Safe to use very old spare tyre ??

AndersDK · Post by **AndersDK** » 10 Feb 2006, 14:04

Think about it folks :

As times goes by, we tend to set higher standards/demands on safety in car driving. Years ago (when I was young

) it was good practice just fitting tyres with same pattern and good thread depth.
Now the aging factor has come into this also. Thats definately NOT because modern tyres are more sensitive to aging. Its simply standards raising.
Tyre makers are pushing, as they want to sell tyres ...

Its like the old engine oil discussion : why are you using costly synt oil when its not specified and certainly not needed ...

Mandrake · Post by **Mandrake** » 10 Feb 2006, 20:19

AndersDK wrote:Think about it folks :

As times goes by, we tend to set higher standards/demands on safety in car driving. Years ago (when I was young ) it was good practice just fitting tyres with same pattern and good thread depth.
Now the aging factor has come into this also. Thats definately NOT because modern tyres are more sensitive to aging. Its simply standards raising.

Another thing to take into consideration with tyres too, is that the average car today compared to say 30 years ago is MUCH faster with more horsepower, and designed to corner a lot faster with less body roll on lower profile tyres.

All these factors mean that tyres today can be under a lot more stress than many years ago, and an old tyre that may have survived 30 years ago may blow out or delaminate with todays higher performance cars.... therefore more risk with older tyres than there might have previously been.

Regards,
Simon

AndersDK · Post by **AndersDK** » 10 Feb 2006, 20:56

Hmmm....

My 2.nd car ever - a '72 Simca1501 sedan - was quite heavy, could hold a considerable speed - and was fun cornering with 8)
With the present state of my spines - I would certainly not drive it the same way again

- despite it was very soft & comfy (being french !)
Here it is. Exactly this model and colour :
http://www.simca1501.cz/Simca54.htm

My BX16 is very much the same to drive. Size, weight, soft and topspeed.

naah Simon -

You ARE a tyre dealer

sooty · Post by **sooty** » 10 Feb 2006, 21:22

Excuse me from saying,

what has these last few messages got to do with the original question.???

davehughes · Post by **davehughes** » 10 Feb 2006, 22:14

JUST BUY A NEW TYRE FOR F*** SAKE!

BernieLugg · Post by **BernieLugg** » 11 Feb 2006, 08:00

DerekH wrote:The caravan club make it very plain that on caravans you should not use a tyre older than 5 years but MUST NOT use a tyre older than 7 years. This applies to unused spares too.

Having seen photos of a 16 year old set of tyres on a 'van after a 200 mile run I would have to agree with this. They had sprouted little steel whiskers!
Buy a new spare - even a retread is preferable (though my own opinion only) to an older tyre which will have deteriorated.

zzf00l · Post by **zzf00l** » 11 Feb 2006, 09:41

Disagree completely..... these quality tyres (Michelin, Dunlop etc) are not made with a 'shelf life' a new tyre can be stored for many years... even before being sold.

Post by **Peter.N.** » 11 Feb 2006, 10:39

My word this has caused a stir! Opinion seems to be divided by age, those of us that grew up during or just after the war, dont buy new things unnecessaraly, because you couldn't afford to replace them even if a replacement was available. We now have a consumer attitude that is completely opposite, as is demonstrated by the number of working wide screen televisions you see dumped at the recycling center, and the fact that nearly all the TV engineers have gone out of business, including me

This same attitude as is reflected in the purchase of new tyres, the younger ones among us who have plenty of money, understandably cant understand what all the fuss is about, as a new tyre only represents about 10% or less of their weekly income, but we are not all in that income bracket, for instance, for those of us on a state pension, a new tyre represents at least a third of their weekly income. So, dont get so hot under the collar and, Live and let live.

NiSk · Post by **NiSk** » 11 Feb 2006, 11:36

Funny, no one has yet suggested checking the actual age of the tyre - it's moulded into the side of the tyre as a code: (WEEK 2 digits: YEAR 2 digits).

i.e. (3600) = week 36, year 2000

//NiSk

AndersDK · Post by **AndersDK** » 11 Feb 2006, 11:45

NiSk wrote:Funny, no one has yet suggested checking the actual age of the tyre - it's moulded into the side of the tyre as a code: (WEEK 2 digits: YEAR 2 digits).

i.e. (3600) = week 36, year 2000

//NiSk

I knew I'd missed a very important fact in this thread - you found it - thanks NiSk.

Kowalski · Post by **Kowalski** » 11 Feb 2006, 14:06

BernieLugg wrote: Buy a new spare - even a retread is preferable (though my own opinion only) to an older tyre which will have deteriorated.

A retread is an old tyre with some new tread on it.

The carcass is the structural bit that gets reused and if that bit fails the tyre disintegrates and you get a blowout. They are a worn tyre that has some of the remaining rubber machined off and then they get a nice new coat of rubber. Are they any better than part worn or scrap yard tyres? I suppose it depends on your scrapyard but I wouldn't bet money on it.

Kowalski · Post by **Kowalski** » 11 Feb 2006, 14:09

NiSk wrote:Funny, no one has yet suggested checking the actual age of the tyre - it's moulded into the side of the tyre as a code: (WEEK 2 digits: YEAR 2 digits).

i.e. (3600) = week 36, year 2000

//NiSk

Fair point but they're not always there or at least not so you'd notice, a lot of the time they're not so simply encoded as you're describing NiSk.

I couldn't find a date code on my current set of tyres despite having a good look before I fitted them.

I think that the condition of a tyre is far more important than its age.

Peter.N. wrote:the younger ones among us who have plenty of money, understandably cant understand what all the fuss is about

I'd class myself as a younger one with plenty of disposable income but I'd still be happy using an old tyre (subject to it being in good condition). The car represents a large part of my outgoings and since I don't get any enjoyment out of spending the money I'd rather spend no more than is necessary. I'm not going to skimp and take risks to save money but I don't like to waste money, after being a student (a few years ago) and having no money to spend, old habbits die hard.

NiSk · Post by **NiSk** » 11 Feb 2006, 14:44

They are not always on both sides of the tyre.

//NiSk

NiSk · Post by **NiSk** » 11 Feb 2006, 14:48

And I completely agree about the condition of a tyre being more important than it's age, but here we are talking about a spare tyre that appears to be in new condition, but is of uncertain age.

I seem to recall that Citroën started fitting spares of a differing size around the start of the 90's. In which case if the tyre is the same as the four road tyres, then it's probably not the original.

//NiSk

zzf00l · Post by **zzf00l** » 11 Feb 2006, 19:19

Kowalski wrote:
BernieLugg wrote: Buy a new spare - even a retread is preferable (though my own opinion only) to an older tyre which will have deteriorated.
A retread is an old tyre with some new tread on it.

The carcass is the structural bit that gets reused and if that bit fails the tyre disintegrates and you get a blowout. They are a worn tyre that has some of the remaining rubber machined off and then they get a nice new coat of rubber. Are they any better than part worn or scrap yard tyres? I suppose it depends on your scrapyard but I wouldn't bet money on it.

To Clarify... A retread is as stated above but is more commonly found on heavy commercial vehicles. On the other hand a 'remould' is where a tyre has the rubber ground off the tread area AND the sidewall which can then be more easily inspected for suitability for further use and if suitable can then be remoulded.....It can be said that this is prefferable to a new tyre because the 'carcass' which is being re-used has already proved that it is 'proven' as opposed to a new tyre which is 'unproven'.