Hankook or Kumho will get more milage, grip and cost less.

16" seem to be an unpopular size and are generally more expensive than 15" or 17". Similarly, 205/45 17 seem to be generally more expensive than 215/45 17.

[Rocky]

PRR - The MX came with a set of Bridgestone Turanzas. I replaced them in 2007 with a set of Michelin PP2s. Of the two I thought the Turanzas were better.
I recently replaced a set of Bridgestone Turanzas with a set of Kumho Solus on the Bluebird and of the two I again prefer the Turanzas.
I had a bit of a look at alternatives on the JAX site which included Pirellis ($179.), Continental ($209.), Dunlop ($155.) Goodyear ($209.) Michelin PP3 ($202.) & Hankooks ($131.) Achilles (?) ($100.) - no Kumhos.
Probably could have put a set of Achilles on for $400. but where do you draw the line?
In the end it was a case of "stay with the brand you know" as everyone seems to have a different preference, and with the "4 for 3" deal the average price comes down to $135/wheel.

JBT - yes, I have noticed that the size does appear to carry a cost penalty.