Vintage Corvettes, Tires & Safety: Your Opinion

[Todd H 26112]

Recent events, the many discussions on tires, recent articles and the NCRS judging manual got me to thinking...

NCRS seems to promote safety in conjunction with the actual DRIVING of vintage Corvettes to events etc. To that end NCRS promotes and grants points for the inclusion of a fire extinguisher. Points are also given for miles driven to a judged event (vs trailored). Another example is the free pass given service replacement (GM?) rubber brake hoses: "No deduction is to be made... they are a safety item subject to deterioration." There are perhaps other examples with respect to judging and making 'allowances' for safety and/or driving.

Similar to brake hoses but to a lesser degree, the judging manual seems to make 'some' minor allowances for modern tires where originally old vintage bias ply tires were used. (For reference I have a '70-72 Manual) For example there is no specific deduction for an original spare tire and 4 current service replacements. There may be a modest percentage of points allowed specifically for a modern Firestone or Goodyear 215/70R15 passenger car tire ('70-2 C3). Perhaps similar guidance is valid for other older models?

However the real originality points approaching 'full points' are garnered for either original 30+ year old F70s (70-72 C3s in this example) or reproduction bias-ply tires currently available.

Around 30 years ago radials were ushered in and generally seem to have demonstrated improvements including safety over prior bias ply tires. Since then we have had notable loss of life, significant lawsuits directed at various organizations, gov't inquiry and new legislation such as the TREAD act in the wake of but one recent specific (Firestone/Ford) episode. In 2007 NHTSA will be rolling out further passenger tire standards I understand with the laudable goal of further improving safety on the roads with respect to tires. This suggests tires continue to be one of the most significant ongoing safety devices on vehicles. Vehicles of any age.

QUESTION: With respect to how other safety aspects of Corvettes are judged, a stated goal of promoting driving and the increased awareness of the safety aspects, litigation potential of tire related issues and the operation of vehicles on highways - how do you feel about the judging guidelines with respect to older pre-radial vehicles?

===============
Also, my judging guide is somewhat out of date and my understanding of safety regarding original vintage or reproduction bias-ply tires vs modern current production service replacements may be in error - if so please advice.

[Patrick H.]

Re: Vintage Corvettes, Tires & Safety: Your Opinio

I drove my 1972 coupe 535 miles each way to Seven Springs, PA to be judged in June. It was (and is now) wearing BFGoodrich Radial TA's only a couple of years old for the journey.

Upon arrival, I switched to original (yes, 31 year old) correctly dated 1972 tires and displayed the car for judging. I received the points both for original tires AND for the driving. Now, I had to make allowances to have the tires brought to the event, but it was possible.

In addition, you will often accumulate enough points driving a fair distance to an event to more-than-offset what you lose for "street tires" that might be mounted to your vehicle, should you decide not to make the switch. In fact, I was prepared for this trade off if my tires hadn't been able to make it to the event. I'm sure that Jack Humphrey will be more than happy to give you his prepared speech on the issue of driving points.

I'm personally not afraid of driving reproduction tires to an event, if that's the only choice I had. They may not meet some new 2007 standard, but a lot of my old cars don't meet new safety standards, either. That doesn't keep me from driving them. I wouldn't drive the distance on original 31 year old tires, though.

Patrick

[Duke W.]

Re: Vintage Corvettes, Tires & Safety: Your Opinio

This subject is a real Pandora's box, but certainly worth discussing.

I've been a student of tire science and practice since the General Jet Aires that were OE on my SWC started to chuck when I took it out to Kent (near Seattle) to do a day of hot lapping when the car was less than six months old and I had just turned 17.

At the time the clear choice for road tires was either Michelin or Pirelli radials. European tires were better because Europeans demand more performance and drive at higher average speed (both then and now), on the flat, and in the corners.

Notwithstanding the above, those post war bias ply tires did not have much grip and their steering response and feedback was sub-par compared to European radials, but they WERE NOT inherently unsafe, however, I do question the quality and safety of reproduction bias ply tires due to all the anecdotal evidence of problems, from out of round to structural failures.

Americans were late to the radial party, and by the time they arrived the European radials were at least a generation ahead. Speed ratings came into use on European radials in the late sixties, and to achieve high speed ratings the nylon cap belt came into common use. Meanwhile, American brand radials just had two steel belts without a nylon cap belt. The problem with this type of construction is that the steel belts are heavy and the centrifugal force they develop at high speed can tear them off the casing. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that current government standards only require that tires be tested at a maximum of 85 MPH to meeet DOT standards, which have not changed for over 30 years. Combine performance standards that are inadequate for today's ever-heavier vehicles that are traveling at over 80 MPH on interstate highways along with manufacturer's artificially low pressure recommendations to provide acceptable ride quality on passenger vehicles that are based on crude truck chassis, and you have the recipe for the disaster that killed over 200 people. Everyone is to blame - the government and industry for failing to promulgate adequate performance standards and lax quality control, and consumers for not performing basic owner maintenance such as checking tire pressure and ensuring that it is adequate for speed and load conditions.

For some unknown reason even "car guys" pay little attention to tires. We lavish untold resources on building engines and suspensions, then shod the car with junky tires. You might as well build a house on sand without a proper footing.

I try to educate people about tires whenever I can, including my recent two part tire article in the Corvette Restorer, but it's an uphill road.

As far as NCRS is concerned, the originality gene is well established and I don't expect any signficant changes on tire judging. If you're serious about a Flight award, have a set of tires for minimum point deductions and one for driving the car if you do drive it. Swapping wheels and tires is a 30 minute job. I have at least two sets for all my cars.

Duke

[Gary S.]

Re: Vintage Corvettes, Tires & Safety: Your Opinio

"Upon arrival, I switched to original (yes, 31 year old) correctly dated 1972 tires and displayed the car for judging. I received the points both for original tires AND for the driving. Now, I had to make allowances to have the tires brought to the event, but it was possible."

Hmmm, Patrick, just what allowances did YOU have to make to get those tires to Seven Springs?

Gary

[Rich Grant]

Re: Vintage Corvettes, Tires & Safety: Your Opinio

Duke

Thanks for the info. I too have a set of radials on my '69 L71 that I use for regular driving. Although the car only has 17k miles, I would dream of driving it's original bias ply's. I'm interested in reading your articile in the restorer, what month/year was it published in so I can go back and read it? Also, what reproduction tire would you recommend for a 69 F70-15 for judging/driving purposes?

Thanks

Rich

[Duke W.]

Re: Vintage Corvettes, Tires & Safety: Your Opinio

The two-part tire article is in the Spring and Summer, 2003 issues. I can't give you any recommendations on repro F70-15s, as I don't pay too much attention to repro tires and have no interest in buying a set for my own use. Coker Tire and Kelsey Tire (repro Goodyears) are the two major sources, and the guys with your year group car should be able to give you some guidance.

Duke

[Patrick H.]

Re: Vintage Corvettes, Tires & Safety: Your Opinio

I had to pay for half. And, it came out of my allowance.

Of course, who has them in storage now? And will deliver them to you next July???

Patrick

[Gary S.]

Re: Vintage Corvettes, Tires & Safety: Your Opinio

OK, you win!

Gary

[Todd H 26112]

Re: Vintage Corvettes, Tires & Safety: Your Opinio

I'm not sure the real pandora's box has been opened. Yet. But when it is it could be a painful and expensive lesson. Here's an interesting scenario...

What if a vintage Corvette were involved in an unfortunate mishap on a public road that involved serious injury or perhaps even death. Who the specific victim(s) is doens't matter - merely that a driver, owner, bicyclist, by-stander, etc was impacted and affected. The police investigation concluded tire related failure as the cause. Later a lawyer representing a victim or survivor of a victim visited the vehicle compound and looked over the Corvette. He noted the NCRS affiliations on the vehicle and an NCRS Judging Manual on the seat which he conveniently put in his briefcase for later review. He may have also noticed one of several possible tires on the Corvette for the sake of this particular scenario: A) 30+ yr old 'original' tires; B) reproductions of 30+ yr old original bias-ply tire designs; C) modern tires installed that are not in compliance with the manufacturers sizing recomendations.

Later in his office he reads thru the judging manual specific to the car he just examined. In so doing he notes several items of interest that may benefit his potential case:

1) NCRS explicitly encourages and rewards the behavior of driving vintage corvettes on public roadways to NCRS sponsored events.
---
In later sections he notices...
2) NCRS particularly rewards the presence of "original" tires.
3) NCRS also rewards almost as generously the presence of correct, faithful "reproduction" tires based on ancient bias ply designs.
4) NCRS lists a SPECIFIC service replacement tire brand and size as a final though less encouraging option. In this case, he later contacts that tire maker and finds out the size is in fact installed on a rim 0.5" too wide according to the tire maker.
5) NCRS in most cases penalizes the use of many modern radial tire sizes even though they exceed load capacity, are within reasonable tolerance of original dimensions and are designated for the given rim width by the tire manufacturer.
---
6) NCRS has an altogether different policy towards brake hoses because (unlike tires?) "they are a safety item subject to deterioration"

I wonder what type of possibilities may come to mind for a lawyer representing a client that was the victim or survived a vicim of such an accident?

While it may not make much 'sense' to operate a vehicle on public roads with ancient tires, the manual does specifically reward both behaviors individually and ultimately cumulatively in judging. No reference to shipping different tires ahead or by alternate means or other 'common sense' alternatives are recommended or encouraged. And while many folks realize a 0.5" variance in rim width is likely no big deal, the fact that a tire manufacturer lists a specific width and NCRS encourages exceeding it in some cases, makes for compelling courtroom evidence should a tire failure be called into question. Common sense when we encounter it is nice and originality on the judging field is appreciated but I'm not so sure it will be easy to rationalize it to a survivor or depend upon it in a courtroom setting when faced with quotes from the judging manual.

Is this a legitimate concern for NCRS as it became for Ford & Firestone on a larger scale? Do we not operate in an increasingly litigious society eager to assess blame? Does NCRS presume everyone has 'common sense' when developing judging manuals and encouraging the driving of vintage Corvettes? Is NCRS being responsible in how it encourages original tires and also encourages driving? Why aren't tires considered a safety item subject to deterioration? Should NCRS be in the business of specifically designating what is considered a service replacement in an industry that is often changing it's products, specifications, regulations, standards and practices without continuous follow-ups and monitoring by NCRS? Pandora's box indeed!

[Patrick H.]

Re: Vintage Corvettes, Tires & Safety: Your Opinio

Nah, we both do! Still missed you on the Hershey trip.

Patrick

[Patrick H.]

Re: Vintage Corvettes, Tires & Safety: Your Opinio

What are you anyway, a &^%$#@ lawyer??? I'm a doctor. We HATE lawyers.

I suppose that one could go on for hours debating issues like tires. Why not add NOS parts that have been subject to deterioration while just sitting in a warehouse? Should we require brand new off-the-shelf suspension parts (receipts required as a judging prerequisite) every 10 years to guard against problems? Why not add engines that back in 1966 (or so) were overpowered for their as-delivered suspension (and tire) configuration? Why not add side exhaust that is loud enough you can't hear another car's horn? Why not say...... you get the picture.

Why not take old f_rd Model T's off the road, as they ride on REALLY OLD tires, are too slow for modern traffic and just MUST be a hazard to the rest of us. Why not sue to remove Vipers off the road, as they too are just as over powered even with a modern tire! Ever driven one? It's today's version of a big block with bias plys. Can you say s-i-d-e-w-a-y-s?

It all comes down to the fact that common sense is altogether uncommon, and personal responsibility has gone the way of the dodo.

We can encourage you to drive, but no one MAKES you do it on old tires.

Patrick

(I'm ducking now. )

[Mike Cobine]

Re: Vintage Corvettes, Tires & Safety: Your Opinio

It would depend on who has the bigger pockets - the driver's insurance company or NCRS. Another would be who has the best lawyers - the insurance company or NCRS.

Obviously, the personal injury attorney won't go up against someone with too much bigger guns, but he will go for who he thinks he can get the most bucks from.

That could put NCRS in an uncomfortable situation, right or wrong.

However, I think that it may go elsewhere. If you have a known performance car (Corvette) and especially if it is the high performance version (virtually anything other than the base engine model), then the tire manufacturer may be the target. After all, if the tire manufacturer makes a Acme Sooper-Dooper Extreme Speed tire in various sizes for other performance cars, and makes a conscious business decision to not make one to fit this performance car, it could be viewed in a bad light that the tire manufacturer produces an inferior tire for a car of high performance capabilities.

Besides, the tire manufacturer has much deeper pockets than NCRS. And in general, they have a history of producing products that have caused accidents and deaths. This would just be another as far as the jury is concerned.

This may be stretching it, BUT if the manufacturer had previously manufactered a tire that did fit and performed, and ceased to make it, then they could be in a very sticky spot. Currently, several have done just that, the high performance tires in the 225/70-15, 235/60-15, and 255/60-15 sizes that fit Corvettes are now only available in the lower speed rated versions, if at all.

[Mike Cobine]

Re: Vintage Corvettes, Tires & Safety: Your Opinio

> Why not add NOS parts that have been subject to deterioration
> while just sitting in a warehouse?

Most NOS parts do not deterioriate with age unless they are a normal maintenance replaceable item. This would be items like hoses, tires, belts, and other soft items. Items like NOS bumpers, fenders, speedometers, and the like normally do not cause an accident, even if they fail.

Tires are normal replacement items, even stated as such by Chevrolet. They get old and need to be replaced, and if you elect to run something that is too old to run, then you run a risk.

> Why not take old f_rd Model T's off the road, as they ride on
> REALLY OLD tires, are too slow for modern traffic and just
> MUST be a hazard to the rest of us.

When is the last time you saw a Model T driving on regular tags or license plates? I bet the last hundred you saw were on Vintage or Antique Vehicle tags. As such, they are greatly restricted as to what they are allowed to do. By the definition of their tags, they will not be a hazard because they are not supposed to be in daily traffic or on most highways except in club activities, parades, and other non-normal traffic situations.

As to NCRS' liability, it isn't a case of right or wrong, it is a case of how well one lawyer can persuade a judge or jury as to NCRS being responsible.

How many people have you run into who didn't like you because they were jealous that you had a Corvette? Now think what someone like that would feel towards an organization of Corvette owners.

This is something I learned long ago, the courtroom is more often about who is the better lawyer, not right or wrong. I saw a person accused of armed robbery get off because it was the lawyer's birthday. I saw another accused robber get 6 years because he was hungry and unarmed, while armed habitual criminals get off with 2 years probation. (April, 1993, Broward County)

Court isn't necessarily about right and wrong and NCRS should definitely consider the possibility of such a situation.

[Todd H 26112]

Re: Vintage Corvettes, Tires & Safety: Your Opinio

Excellent points Mike. I tend to agree, the 'deeper pockets' question is a legitimate one any lawyer will ask. The other question being 'path of least resistance'. Several contenders might exist including the individual owner, his or her liability insurance company, organizations making tire recomendations or encouraging specific types of tires (NCRS) and their insurance providers and of course tire makers. I also think it could be any combination thereof. And finally some of these could turn against each other. For example a tire maker vs NCRS for improperly recommending it's tires. Or an insurance company against NCRS for promoting the driving of a car with ancient tires... LOTS of permutations potentially exist here.

And of all these organizations, I suspect two things: A) NCRS has the least amount of legal protections and B) NCRS has published judging guides that can easily be spun even by an average lawyer for juries. ("Their own manual encourages these old tires..." "They recomended the wrong tire size...")

"That could put NCRS in an uncomfortable situation, right or wrong." IMO "uncomfortable" could equate to expensive. Right or wrong.

"tire manufacturer may be the target". Perhaps. But they have a solid legal department well versed in dealing with these situations. I think they could muster one of several simple defenses.
A) It's a 30 or 40 yr old tire - We can't be responsible for how it performs.
B) It's a tire designated for a 7" or 7.5" rim, not an 8" rim - it was improperly recommended and installed - Who recommended such a size on such a wheel?
C) We don't make the tire, that ancient design and it's tooling was sold to some reproduction tire company, see them, not us...

I also agree that your points about the quality of legal counsel are VERY realistic. Give a copy of Judging Manual to a good lawyer in such a case and things could be REAL sticky for NCRS.

While NCRS may not have the deep pockets of a major tire maker, it probably has some sort of general insurance. I do't think NCRS would be just a target for a victim but could also be a target of an insurance company or tire company in a 'chain reaction' type of defense. Aka - pass-the-buck to the party that recommended or encouraged the tire in the 1st place...?

And I'm concerned whether NCRS or it's insurance underwriters have considered the full ramifications of encouraging the driving of vettes and the installation of old tires all from the same book? I certainly hope so.

But of course I sincerely hope everyone exercises good judgement and never drives on ancient tires or has tire related failures especially while using tires of an improper width and nobody ever gets hurt regardless while in the pursuit of 'more points' per the judging manual. Not even the best insurance can make some things right again.

[Patrick H.]

Re: Vintage Corvettes, Tires & Safety: Your Opinio

Mike,

I was just trying to give some extreme and somewhat silly examples, so used the Model T and NOS parts as examples. My thought with the NOS parts is that they are based on "yesterday's" technology (as are current tires, per Todd's theory) and that by using brand new compnents of today's design we "might" upgrade other parts of our cars, especially suspensions, in a similar manner.

I see Model T's on the road about 4-6 times a year for various events that occur in town; twice for parades and the others for shows and the Vintage Car Club rallies.

I think that either Tood has too much time on his hands, or he really wants to get full credit for whatever tire he is currently running on his car and is trying to make a case for himself. In either event, I don't agree with him.

Next he'll be using the argument that lacquer paint is bad for the environment, and the NCRS had better accept base/clear waterborne paint as correct or we might get sued by Grenpeace.

By the way, I also use vintage plates on my cars. That hasn't restricted me yet. Several conversations with law enforcement officers (friends) informed me that they have WAY too many things to do than to worry about whether or not an old car is taking a Sunday drive ("not allowed" per the State) or if they're on the way to a show. So, I purchased the vintage plates and saved money.

Patrick